Functionalistic Theory of Learning
Functionalism theory states that common values plus cooperative agreement hold society together. Society’s usual state is taken to be consensus; conflict is regarded as being an abnormal state or signifying some area whereby the community malfunctions. Dynamism is taken to be expected however evolutionary. Such Change constitutes some natural societal progression by way of reforms. Contemporary American society has meritocracy that holds that if persons put efforts, they may attain anything. Success and rewards are proportional to ability and tough work.
Stratification and inequality are necessary and natural to facilitate the operation of the community. Schooling has for long been regarded as being an essentially positive human undertaking distinguished by ambitions fro betterment and progress. Many understand education to constitute some way of conquering handicaps, attaining more equality, plus attaining status and wealth. Schooling is regarded to facilitate the development of children as per their potentials and needs. It as well is taken to be among the most excellent ways of attaining increased social equity.
Meritocracy argues that education’ role is to enable each persons develop to full potentials plus offer them an opportunity to attain whatever their normal capabilities may permit (Uson, Perez, 2002, p. 24). However, many persons argue that education systems do not perfectly accomplish such goal. Some individuals particularly assume a pessimistic viewpoint, positing that the schooling structure is devised with a view to effecting the societal replication of inequity. Functionalists hold that society is inclined to societal order and equilibrium.
Society is equated to the human person, with organizations like education being equated to vital organs which maintain the wellness and health of society. Social well being implies that there is societal order; it is assured when almost every individual acknowledges the common societal ethical values. Thus functionalists hold that the purpose of education remains the socialization of teenagers and children (Uson, 2002). The procedure whereby fresh generation, learn the attitudes, knowledge, values and attitudes which they will require to be useful citizens is called Socialization.
Despite the fact that such intention is declared in the official syllabi, such is largely attained via ‘the hidden curriculum’. Such hidden curriculum constitutes a more delicate, however strong inculcation of the general values and values of society. Learners acquire such values since their school conduct is controlled up to the time at which they steadily internalize plus acknowledge them. Schooling should as well perform some different role. As different job vacancies arise, such ought to be taken by suitable persons. Thus, education’s other role is the sorting and ranking of persons for posting within the job market.
Individuals having elevated accomplishments are prepared for the most crucial occupations and are accorded the highest revenues as a reward. The lowest achievers are offered the least intellectually involving occupations and the lowest revenue (Willets, 2006, p. 56). Cob and Sennet argues that the notion that ability solely determines who gets rewarded is misleading. Such an argument is supported by Meighan who posits that many capable learners from middle-level backgrounds do not attain acceptable standards school; they thus do not attain the position they merit.
Jacob explains this scenario by arguing that the middle-level cultural surroundings offered in school may differ from the surroundings working-level children obtain at their residences. This implies that working-level kids fail to be sufficiently organized to manage in school. Such children are thus graduated from school having very minimal qualifications; they thus obtain the least attractive jobs. They therefore continue to be working-class. Such a cycle is confirmed by Sageant; he posits that education supports stability, which subsequently leads to societal order.
Parsons held that such a process, in which particular learners get recognized and tagged as being failures, constitutes a vital action which a single societal system part, education, undertook for the entire society. However, the functionalist viewpoint holds that such societal order, the stability, is desired by most persons. The downside of such perspective is that it argues that working-class individuals desire to remain working-class, thus depicting some inconsistency (http://74. 125. 77. 132/search? q=cache:CfudDq_K5ZQJ:tepserver. ucsd. edu/courses/tep117/W2Lect2.
ppt+Functionalistic+Theory+of+Learning&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ke). Functionalism holds that education is vital to the community because it identifies and separates excellent, underperforming and average students. This happens so as to make sure that the superbly talented learners move to the apex of the socio-economic rank structure. Functionalism as well educates on the societal norms and skills. The theory holds that the community ought to work in harmony lest it risks disintegrating. Thus, some structure that inculcates similar values and beliefs in each societal member is necessary.
Such system occurs in the form of schools. The hypothesis states that society members who work extremely hard for their statuses stand out in the community. Such a society is referred to as being meritocratic, whereby effort and ability are more important than inherited position and privilege. Society requires the brightest and the finest to act at the uppermost levels, thus it grants its best prizes to such a collection of persons (Jarvis, 2006, p. 18). Such persons labor more in comparison to their average counterpart so as to attain such elevated statuses and thus they merit the finest awards.
Hum as well argues that the community functions better financially when schooling is more. When individuals acquire more talents, this benefits the community in general. Hum also posits that increased education leads to less inequality in society. Human investment theorists regard learning as being a kind of asset. Persons who regard college benefits as being more important than the cash spent in such college ultimately climb to the socio-economic pyramid apex. Persons who choose not to pursue advanced education deserve less of the incentives offered by society. Emile Durkheim argues that schools exist to inculcate morals into children.
Such morals are established by society to ensure uniformity among society members. Such morals ought to be instructed in school, as opposed to the home, since rules are extremely bent at home and thus schools offer a much impersonal environment. While inculcating such morals, schools as well instruct children to become a part of the community, and that the children ought to be bound to the community if not both the community and the child will disintegrate. Durkheim posited that such remained the most crucial things schools could offer their children, that is, a feeling of being part of a larger entity (Leonard, 2002, p.
