Domain-general learning

Domain-general learning theories of development suggest that humans are born with mechanisms in the brain that exist to support and guide learning on a broad level, regardless of the type of information being learned. Domain-general learning theories also recognize that although learning different types of new information may be processed in the same way and in the same areas of the brain, different domains also function interdependently. Because these generalized domains work together, skills developed from one learned activity may translate into benefits with skills not yet learned. Another facet of domain-general learning theories is that knowledge within domains is cumulative, and builds under these domains over time to contribute to our greater knowledge structure. Psychologists whose theories align with domain-general framework include developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, who theorized that people develop a global knowledge structure which contains cohesive, whole knowledge internalized from experience, and psychologist Charles Spearman, whose work led to a theory on the existence of a single factor accounting for all general cognitive ability.

Domain-general learning theories are in direct opposition to domain-specific learning theories, also sometimes called theories of modularity. Domain-specific learning theories posit that humans learn different types of information differently, and have distinctions within the brain for many of these domains. Domain-specific learning theorists also assert that these neural domains are independent, purposed solely for the acquisition of one skill (i.e. facial recognition or mathematics), and may not provide direct benefits in the learning of other, unrelated skills.

Related Theories

Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Developmental psychologist, Jean Piaget, theorized that one’s intelligence, or knowledge – defined as the ability to adapt to all aspects of reality – evolves through a series of qualitatively distinct stages^[1]. Piaget believed that certain core developmental processes produced transitions from one stage to the next. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is “domain general,” as cognitive maturation in one domain is thought to transfer to all other domains. The reason that maturation transfers, according to Piaget, is because the cognitive processes that contribute to change are not domain-specific.

Domain General Processes in Piaget’s theory of Cognitive Development:

Assimilation^[1]: The process of transforming new information so that it fits in with already learned information.
Accommodation^[1]: Refers to the process of adapting thinking to incorporate new experiences.
Equilibrium^[1]: The process of integrating many different pieces of acquired knowledge about the world into one unified whole. Piaget believes that as one develops, the child’s model of the world increasingly resembles reality.

Psychometric Theories of Intelligence

Psychometric analysis of measurements of human cognitive abilities (intelligence) may suggest that there is a single underlying mechanism that impacts how humans learn.In the early 20th century, Charles Spearman noticed that children’s scores on different measures of cognitive abilities were positively correlated. Spearman believed that these correlations could be attributed to a general mental ability or process that is utilized across all cognitive tasks. Spearman labeled this general mental ability as the g factor, and believed g could represent an individual's overall cognitive functioning. The presence of this g factor across different cognitive measures is well-established and uncontroversial in statistical research. It may be that this g factor highlights domain-general learning (cognitive mechanisms involved in all cognition), and that this general learning accounts for the positive correlations across seemingly different cognitive tasks. It is important to note, however, there currently is no consensus to what causes the positive correlations.

An illustration of John B. Carroll's three stratum theory, an influential contemporary model of cognitive abilities. The broad abilities recognized by the model are fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), general memory and learning (Gy), broad visual perception (Gv), broad auditory perception (Gu), broad retrieval ability (Gr), broad cognitive speediness (Gs), and processing speed (Gt). Carroll regarded the broad abilities as different "flavors" of g.

Spearman’s work was expanded upon by Raymond B. Cattell, who broke g into two broad abilities: fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc). Cattell’s student, John Horn, added additional broad abilities to Cattell’s model of intelligence. In 1993, John B. Carroll added more specificity to Cattell and Horn’s Gf-Gc model by adding a third layer of human intelligence factors. Carroll named these factors “narrow abilities”. Narrow abilities are described as abilities that do not correlate with skills outside their domain, following more along the lines of domain-specific learning theories.

Despite breaking g into more specific areas, or domains of intelligence, Carroll maintained that a single general ability was essential to intelligence theories. This suggests that Carroll, to some extent, believed cognitive abilities were domain-general.

Skills That May Be Acquired via. Domain General Mechanisms

Language

The general cognitive processes perspective of language development emphasizes characteristics of the language learner as the source of development. The general cognitive processes perspective states that the broad cognitive processes are sufficient for a child to learn new words. These broad cognitive processes include: attending, perceiving, and remembering alone^[1]. Important to this perspective is the idea that such cognitive processes are domain general, and are applied to learning many different kinds of information in addition to benefiting word acquisition^[1]. This perspective contrasts the grammatical cues perspective, which emphasizes characteristics of the language input as a source of development. Furthermore, the general cognitive processes perspective also contrasts the constraints perspective of language development, in which children are said to be able to learn many words quickly because of constraints that are specialized for language learning^[1].

Memory

One theory of memory development suggests that basic memory processes become more superior through maturation^[1]. In this theory, basic memory processes are frequently used, rapidly executed memory activities. These activities include: association, generalization, recognition, and recall. The basic processes theory of memory development states that these memory processes underlie all cognition as it holds that all more complex cognitive activities are built by combining these basic processes in different ways^[1].

