Pedagogy of Higher Education: Research Review

Under the MHRD Project on

“National Mission in Education through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)”

Cognition, Affection and Conation: Implications for Pedagogical Issues in Higher Education

Review of Literature

In the last three decades ‘Cognitive Science’ as a new branch of science has emerged out of the efforts of researchers in linguistics, computer science, psychology and neuroscience. This is the science of mind which is concerned with mental phenomena like perception, thought, learning, understanding and remembering. Its scope is very wide ranging from observing learning processes in children to programming computers to solve problems through ‘artificial intelligence’. This cognitive revolution was primarily driven by the progresses in computers and computer science. Simulation became a powerful research tool. We can not observe the mental processes directly but can simulate these by computers. Various cognitive theories emerged from this new paradigm. The most successful was the information processing theory, and cognitive science merged with it as a part of computer science. Thus, Cognitive Science views the human mind as a highly complex information-processing system – that is, a system which receives, stores, retrieves, transforms and transmits information.

However, at the very outset cognitive science encounters a deeply philosophical issue – the ‘mind-body’ problem, which has been plaguing the minds of philosophers and psychologists for several decades rather centuries ago – the ontological and the epistemological riddles. In philosophical language, the ontological questions are –

1. What things really exist in the mind?

2. What is their essential nature?

Primarily there are two theories which attempt to answer these questions:

1. The ‘Materialist Theory’ holds that only the brain exists and what we call mental states and mental processes are merely sophisticated states and processes of a complex physical system called the brain.

2. The ‘Dualist Theory’, on the other hand claims that mental processes constitute a distinct kind of phenomenon that is essentially non-physical in nature.

Subsequently, both ‘Metaphysics’and ‘Epistemology’ in philosophy play very significant role in the development of various cognitive theories. Along with these another basic discipline ‘sociology’, sociology of knowledge in particular has also played a very important role in the growth of cognitive science. According to Thagard (1996), “Cognitive science proposes that people have mental procedures that operate on mental representations to produce thought and action”. What is common among the researchers across the various contributing disciplines is the notion that – the processes that occur during cognition can be represented abstractly by some type of predictive representation. The nature of that specific representation depends on the discipline; such as, philosophers rely on formal logic, artificial intelligence researchers employ computer code, neuroscientists are guided by biological structure, and cognitive psychologists often use statistical analysis to fit data resulting from experimentation. Thus, by building theoretically driven, and empirically tested structures of cognitive processes, cognitive scientists seek to increase understanding of the mind, as well as to build systems that are able to understand, predict, and generate human thought and action (i.e., information processing).

However, the methods employed by cognitive scientists vary greatly. Like linguists (in Linguistics) are most concerned with developing formal systems of syntax, semantics, phonetics and pragmatics (discourse & cognitive approach), and their work typically consists of comparing sentences and utterances. Often this is done by examining databases of existing language and computer models. Psychologists rely primarily on laboratory experiments, aiming to understand how people form categories, reason, perceive stimuli, and encode, store, and retrieve memories. To, accomplish these goals, psychologists examine the outcome of various experimental manipulations, the amount of time it takes an experimental subject to perform a task, and the various strategies people implement to complete the task. Computer scientists, very often build algorithms to simulate artificial intelligence, creating programs that can comprehend or generate language, exhibit creativity, or solve problems. Cognitive anthropologists and sociologists compare multiple cultures and societies to assess the universality of mental structures often using ethnographies, field observations, and some direct manipulation of experimental variables. Thus, it seems cognitive science spans many disciplines and methodologies, but researchers across this field seek to answer the same fundamental question: “how are information processes – represented in the mind?”

Knowledge, Understanding and Cognition:

So far as knowledge, cognition, understanding and their interrelationships are concerned, researchers have viewed that knowledge in one sense is the verified propositions, warranted assertions and a category of truth. It is the category of cognition, located in recorded language and propositions, which is usually kept in libraries and computer data banks. In another sense, knowledge means competencies, states of mind, expertise, learned abilities, located in people and especially deals with their ability to perform in well informed ways. Thus, knowledge is also the process of knowing and understanding, conceived of as the realized ability, to perform adequately in relation to one’s personal purposes and states of affairs. This makes cognition the same process as knowing and understanding that is realized through much practice, care and learning. However, cognition can be distinguished with respect to levels of knowing and forms of knowing. Levels of knowing are degrees of extent to which one has realized the ability to perform adequately in relation to some state of affairs (refer James E. Christensen). They are degrees of extent to which one knows. There are at least three levels of knowing, such as 1. Level 1 ( ) pre-conventional knowing (Alpha state); 2 – ( ) Level 2, conventional knowing (Beta state); 3 – Level 3 ( ) post – Conventional knowing (Theta state). At level 1, in pre-conventional knowing stage, the individual experiences a high degree of disorganization, makes many mistakes, and has a low degree of control. In this level there are many trials and errors and much self-conscious effort, as performed by a novice learner. At the level – 2 of knowing that is at conventional stage of achievement, the individual’s performance becomes habituated and automatic. There is high level of mastery, control and very little or no self-conscious effort, the person performs quickly, efficiently and accurately. But the achievement of level-3 knowing (post-conventional) requires exploration, inquiry, and creativity, so that one breaks new ground and forms new standards of performance that extend beyond the conventions of Level – 2 knowing. In addition to these there are also forms of knowing. At least six forms of knowing can be there which deal with different kinds of performance, such as – linguistic, emotional, imaginal, physical, physiological, and conative. Linguistic performances which signify meaning with symbols, include speaking, reading, writing, reasoning and performing logical operations such as deduction, reduction, induction and retroduction (Steiner, 1978), may be in silent, spoken or written form. Emotional performances are feelings of emotion in relation to some state of affairs, such as the emotional response in a panic situation, feelings of anguish about being falsely accused, or a sense of ecstasy while experiencing the nature’s beauty. Imaginal performances are the acts of forming images shapes, imagined sounds, and imagined relationships in ones awareness or consciousness. Physical performances are organized movements and gestures like swimming, driving or diving etc. Physiological performances are the actions like deliberately showing one’s heart rate, diminishing one’s blood pressure or blocking out pain. Conative performances are acts of volition or will. Conation is the state of mind of having purpose, and conative knowing is choosing or willing to perform in relation to some set of circumstances or state of affairs. It is a state of knowing – to, as distinct from knowing – that or knowing how. Conative knowing is the state of willingness. But when a person achieves a state of ‘knowing – how’, it includes all the instances of emotional ,imaginal, physical, physiological as well as linguistic knowing.

Understanding is closely related to knowing, especially linguistic knowing. Understanding arises from realizing the ability to signify meaning to one’s self with symbols; through symbolizing that one can make sense out of various states of affairs in relation to his/her environment. The development of understanding requires experience and an ability to talk about that experience. At least there are three levels of understanding i.e., levels of prehension, apprehension, and comprehension. In the development of understanding, enunciation precedes adjudication. That is, the act of saying or talking about a matter must take place before one is able to engage in the act of exercising competent and adequate judgment about a matter. The three levels of understanding relate to the acts of uttering, conceiving, enunciating as well as adjudicating. Thus, prehension is operating with language at the level of uttering without conceiving much meaning. Apprehension is conceiving symbols with meaning, but the meaning is restricted largely to denotative meaning. It is the most expanded level of understanding. Denotative meaning is the relationship between an object and a word; and connotative meaning is the relationship between a word (or a set of words) and another word (or set of words). Enunciation is saying or making a pronouncement about something and adjudication is making judgment about something. The levels of understanding relate to the acts of both enunciation as well as adjudication. At the level of prehension, well informed judgments are not possible, but this is a precondition for the development of adjudication. Understanding enables an individual not only to describe, explain, and predict but also control to some extent the state of affairs through anticipation, prescription and intervention. As understanding develops through to the two higher levels, the capacity to make well informed judgments about something also develops. The realized abilities to describe, explain predict and prescribe are all linguistic abilities. That is, understanding is linguistic knowing which is articulated with all other forms of knowing. Understanding is a system of knowing in which linguistic knowing guides the other forms of knowing that are functioning within the system. Human development, considered as the extension of cognitive function, is the process in which this system of knowing understanding develops from (1) – a restricted and relatively uncomplicated, undifferentiated function in to (2) – an extensive, higher complicated and extremely differentiated function.

