E L THORNDIKE THEORY OF IDENTICAL ELEMENTS
The first and foremost theory that finds its way into this list is obviously none other than one of the most famous “theory of identical elements”. This game-changing theory was based on the idea of the occurrence of the training transfer, from one side to another, under the situations with most similar or identical elements and was developed by E.L Thorndike. According to him most of transfer occurs from one situation to another in which there are most similar or identical elements.
This theory explains that carrying over from one situation to another is roughly proportional to the degree of resemblance in situation, in other words- more the similarity, more the transfer.
The degree of transfer increases as the similarity of elements increase. For example, learning to ride moped is easy after learning to ride a bicycle. Here, transfer is very fast because of identical elements in both vehicles.
Thorndike was convinced that the method used in guiding a pupil’s learning activities had a great effect upon the degree of transferability of his learning.
According to this theory, carrying out the transfer of training from the trainer’s side to that of the trainee is proportional to the degree of resemblance in situations. In simpler words, you can say that the greater the similarity, the quicker and more effective, the transfer is. Furthermore, the degree of transfer, as well as the pace of the transfer, increases as the number of similar elements increase.
For example, for most of the learners, it’s extremely easy to learn to ride a bike, if they have some experience with a bicycle. In this case, the transfer occurs extremely fast because of the similarities in both vehicles.
Moreover, it is also true that the methods, which are used to guide the pupil and his learning activities, greatly influence (or we might say, they control), the degree of transferability of the training and Thorndike was sure of it. It is a common observation that nearly all of the new learners are supposed to move forward by taking small steps instead of a whole big leap. This is done so that the learner grasps the maximum possible concepts and keeps the interest in the subject. There would be nothing if the opposite had been done.
Identical Elements Theory
Thorndike later formulated the theory of identical elements, in which he argued that earlier learning is only advantageous if the second task to be learned has elements that are identical to those of the first task. The amount of transfer thus depends on the similarity between the elements of two skills or of two performance contexts. The problem with this theory was that it did not specify what the elements were or how their similarities were to be assessed. Two possible ways to specify an element in the context of motor learning are that (1) it is any observable movement component of a skill, such as the swing of the leg in a kick; or (2) it is any task-specific coordination dynamic, such as the synergy of the elbow, wrist, and fingers when throwing a Frisbee. Predictions on the basis of common elements between two skills suggest that the amount of transfer between a tennis serve and a golf putt is likely to be less than between a tennis serve and a volleyball serve because a tennis serve has more elements in common with a volleyball serve than a golf putt. Predictions on the basis of common elements between two contexts or domains suggest that learning to anticipate the direction of a tennis serve by reacting in real life will yield more positive transfer to game play than learning to anticipate the direction of a tennis serve by reacting in a video game.
Criticism
The primary target of Judd’s criticism was the early work of E. L. Thorndike on transfer of training. Judd held that Thorndike’s connectionism tended to reduce the higher mental processes to aggregations of simpler processes. For example, he asserted that Thorndike’s view led teachers of arithmetic to think of the subject as a collection of specific items to be learned through drill rather than to look on arithmetic as a highly abstract and systematic form of learning. Judd rejected not the concept of transfer, but Thorndike’s mechanism of transfer: he believed in the possibility of transfer through the learning of widely applicable generalizations rather than through the connection of different situations by identical elements. His position on transfer was an outgrowth of his fundamental view of the higher mental processes. He emphasized learning as an organization of experience, with the possibility of transfer increasing as the higher levels of generalization are reached.
Although Judd was a psychologist by training, his long career as head of the department of education at Chicago brought him in direct contact with all the major issues of educational administration. He exerted an important influence on school organization over a period of three decades. In addition, as editor of two major periodicals in the field of education, the School Review and the Elementary School Journal, Judd was able to give his views on education wide currency.