- Email: [email protected]
School psychology, a focus on learning
SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGY,
A FOCUS
ON
LEARNING*
N. L. PIELSTICK Northern Illinois University Our profession of school psychology has made great strides in the past ten years but it is still very much in a stage of emergence. Its directions of development are in some respects clear, in other respects quite undifferentiated and hazy. At the Thayer Conference in 1954, Division 16 made a concerted effort to delineate the functions of psychologists working in public schools. The functions specified at that conference were derived from two general sources: (1) information about the activities of persons employed as school psychologists and (2) ideas about the anticipated contributions of psychologists working in school settings (Cutts, 1955, pp. 30-35). The resulting accumulation of functions then constituted the basis for formulating requisite qualifications and, in turn, training standards for school psychologists. These achievements were notable and have had a significant impact on the establishment of training l)rograms and, to a lesser extent, on the nature of psychological services in public schools. However, it appears that we are now in the wake of this initial surge in the development of school psychology as a professional specialty. One aspect of the cun'ent status is reflected in the nature of present training programs. Although there are certainly common elements among them, particularly in the types of courses required, there are also wide diversities. Diversity is clearly evident :in the departmental affiliations of various training programs. Some are within psychology departments, some in education departments, others in departments of special education. In some ;instances, the training program is jointly offered by two or more departments. Even though such programs may be quite similar in the types of courses included, the departmental affiliation will have a significant effect on the orientation of the trainee. More specifically, the special courses offered in school psychology and the professional affiliations, concerns and points of view of the persons directly responsible for the program can be expected to influence trainees and their subsequent professional mode of operation. * Presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, August 30, 1962. 14
A panel on training standards for school psychologists, sponsored by Division 16 at the 1961 meeting of the APA, took the position that a school psychologist should be first and foremost a psychologist, i.e., that they should be basically a psychologist rather than an education specialist. It is undoubtedly the uniqueness of his psychological training, rather than the overlap of his training with other school personnel, which will enable the school psychologist to make his greatest contribution in the school setting. From this point of view, it is evident that the basic training should be psychological and consequently psychology departments should be in the best position to provide such training. However, many psychology departments have not been eager to assume this responsibility and, perhaps as a result, many training programs have evolved within other departments. This is not a plea for all school psychologists to be trained within departments of psychology, although in most institutions I think this would be desirable, but rather, a proposal that our training programs consider and be considered in terms of the basic psychological training being provided. The current status of school psychology is also reflected in the diverse roles and functions usually outlined for school psychologists. Although there seems to be general agreement on these matters there is no common direction or point of focus to provide a basis for integrating or organizing them in a meaningful way. When one considers the number and breadth of functions that have been outlined for school psychologists in Division 16's pamphlet, The Psychologist on the School Staff, (American Psychological Association, 1958) it becomes obvious that no one person can either be thoroughly competent in or able to carry out all of these functions. It is necessary then, that some selection be made or at least some emphasis be decided upon among all these possible functions. The question now facing school psychologists and especially those who train them, is how can one decide on the extent and manner of fulfilling the myriad possible functions. On what basis can it be determined which of the skills and activities are more pertinent or more appropriate for a school psychologist? Any point of view on school psychology, to be significant, must have direct relevance to both education and psychology. When one examines the aims of education, it becomes apparent that the achievement of its aims rests upon the learning processes which schools are able to effect. In general, one can consider the basic function of schools as that of bringing about certain learnings. To do so effectively requires an understanding of how learning takes place and the factors which facilitate or impair learning efficiency. Although we are still far from a complete understanding of these matters, considerable psychological 15