With regard to the categorizations of cognition by various authors like, Bloom, Gagne, Piaget, Bruner, Biggs, Collis and others, these are either subsets, combinations or conflations of the elemental/primary categories of (the above mentioned) three levels and six forms of knowing and the three levels of understanding. For example, Bloom et al. (1956) and Krathwohl et. al. (1956) have used the categories of cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains to classify abilities that can be learned. Thus, learned cognitive abilities, in Bloom’s terms, are the same as linguistic knowing. They include the linguistic (conceptual) abilities to recall comprehend, analyze, apply, synthesize and evaluate states of affairs by means of signifying meaning with symbols or using language. Recalling in Bloom’s terms is an instance of understanding at the ‘prehension’ level. Bloom et al. characterize comprehending as the ability to understand to the extent that an individual can restate a statement in other words (translation), reorder the statement (interpretation) or estimate or predict from a statement (extrapolation). And applying is the realized ability to use general ideas or procedures appropriately in new situations without help, direction or prompting. Bloom’s analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating are instances of understanding at the level of comprehension. Learned psychomotor abilities are knowing in relation to physical performances and physiological performances. But psychomotor abilities also include linguistic (conceptual), imaginal, emotional, and conative knowing, such as in playing tennis one must know the rules of tennis, willing to play by the rules (conative knowing), must keep his/her emotions in control (emotional knowing), one must also imagine (anticipate) the positions of ball (imaginal knowing). Psychomotor knowing, in this way is actually a complex combination of all these physical, linguistic, emotional, imaginal, conative and physiological knowing. Krathwohl et al. (1956) have categorized the learned affective abilities as these involved in the process of attaching a value to something, holding a strong belief about something, or having a deep-seated attitude about something. Affective knowing thus is also a complex phenomenon of linguistic, emotional, imaginal and conative knowing. Gagne (1977) offers the categories of cognition as a scheme for classification of learned abilities such as intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, verbal information, motor skills, and attitudes. Intellectual skills are instances of linguistic knowing and Gagne categorizes these in a hierarchy of less complex to more complex: signal learning, stimulus-response learning, chaining, verbal association, discrimination learning, concept learning, rule learning, problem solving. The way in which these eight levels of ability relate to the categories of prehension, apprehension and comprehension is that signal learning and stimulus – response learning function at the level below prehension; chaining and verbal association function at the level of prehension; discrimination and concept learning function at the level of apprehension; and abstract concept learning, rule learning, and problem solving learning function at the level of comprehension. The progression in understanding is from denotative to connotative linguistic performances. Verbal information is the ability to recall, cognitive strategies used for solving the problems are all instances of linguistic knowing. Motor skills are same as psychomotor abilities, and attitudes (of cooperativeness, aggressive, passive, inquisitive) are closely related to the category of affective abilities. These are the result of a complex combination of linguistic, emotional, imaginal, physical, physiological and conative knowing. Piaget (1971) has classified level of understanding into four categories like – 1) sensori– motor, 2) pre – operational, 3) concrete – operational and 4) formal operational stages. The pre-operational level functions at the level of prehension; the concrete and formal operational level are the instances of linguistic knowing and functions at the apprehension and comprehension levels of understanding respectively. Another alternative classification of understanding has also been proposed by Bruner (1964) and he has conceived the categories as 1) enactive, 2) iconic, and 3) symbolic stages of representation. That is, understanding can be developed and represented enactively, by physical action (like feel, taste); can be developed and represented iconically, shape, line, colour and tone. Finally, it can be developed and represented symbolically with conception of meaning with symbol systems (words, signs, sentences). Bruner relates these categories of understanding to periods in childhood when children develop these categories; enactive understanding is below the level of system of physical knowing. Iconic understanding is an instance of imaginal knowing, and symbolic understanding is linguistic knowing at all of its levels. Biggs and Collis (1982) classified the distinction between developmental stages and learning outcomes. They addressed the problem of what learning outcomes were possible, and they conceived of five categories: - 1) prestructural 2) unistructural, 3) multistructural 4) relational, and 5) extended abstract. Prestructural is pre-conventional linguistic knowing (level 1- alpha stage). It is also understanding at the level of prehension. Unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract are instantiations of conventional linguistic knowing (level 2 - Beta stage).Also unistructural, multistructural, and relational are instances of understanding at the level of apprehension, while extended abstract is an instance of understanding at the level of comprehension. This is implied here that all these research works of Bloom, Piaget, Gagne, Bruner, Biggs and Collis as well as Krathwohl et al. have focused upon the problem of identifying categories or knowing (learning outcomes) that a learner might undertake to study and learn under guidance. A system of categories of knowing is important for competently performing the task of selecting and specifying educational goals, aims, objectives, and purposes. All these classifications given by different researchers / authors are actually the subsets, combinations, or conflations of these elementary categories of levels, forms and range of knowing and levels of understanding. Out of this prehension, apprehension and comprehension are teachable. The other six forms of knowing and two level of knowing (pre-conventional and conventional) can also be taught, but the post – conventional knowing is purely creative and innovative in nature. Thus, these can give some guidelines to our educational researchers and planners to think about how to devise curriculum which would incorporate a clear conception of the levels and forms of cognition, as well as facilitate the development of affective, psychomotor and conative domains of the learner.

