Advertisement

Two Models of Human Behavior and Reading Instruction

  • Frank B. Murray

Abstract

All psychology is behavioristic, in the sense that it is concerned with the description, prediction, explanation, and even control of human and other animal behavior. The various psychologies differ primarily in their description of the place of the events and mechanisms which each supposes controls human behavior. There are at present three principal models or theories of human behavior: the operant or S-R model, the cognitive-constructivist model which is the focus of this volume, and the psychoanalytic model. The operant theorist places the control of human behavior in the environmental consequences of the behavior itself. The locus of control, therefore, is external to the person and is public. Cognitive theorists, while accepting quite fully that environmental events or reinforcements are powerful determiners of human behavior, suppose in addition the existence of a mind and argue that behavior is controlled by a structure or system of rules, of plans, and of cognitions that reside within that mind. The psychoanalytic model supposes the existence not simply of a mind but of an unconscious mind, and attributes the control and the motivation of all behavior to it.

Keywords

Human Behavior Reading Comprehension Cognitive Structure Reading Instruction Intellectual Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beilin, H., 1971. The training and acquisition of logical operations. In M. F. Rosskopf, L. P. Steffe, and S. Tabock (Eds.), Piagetian cognitive-development research and mathematical education. Washington, D. C.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. Beilin, H., 1977. Inducing conservation through training. In G. Steiner (Ed.), Psychology of the 20th century (Vol. 7), Piaget and beyond. Bern: Kinder.Google Scholar
  3. Brainerd, C. J., and Allen, T. W., 1971. Experimental inductions of the conservation of “first-order” quantitative invariants. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 128–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brekke, B. W., Williams, J. D., and Harlow, S. D., 1973. Conservation and reading readiness. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 123, 133–138.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, C., and Elkind, D., 1973. Cognitive development in early readers, Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. B., 1970. The nature of the reading process. In H. Singer and R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, Delà.: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  7. Denner, B., 1970. Representational and syntactic competence of problem readers. Child Development, 41, 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeVries, R., 1974. Relationships among Piagetian I.Q. achievement assessments. Child Development, 45, 746–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elkind, D., and Deblinger, J. A., 1969. Perceptual training and reading achievement in disadvantaged children. Child Development, 40, 11–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elkind, D., Barocas, R., and Rosenthal, B., 1968. Combinatorial thinking in adolescents from graded and ungraded classrooms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27, 1015–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elkind, D., Horn, J., and Schneider, G., 1965. Modified word recognition, reading achievement, and perceptual decentration. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107, 235–251.Google Scholar
  12. Elkind, D., Larson, M., and Van Dorminck, W., 1965. Perceptual decentration learning and performance in slow and average readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(1), 50–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farnham-Diggory, S., and Bermon, M., 1968. Verbal compensation, cognitive synthesis, and conservation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, 215–228.Google Scholar
  14. Furth, H., 1970. Piaget for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, E. J., 1968. Perceptual learning in educational situations. In R. M. Gagne and W. J. Gephardt (Eds.), Learning research and school subjects. Itasca, Ill: F. E. Peacock.Google Scholar
  16. Goldman, R., 1968. Religious thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldschmid, M., and Bentler, P., 1968. Concept assessment kit-conservation manual. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  18. Goodnow, J. J., and Bethon, G., 1966. Piaget’s tasks: The effects of schooling and intelligence. Child Development, 37, 573–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grant, Janet, 1972. Piagetian development and learning to read. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  20. Hallam, R. N., 1967. Logical thinking in history. Educational Review, 19, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heatherly, A. L., 1972. Attainment of Piagetian conservation tasks in relation to the ability to form hypotheses as to the probable content of story material among first and second grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  22. Hull, C., 1942. Conditioning: Outline of a systematic theory of learning in “The Psychology of Learning.” In R. B. Henry (Ed.), The forty-first yearbook, NSSE (Part II). Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kaufman, A. S., and Kaufman, N. L., 1972. Tests built from Piaget’s and Gesell’s tasks as predictors of first grade achievement. Child Development, 43, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lovell, K., 1961. A follow-up study of Inhelder and Piaget’s “the growth of logical thinking.” British Journal of Psychology, 52, 143–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovell, K., 1971. Some problems associated with formal thought and its assessment. In D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, and G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 81–93.Google Scholar
  26. Lovell, K., Shapton, D., and Warren, N. S., 1964. A study of some cognitive and other disabilities in backward readers of average intelligence as assessed by a non-verbal test. British journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mermelstein, E., and Shulman, L. S., 1967. Lack of formal schooling and the acquisition of conservation. Child Development, 38, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olson, D., 1976. Theory of instructional means. Educational Psychologist, 12, 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plato, 1975. Phaedrus and the seventh and eight letters. Translated by Walter Hamilton. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 95–96.Google Scholar
  30. Price, K., 1962. Education and philosophical thought. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 153–154.Google Scholar
  31. Rausher, S. R., 1970. The relationship between achievement on Piagetian conservation and spatial measures and reading readiness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
  32. Rawson, H. I., 1969. A study of the relationships and development of reading and cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  33. Rystrom, R., 1970. Toward defining comprehension: A first report, Journal of Reading Behavior, 2, 56–73.Google Scholar
  34. Scott, R., 1969. Social class, race, seriation and reading readiness: A study of the relationship at kindergarten level, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 115, 87–96.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, F., 1971. Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  36. Stack, W., and Murray, F. B., 1976. Operativity and reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Symposium of the Jean Piaget Society (June).Google Scholar
  37. Stephens, J. M., 1967. The process of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Waller, T. G., 1977. Think first, read later. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), Development of the reading process. Newark, Dela.: International Reading Association. (Monograph)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank B. Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational FoundationsUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations