Download A1987J041200001

This Week’s Citation Classic®
E~
Scandura J M. Deterministic theorizing in structural learning: three levels of
empiricism. J. Srucf. Learn. 3:21-53, 1971.
r
(Instructional Systems. Graduate School of Education. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. PAl
This article describes a deterministic theory of
structural learning designed to explain and predict the behavior of individuals in specific situations. It includes three increasingly precise
partial theories: (1) structured knowledge—
tested via generative adequacy, (2) idealized behavior—tested under memory-free conditions,
and (3) non-idealized behavior—including
memory and processing capacity. [The SSCI®
indicates that this article is the most-cited paper
for this journal.]
~
thereafter at Psychonomics and the
American Psychological Association.
In 1970 I gave an invited address at the
American Educational Research Association based on a draft of my paper with
Wittrock as discussant. It covered everything from rationale and methodology to
comprehensive theory and empirical
data, my first overall presentation of
what has come to be known as the
“Structural Learning Theory.” I felt it was
a tour de force, and I had put a tremenJoseph M. Scandura
dous amount of working energy into it.
Structural Learning, Instructional
Nonetheless, both Wittrock’s formal
Systems, and Intelligent CBI
reaction and the following questions
University of Pennsylvania
were sobering: the significance of what
Philadelphia, PA 19104
I was trying to say simply was not getMarch 30, 1987
ting across. Subsequent submission of the
This paper grew out of a long-term
formal paper to the Psychological Review
concern: specifically, the inability of
fared no better even though I considered
then-current theory and methods to ac- it superior to a paper I had published
in
4
commodate both generalized psycholog- that journal the previous year. “What
ical considerations and specific knowl- is Scandura talking about?” is a reasonedge. Moreover, my own empirical re- able paraphrase.
search kept showing that predicting huHappily (for me), reaction at one of our
man behavior on complex tasks was pri- first structural learning conferences (that
marily a matter of knowing exactly what
included philosophers, mathematicians,
it was that the learner did and did not computer scientists working with Al, and
linguists, as well as cognitive and instrucknow.
My theoretical concerns, initially, cen- tional psychologists) differed sharply. Retered on how to represent human knowl- jected by the establishmenUand given the
edge (something that has become the cor- obvious enthusiasm at the conference, I
nerstone of both cognitive psychology
submitted my paper to the then-new, reland artificial intelligence [Al]) and how atively low-circulation Journal of Structo assess it (i.e., how to find out what the tural Learning. Founded by the gifted
individual knows). In several papers, for
mathematician and mathematics educaexample, I challenged the use of tor, Z.P. Dienes, this journal fortunately
stimulus-response (S-R) representations
stressed ideas over orthodoxy.
(and hence theories) as inadequate.
Since my article appeared I have conAt an invited meeting in Philadelphia
tinued to publish; one of my most recent
1
in 1968,
2~3 Jim Greeno and Merle Wit- summary updates is a 1985 paper from
5
trock argued that construct itself was
the Journal of Structural Learning of
inadequate—that unlike S-R theory, there
which I am now the editor. However, I
was no theory behind my conceptualiza- believe my 1971 paper is still cited octions. This motivated me to deal with
casionally because it represents a good
these issues in presentations shortly introduction to the field.
I. Greenu j. Psychological representation of structured knowledge. (Scandura J M. ed.) Structural learning II: issues tnt)
approaches. New York: Gordon and Breach. 1976. p. 73-95.
2. Wittrock M C. Comments on Scanduras approach to rule-governed behavior. (Scandura I M. ed.) Structural learning II:
issues ant) approaches. New York: Gordon and Breach. 1976. P. 65-7.
3. Scandura J M. A reply to Wittrock. (Scandura I M. ed.) Structural learning 11: issues and approaches.
New York: Gordon and Breach. 1976. P. 69-70. (Cited 10 times.)
4.
. Role of rules in behavior: toward an operational definition of what (rule) is learned.
Psycho!. Rev. 77:516-33. 1970. (Cited 50 times.)
5. .—
. System issues in problem solving research. I. Struct. Learn. 9:l-l3, 985.
14
i
CC/S
-~
~-~4
~1987 by SI® CURRENT CONTENTS®