research and theoretical effort have been devoted to them. In fact, the field of psychology has built the foundation upon which we may erect a more thorough understanding of the nature of learning. By selecting learning as his point of focus, a school psychologist relates himself to the central function of a school system and at the same time concerns himself with an area of human behavior which has received considerable attention in the science of psychology since its earliest beginnings. Therefore, it seems both appropriate and promising to consider the possibilities likely to result from the school psychologist as a specialist in human learning. Let us consider first the mode of operation of a school psychologist who orients his efforts in a school system to problems related to learning. ttis work may be as much concerned with individual children as a school psychologist who, for example, adheres to a mental health orientation in his functions. That is, his focus on learning which, after all, is the primary concern of the teacher leads the psychologist to a study of the pupil's learning situation and how he responds to it, an analysis of the particular learning abilities and disabilities of the child, the history of his learning patterns in and out of the school situation and culminates in hypotheses or predictions (recommendations, if you wish) about what changes would be most likely to further the pupil's learning e_fflcieney. This, of course, may constitute only the beginning point in work with the pupil, his teacher and his parents. In such ease studies the psychologist may or may not employ the clinical diagnostic tools frequently used by school psychologists. The Rorsehaeh, TAT, and Bender-Gestalt for example, were not designed for analysis of learning characteristics, diagnosis of learning diffleulties or even for deriving information which would be especially pertinent to the work of school personnel. Here lies one of the most glaring needs of our professional specialization. We need instruments and procedures developed specifically for our purposes rather than adopting or adapting those from clinical psychology. Kirk and McCarthy (1961) have reeently developed an individual diagnostic test, the Illinois Test of Psyeholinguistie Abilities, which appears very promising and which may prove to be a good example of what school psychologists need. What has been suggested here should not be interpreted to mean that a school psychologist ignores the emotional components of behavior in a sehool setting. He may, in fact, be vitally concerned about how various social and personality factors impinge on learning processes and outcomes and undoubtedly he will need to use well established metht6
o d s for the study of personality: The difference resides in his maintaining a focus on the impact of such factors on the learning of school children. Also like the mental health-oriented school psychologist, his efforts must be directed to a considerable extent toward matters that are broader than that of the individual ease if there is to be any significant consequence of his work for tile school system as a whole. Both Gray (1960) and Trachtman (1961) have emphasized the necessity of pursuing more broadly effective methods of functioning in order to deal with the problem of overwhelming indMdual ease loads. Assuming that the school psychologist has had appropriate training in the measurement of human abilities, he should be an excellent consultant or perhaps should be responsible for the seleetion of standardized tests, their use and interpretation. The majority of the standardized tests used by schools are intended to measure learning ability or learning progress; hence, such tests are within the scope of concern of a school psychologist foeussing on learning. Aside from the in-service training value of working with teachers individually on specific problems, the learning-oriented school psyehologist should be helpful to various groups of teaehers in considering the elements of effective learning. His consultation should be of value in the development of new education programs and the appraisal of learning outcomes. His research training should permit him to assume leadership in planning and carrying out research and serving as a liaison person for other investigators who are doing research pertinent to the learning of school children. This is to suggest only a few of the broader ways of funetioning within a school system. Being centrally concerned with the factors whieh affeet learning and learning processes immediately relates the sehool psychologist to other school personnel in eertain ways. While he may need to attend to extraneous or distracting features of a pupil's behavior, his primary concern should be the effect that such behavior has on learning. Herein lies the major common denominator between a teacher and a school psychologist. Curriculum specialists too are concerned with learning, especially the organization of learning experiences and the selection and utilization of learning materials. Remedial reading teachers have the task of dealing with particular learning difficulties by diagnosing and providing treatment for difficulties in learning to read. Special education personnel work with handicapped children who require learning 17
situations, materials and procedures which differ from those for most children. Hence, the school l~syehologist with a learning orientation is related in a pertinent manner to each of these persons. Furthermore, when the school psychologist is considered as a psychologist who specializes in learning, certain implications for training become clear. Not only must he have a strong concentration in learning research and theory from psychology but he also must have basic courses in physiological and developmental psychology, and in motivation, personality and measurement. His basic tools, at least for the present time, will be research and clinical methods; hence, training is particularly needed in these areas. In addition to his basic training in psychology, the school psychologist should have some background in education to understand the history, philosophy and organization of public schools. Even more pertinent than these is the research that has been done in educational psychology on learning in classroom situations, on the acquisition of reading and arithmetic skills, the effects of praise and punishment on learning, the development of programmed learning materials and machines, the work of Bruner and associates on cognitive processes (1956) and the structuring of learning situations (Bruner, 1960). Finally, some study needs to be devoted to those children with special learning problems, the exceptional children. In summary, the field of school psychology is in an early stage of development in wk,ieh its form and direction have not fully emerged, The possible directions for further development are numerous and the specific functions which might be assumed by a school psychologist are beyond the capacities of a single person. Some point of view or frame of reference is essential to aid us in making decisions as to the nature, extent and direction of the roles we should undertake. Since the fundamental responsibility of schools is to promote learning and since this constitutes one of the major areas of psychology, it seems fully appropriate for the school psychologist to direct his efforts primarily toward problems related to the facilitation of learning. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of extending the role of school psychologists beyond the total devotion to ~ntensive individual assessment to broader functions which are more likely to have a significant impact on the learning experiences of all school children. The orientat~ion proposed here easily permits the school psychologist to operate in such a fashion. 18
REFERENCES American Psychological Association, Division 16. The psychologist on the school staff. Report of the Committee on Reconsideration of the Functions of the School Psychologist, 1958. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, Jaequeline and Austin, G. A. A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956. Brunet, J. S. The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Cutts, Norma E. (Ed.) School psychologists at mid-century. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1955. Gray, Susan W. Broader roles for school psychologists. Educ. Leadership, 1960, 27, 226-229. Kirk, S. A. and McCarthy, J. J. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities: An approach to differential diagnosis. Amer. 1. ment. De~ciency, 1961, 66, 339-412. Trachtman, G. M. New directions for school psychologists. 1. except. Child., 1961, 28, 159-162.
19
PSYCHOLOGY,
A FOCUS
ON
LEARNING*
N. L. PIELSTICK Northern Illinois University Our profession of school psychology has made great strides in the past ten years but it is still very much in a stage of emergence. Its directions of development are in some respects clear, in other respects quite undifferentiated and hazy. At the Thayer Conference in 1954, Division 16 made a concerted effort to delineate the functions of psychologists working in public schools. The functions specified at that conference were derived from two general sources: (1) information about the activities of persons employed as school psychologists and (2) ideas about the anticipated contributions of psychologists working in school settings (Cutts, 1955, pp. 30-35). The resulting accumulation of functions then constituted the basis for formulating requisite qualifications and, in turn, training standards for school psychologists. These achievements were notable and have had a significant impact on the establishment of training l)rograms and, to a lesser extent, on the nature of psychological services in public schools. However, it appears that we are now in the wake of this initial surge in the development of school psychology as a professional specialty. One aspect of the cun'ent status is reflected in the nature of present training programs. Although there are certainly common elements among them, particularly in the types of courses required, there are also wide diversities. Diversity is clearly evident :in the departmental affiliations of various training programs. Some are within psychology departments, some in education departments, others in departments of special education. In some ;instances, the training program is jointly offered by two or more departments. Even though such programs may be quite similar in the types of courses included, the departmental affiliation will have a significant effect on the orientation of the trainee. More specifically, the special courses offered in school psychology and the professional affiliations, concerns and points of view of the persons directly responsible for the program can be expected to influence trainees and their subsequent professional mode of operation. * Presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, August 30, 1962. 14