Opposing Theories

The relationship between domain general learning and domain specific learning (also known as the modularity debate or modularity of mind) has been an ongoing debate for evolutionary psychologists. ^[2]

The modularity of mind or modularity debate states that the brain is constructed of neural structures (or modules) which have distinct functions. Jerry Fodor, an American philosopher and cognitive scientist, stated in his 1983 book that brain modules are specialized and may only operate on certain kinds of inputs ^[3]. According to Fodor, a module is defined as “functionally specialized cognitive systems”. These modules are said to be mostly independent, develop on different timetables, and are influenced by a variety of different experiences an individual may have. ^[4] Some argue that Piaget’s domain general theory of learning undermines the influence of socio-cultural factors on an individual’s development. More specifically, the theory does not explain the influence of parental nurture and social interactions on human development.

Domain specific learning is a theory in developmental psychology that says the development of skills is independent from one another. This theory suggests that training or practice in one area may not influence another. ^[5] Domain-specificity has been defined by Frankenhuis and Ploeger as that “a given cognitive mechanism accepts, or is specialized to operate on, only a specific class of information”. ^[6] Furthermore, domain-specific learning prescribes different learning activities for students in order to meet required learning outcomes. ^[7]

Modern cognitive psychologists suggest a more complex relationship between domain-generality and domain-specificity in the brain. Current research suggests these networks may exist together in the brain, and the extent to which they function in tandem may vary by task and skill-level. For example, some activities may require different skills and/or specific knowledge.

Possible Applications

Workplaces

Technology advancements and changes in the labor market show the need for workers/employees to be adaptive. This may suggest that school curricular should incorporate activities focusing on developing the necessary skills for dynamic environments. People tend to use domain general learning processes when initially learning how to perform and complete certain tasks such as problem solving.

Early Childhood Education

Problem solving is considered to be an individual’s ability to partake in cognitive processing in order to understand and solve problems where a solution may not be immediately apparent. Domain specific problem solving skills may provide students with narrow knowledge and abilities. Because of this, school teachers, policy makers and curriculum developers may find it beneficial to incorporate domain general skills (such as time management, teamwork or leadership) in relation to problem solving into school curriculum. Domain general problem solving provides students with cross-curricular skills and strategies that can be transferred to multiple different situations/environments/domains. Examples of cross-curricular skills include, but are not limited to: information processing, self regulation and decision making.

Language Development

Additionally, linguistic knowledge and language development are examples of domain general skills. Infants can learn rules and identify patterns in stimuli which may imply learning and generalizable knowledge. This means parents of young children and early childhood educators may want to consider its application while supporting language development.

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Siegler, Robert S.; Wagner Alibali, Martha (2005). Children's Thinking. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
^ Workman, Lance; Reader, Will (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1107044642.
^ Fodor, Jerry (1983). Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56025-9.
^ Callaghan, T. C. (2005). Cognitive Development Beyond Infancy. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 204–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1311100053&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c822fe0523f5b1258756f6e7855acc8d
^ Siegler, Robert (2006). How Children Develop, Exploring Child Develop Student Media Tool Kit & Scientific American Reader to Accompany How Children Develop. New York: Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-7167-6113-0.
^ Frankenhuis, A; Ploeger, A (2007). "Evolutionary Psychology Versus Fodor: Arguments for and Against the Massive Modularity Hypothesis". Philosophical Psychology. 20 (6): 687. doi:10.1080/09515080701665904. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ Bennett, Judith; Millar, Robin; Waddington, David; Holman, J (2005). Making a difference: Evaluation as a told for improving science education. Germany: Waxmann. ISBN 978-3830915089.

External links

This developmental psychology–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[:0-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Siegler, Robert S.; Wagner Alibali, Martha (2005). Children's Thinking. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

[2] Workman, Lance; Reader, Will (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1107044642.

[3] Fodor, Jerry (1983). Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56025-9.

[4] Callaghan, T. C. (2005). Cognitive Development Beyond Infancy. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 204–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1311100053&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c822fe0523f5b1258756f6e7855acc8d

[5] Siegler, Robert (2006). How Children Develop, Exploring Child Develop Student Media Tool Kit & Scientific American Reader to Accompany How Children Develop. New York: Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-7167-6113-0.

[6] Frankenhuis, A; Ploeger, A (2007). "Evolutionary Psychology Versus Fodor: Arguments for and Against the Massive Modularity Hypothesis". Philosophical Psychology. 20 (6): 687. doi:10.1080/09515080701665904. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[7] Bennett, Judith; Millar, Robin; Waddington, David; Holman, J (2005). Making a difference: Evaluation as a told for improving science education. Germany: Waxmann. ISBN 978-3830915089.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]