rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) (03/16/88)
What is learning anyway?
Verplanck (1957) defined the verb "to learn" in
the following manner:
"to exhibit a change in behavior between two
successive exposures to the same environment that
cannot be attributed to manipulation of drive
operations, alterations in the environment, sensory
adaptation, disease, surgical interference,
physical trauma, or growth--although the propriety
of these exclusions may be questioned".
Verplanck goes on to define "learning" as:
"a process or family of processes inferred from
the observation that animals learn."
The fact that Verplanck notes that the process is
inferred underscores the emphasis on the actual behavior
that suggests the process. When "learning" is
operationalized in any terms more subtle than quantifiable
behavior, it loses some of its utility as an accurate
descriptor. To the extent that "learning" is employed to
describe processes without reference to the behaviors that
suggest those processes, "learning" itself becomes a
mentalism. For the behaviorist, it is not the process
that needs to be explained, but the behavior(s) that
suggest the process.
Walter Rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
University of South Carolina Departments of Psychology and Linguistics
Reference:
Verplanck, W.S. (1957). "A Glossary of Some Terms Used
in the Objective Science of Behavior". Psychological
Review. Vol. 64, No. 6, Part2.