Despite several decades of research on the teaching-learning process, we have surprisingly little specific information about the nature of teaching which can be applied directly by the classroom teacher. There are general principles and broad generalizations as well as many laboratory studies of learning, but the translation of these principles and studies into teaching behaviour has usually been left to the ingenuity of the individual teacher. Consequently, teachers are often confused and sometimes disillusioned about the relevance of psychological analysis to teaching and may retreat to the position that teaching is, after all, an art and not amenable to systematic investigation. While a considerable number of studies has been aimed at the identification of the significant dimensions of teaching behaviour, it is unfortunately not yet clear which dimensions are of most significance or how they interact. Ryans;' in his "Teacher Characteristics Study", has summarized a mass of experimental data on teacher behaviour, but it is clear from his analysis that it is extremely difficult to characterize teaching in terms of a few broad dimensions. The definitive Handbook of Research on Teaching! contains a wealth of information on teaching, yet this information is so diverse, and often fragmentary, that it does not leave the reader with a clear conception of the nature of teaching, or perhaps of the fundamental requirements for building up a theory of teaching. Although these two books are substantial milestones in the study of teaching, they do reflect the fact that there is at least more structure and well-established principle in the study of learning than in the study of teaching processes; indeed, the assumption has often been made that teaching processes are merely mirror images of learning processes, and the study of teaching, as such, has not been subjected to the same type of systematic analysis as has learning. Even if teaching could be regarded as a mirror image of learning, this image would still be very unclear
Summary. Descriptions of the processes underlying intelligence have moved away from formal statements such as Spearman's principles of noegenesis towards looser statements centred on reasoning or problem solving skills. An analysis of intelligence test errors, in order to throw some light on the operation of these skills, should, therefore, be carried out within the context of the more general study of cognitive error. Spearman and Selz have developed systematic theories of cognitive error. Both direct experimental evidence, and indirect evidence arising from the types of error reported in the literature on problem solving and reasoning, favour Selz's ‘task displacement’ rather than Spearman's ‘reproduction.’ From a group of 274 children (median age 11 years 8 months, mean I.Q. 104), whose errors on the Otis group verbal test had been analysed quantitatively, a sample of 84 was chosen for more intensive qualitative analysis. This analysis was based on the re‐working of all items which were originally wrongly answered. Conditions producing error were classified as: inadequate formulation of the task; prepotency of particular details or characteristics; mis‐reading, or failure to read all the choices offered; correct working but incorrect expression of the answer; difficulty in ‘recentring’ lack of confidence; correct answer but for a wrong reason and rejection of the correct answer on reasonable grounds; lack of specific information; complete failure to formulate the task. These results are interpreted as supporting the type of explanation offered by Selz and paralleling the conditions noted in studies of problem solving and reasoning. The main implication suggested is that teachers should have a greater concern for the development and exercise of the problem solving skills of children as an essential element in the development of intelligence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.