A panel on training standards for school psychologists, sponsored by Division 16 at the 1961 meeting of the APA, took the position that a school psychologist should be first and foremost a psychologist, i.e., that they should be basically a psychologist rather than an education specialist. It is undoubtedly the uniqueness of his psychological training, rather than the overlap of his training with other school personnel, which will enable the school psychologist to make his greatest contribution in the school setting. From this point of view, it is evident that the basic training should be psychological and consequently psychology departments should be in the best position to provide such training. However, many psychology departments have not been eager to assume this responsibility and, perhaps as a result, many training programs have evolved within other departments. This is not a plea for all school psychologists to be trained within departments of psychology, although in most institutions I think this would be desirable, but rather, a proposal that our training programs consider and be considered in terms of the basic psychological training being provided. The current status of school psychology is also reflected in the diverse roles and functions usually outlined for school psychologists. Although there seems to be general agreement on these matters there is no common direction or point of focus to provide a basis for integrating or organizing them in a meaningful way. When one considers the number and breadth of functions that have been outlined for school psychologists in Division 16's pamphlet, The Psychologist on the School Staff, (American Psychological Association, 1958) it becomes obvious that no one person can either be thoroughly competent in or able to carry out all of these functions. It is necessary then, that some selection be made or at least some emphasis be decided upon among all these possible functions. The question now facing school psychologists and especially those who train them, is how can one decide on the extent and manner of fulfilling the myriad possible functions. On what basis can it be determined which of the skills and activities are more pertinent or more appropriate for a school psychologist? Any point of view on school psychology, to be significant, must have direct relevance to both education and psychology. When one examines the aims of education, it becomes apparent that the achievement of its aims rests upon the learning processes which schools are able to effect. In general, one can consider the basic function of schools as that of bringing about certain learnings. To do so effectively requires an understanding of how learning takes place and the factors which facilitate or impair learning efficiency. Although we are still far from a complete understanding of these matters, considerable psychological 15
research and theoretical effort have been devoted to them. In fact, the field of psychology has built the foundation upon which we may erect a more thorough understanding of the nature of learning. By selecting learning as his point of focus, a school psychologist relates himself to the central function of a school system and at the same time concerns himself with an area of human behavior which has received considerable attention in the science of psychology since its earliest beginnings. Therefore, it seems both appropriate and promising to consider the possibilities likely to result from the school psychologist as a specialist in human learning. Let us consider first the mode of operation of a school psychologist who orients his efforts in a school system to problems related to learning. ttis work may be as much concerned with individual children as a school psychologist who, for example, adheres to a mental health orientation in his functions. That is, his focus on learning which, after all, is the primary concern of the teacher leads the psychologist to a study of the pupil's learning situation and how he responds to it, an analysis of the particular learning abilities and disabilities of the child, the history of his learning patterns in and out of the school situation and culminates in hypotheses or predictions (recommendations, if you wish) about what changes would be most likely to further the pupil's learning e_fflcieney. This, of course, may constitute only the beginning point in work with the pupil, his teacher and his parents. In such ease studies the psychologist may or may not employ the clinical diagnostic tools frequently used by school psychologists. The Rorsehaeh, TAT, and Bender-Gestalt for example, were not designed for analysis of learning characteristics, diagnosis of learning diffleulties or even for deriving information which would be especially pertinent to the work of school personnel. Here lies one of the most glaring needs of our professional specialization. We need instruments and procedures developed specifically for our purposes rather than adopting or adapting those from clinical psychology. Kirk and McCarthy (1961) have reeently developed an individual diagnostic test, the Illinois Test of Psyeholinguistie Abilities, which appears very promising and which may prove to be a good example of what school psychologists need. What has been suggested here should not be interpreted to mean that a school psychologist ignores the emotional components of behavior in a sehool setting. He may, in fact, be vitally concerned about how various social and personality factors impinge on learning processes and outcomes and undoubtedly he will need to use well established metht6
o d s for the study of personality: The difference resides in his maintaining a focus on the impact of such factors on the learning of school children. Also like the mental health-oriented school psychologist, his efforts must be directed to a considerable extent toward matters that are broader than that of the individual ease if there is to be any significant consequence of his work for tile school system as a whole. Both Gray (1960) and Trachtman (1961) have emphasized the necessity of pursuing more broadly effective methods of functioning in order to deal with the problem of overwhelming indMdual ease loads. Assuming that the school psychologist has had appropriate training in the measurement of human abilities, he should be an excellent consultant or perhaps should be responsible for the seleetion of standardized tests, their use and interpretation. The majority of the standardized tests used by schools are intended to measure learning ability or learning progress; hence, such tests are within the scope of concern of a school psychologist foeussing on learning. Aside from the in-service training value of working with teachers individually on specific problems, the learning-oriented school psyehologist should be helpful to various groups of teaehers in considering the elements of effective learning. His consultation should be of value in the development of new education programs and the appraisal of learning outcomes. His research training should permit him to assume leadership in planning and carrying out research and serving as a liaison person for other investigators who are doing research pertinent to the learning of school children. This is to suggest only a few of the broader ways of funetioning within a school system. Being centrally concerned with the factors whieh affeet learning and learning processes immediately relates the sehool psychologist to other school personnel in eertain ways. While he may need to attend to extraneous or distracting features of a pupil's behavior, his primary concern should be the effect that such behavior has on learning. Herein lies the major common denominator between a teacher and a school psychologist. Curriculum specialists too are concerned with learning, especially the organization of learning experiences and the selection and utilization of learning materials. Remedial reading teachers have the task of dealing with particular learning difficulties by diagnosing and providing treatment for difficulties in learning to read. Special education personnel work with handicapped children who require learning 17
situations, materials and procedures which differ from those for most children. Hence, the school l~syehologist with a learning orientation is related in a pertinent manner to each of these persons. Furthermore, when the school psychologist is considered as a psychologist who specializes in learning, certain implications for training become clear. Not only must he have a strong concentration in learning research and theory from psychology but he also must have basic courses in physiological and developmental psychology, and in motivation, personality and measurement. His basic tools, at least for the present time, will be research and clinical methods; hence, training is particularly needed in these areas. In addition to his basic training in psychology, the school psychologist should have some background in education to understand the history, philosophy and organization of public schools. Even more pertinent than these is the research that has been done in educational psychology on learning in classroom situations, on the acquisition of reading and arithmetic skills, the effects of praise and punishment on learning, the development of programmed learning materials and machines, the work of Bruner and associates on cognitive processes (1956) and the structuring of learning situations (Bruner, 1960). Finally, some study needs to be devoted to those children with special learning problems, the exceptional children. In summary, the field of school psychology is in an early stage of development in wk,ieh its form and direction have not fully emerged, The possible directions for further development are numerous and the specific functions which might be assumed by a school psychologist are beyond the capacities of a single person. Some point of view or frame of reference is essential to aid us in making decisions as to the nature, extent and direction of the roles we should undertake. Since the fundamental responsibility of schools is to promote learning and since this constitutes one of the major areas of psychology, it seems fully appropriate for the school psychologist to direct his efforts primarily toward problems related to the facilitation of learning. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of extending the role of school psychologists beyond the total devotion to ~ntensive individual assessment to broader functions which are more likely to have a significant impact on the learning experiences of all school children. The orientat~ion proposed here easily permits the school psychologist to operate in such a fashion. 18
REFERENCES American Psychological Association, Division 16. The psychologist on the school staff. Report of the Committee on Reconsideration of the Functions of the School Psychologist, 1958. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, Jaequeline and Austin, G. A. A study of thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956. Brunet, J. S. The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Cutts, Norma E. (Ed.) School psychologists at mid-century. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1955. Gray, Susan W. Broader roles for school psychologists. Educ. Leadership, 1960, 27, 226-229. Kirk, S. A. and McCarthy, J. J. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities: An approach to differential diagnosis. Amer. 1. ment. De~ciency, 1961, 66, 339-412. Trachtman, G. M. New directions for school psychologists. 1. except. Child., 1961, 28, 159-162.
19