Different Approaches to Cognition:

Presently, two dominant approaches i.e., rationalists and constructivists views rule the cognitive era. They claim that cognitive phenomena does not constitute merely the behavioral (stimulus – response) patterns of a ‘black box’. Constitutive reality agent is today considered highly relevant for the scientific study of mind. There are predominantly two kinds of camps: those who believe that cognitive faculties are completely specified by the innate biological reality (Noam Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, see Nagarjuna G., Review Talks, 2006), and those who believe that they develop during ontogeny based on incompletely specified ‘embryological’ reality (Karmiloff-Smith, Susan Carey, Alison Gopnik, see Nagarjuna G., Review Talks, 2006). A striking observation made by cognitive developmental psychologists based on experimental findings that ‘language is instinctive and peculiarly human’. A leading developmental psychologist Karmiloff-Smith demonstrates that some behavioral / cognitive modules actually are culminations of developmental process and not entirely innate. The theory by ‘representational redescription’ (RR) proposed by her explain that gradual and recurring reencoding of more or less inaccessible (encapsulated) implicit representations into explicit accessible representations leads to behavioral mastery. There are very few scholars who believe that cognition is only human, but often it is also argued that the so called higher modes of cognition such as self-consciousness, theory of mind, fabrication of tools, language, scientific knowledge, etc. must be peculiar and defining characteristics of human nature. The review of research (i.e., Merlin Donald’s three stages of the evolution of culture and cognition; & Peter Gardenfors’s account of How Homo became Sapiens, see Nagarjuna G., Review Talks, 2006) has revealed that most of the peculiarly human characteristics are strongly correlated to the social fabric of human life rather than genetic, neuro-physiological domain. Evidence is gradually accumulating to suggest that the larger size of human brain (encephalization) has mostly to do with the new found socio-cultural context during phylogeny. Socialization and language go hand in hand, as both are dependent on each other. Thus, it is hypothesized by the current generation of researchers that representational redescription is an essential mechanism in producing external memory space helping to enhance much needed memory capacity for storing cultural heritage, and also for detached processing of information: explaining thinking. There are two interdependent but superveniently evolving inheritance mechanisms: - biological and social. The nature of human beings cannot be understood without delineating the two. Many leading cognitive psychologists (e.g. Alison Gopnik, see Nagarjuna G., Review Talks, 2006) today believe in a strong working hypothesis called: theory – theory. According to this view no knowledge worth the name can be non-theoretical, and the basic mechanism (or methodology) of knowledge formation and evaluation happens by theory change, and this mechanism is universal. The above author argues that even infants in the crib are little theoreticians. The mechanism that makes us know the world around is the same as the one that makes science. Formal knowledge is an explicitly constructed form of knowledge in the sense that the rules of construction are overtly specified. This form of possible world construction creates an idealized description of the actual world that describes indirectly (mediated by models) the phenomenal world. Only in this form of construction can we find invariant relativistic descriptions of various flavors of scientific theories.

Representation of knowledge in memory and the evolution of consciousness span the range of problems in understanding cognition. Knowledge representation, probably the most intelligent behavior is the typical characteristic of human activity. It is unique to humans because of its dependence on language and other symbolic systems. The full development of language and thinking is what constitutes intellectual development. One of the central functions of language is that it frees us to refer to objects without the need to manipulate them physically; representations of knowledge through language lead to an explosion of interconnected information. The social-constructivist view places the evolution of all higher mental functions, including language, firmly in the lap of culture (Vygotsky, 1962). Language is a good example of cultural evolution of the mind as well as of the brain. Cultural evolution has accelerated the development of brain systems that must support the emergence of both cognitive and non-cognitive functions. In today’s world of progressive use of visual modes such as computer and information storage devices, it is hard to imagine that the brain would not be under pressure to develop new structures (Donald, 1993). Not only the content of thought and its cortical organization but also its structure is determined by the culture in which an individual lives. In sum, cultural evolution has a comprehensive influence on intellectual activities an influence that is mediated by the tools of cognition and its architectural basis in the brain.