45). Parsons argues that the school has the role of socializing children though use of the commitment notion as one of its key functions. Two commitment types exist: dedication to the execution of society’s extensive values; and dedication to the execution of a particular kind of function within the society structure. Parsons posits that elevated statuses make persons attain additional education. Some process exists in basic schools which selects the finest scholars and places them on the path of excellence. Such a process persists throughout all schooling years. Functionalistic education theory has a number of problems.
The sum skills learnt by persons at school actually has less importance compared to the degree received by such persons. An individual may attain ‘A’ grades at school, however, such would show nothing; the reality that such a person attained some degree is the most important. In addition, meritocracy posits that learners whose parents are of elevated social-economic standings perform better at school as compared to learners whose parents are of lower social-economic standings. If all things are merit-based, this would imply that persons have opportunities to stand out regardless of the point at which they started.
The theory also has the problem of not providing means to bridge the gap separating the learners who are from impoverished schools from students from learning institutions with more cash (http://74. 125. 77. 132/search? q=cache:CfudDq_K5ZQJ:tepserver. ucsd. edu/courses/tep117/W2Lect2. ppt+Functionalistic+Theory+of+Learning&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ke). Herbet Spencer posited that society constantly faces selection strains, that is, external or internal exigencies, which force humanity to adjust through augmenting the inner systems by way of differentiation.
Nevertheless, each answer to an issue caused some fresh selection strains which endangered society’s feasibility. Spencer did not qualify to be a determinist because he did not posit that: selection strains will be sensed to alter such; that such pressures will be sensed plus responded to; and solutions all the time work. Spencer acknowledged that the extent of consolidated and centralized authority within a particular polity can build or smash adaptation ability. Spencer regarded a common tendency in the direction of centralization of authority as heralding decline and finally tension to spread out.
Spencer acknowledged 3 functional requirements or requisites which generated selection anxiety: production (operative), distributive, and regulatory. He posited that every society ought to tackle issues of coordination and control, generation of services, ideas and goods, and ultimately, seek modes of distributing such resources. At first, within tribal communities, all 3 of such requirements are indivisible, and kinship systems are the dominant systems fulfilling them. Every institution was included in kinship organizations.
Nevertheless, due to growing population, in density and absolute numbers, problems arose in relation to nourishing persons, generating fresh organization forms, controlling and coordinating different differentiated societal units, plus developing resource sharing systems (Jarvis, Griffin, 2003, p. 27). The way out, according to Spencer, would be the differentiation of strictures so as to undertake more specific roles. Therefore, administrative chiefs emerge, then lieutenants, and subsequently administrators and kings.
Talcott Parsons desired to generate some impressive theory regarding society; however, he started by scrutinizing individuals plus their acts. Parsons declared that societal systems comprise of the acts done by individuals. He started at the contact between 2 persons. Such persons have different choices regarding possible actions. Nevertheless, such choices get constrained and influenced by several social and physical factors. Parsons posited that every person has anticipations regarding their colleagues’ reaction and action to own conduct; such expectations come from society’s accepted values and norms.
Such societal standards are agreed upon and accepted generally. With the repetition of behaviors through increased contacts and with the institutionalization and entrenchment of such expectations, roles get created. Roles are the normatively harmonized, contribution of individuals in concrete processes of societal contact with particular concrete associates (Jarvis, Griffin, 2003, p. 37). Despite the fact that whichever person can theoretically undertake whatever functions, such persons are mandated to abide by the standards determining the character of the function they undertake.
Additionally, a single individual undertakes numerous different functions simultaneously. Persons may even be regarded as being some composition of the functions within which such persons inhabit. In contemporary society, upon being requested to define themselves, many persons answer by referring to the roles they have within society. Subsequently, Parsons amplified the notion of functions into role collectivities which complemented one another when fulfilling societal functions. Several of such functions are tied to societal structures and institutions, like educational, gender, And social, structures.
Such structures remain functional since they help civilizations to operate, plus fulfill society’s functional requirements to ensure smooth running. A society without clashes, where each individual knows what they are expected to do, and whereby such expectations are satisfied constantly, exists in some perfect equilibrium state. Societal control and socialization are the major processes advocated by Parson to attain such equilibrium. Socialization remains vital since it constitutes the apparatus for relocating the established societal values and norms to the persons within such a system.
An ideal socialization happens when such values and norms are entirely internalized- when they constitute the persons personality. Such a point remains quite apart from the sense whereby a person is materially autonomous or original as opposed conforming or passive fro expectations and individuality are to a significant degree, phenomena regarding expectation institutionalization, implying that they constitute culturally-derived characteristics. The negative and positive endorsement of function conducts that fail to satisfy such expectations support socialization.
Punishments may be unofficial, like gossips or snigger, or increasingly formalized via institutions like mental institutes and prisons (Budwing, 1995, p. 51). Sin the event that such 2 processes become ideal, society would then be rendered unchanging and static, and actually such a scenario is not likely to happen fro an extended time period. Parsons acknowledges such a possibility , declaring that he regards the system structure as being problematic and likely to be altered and that Parson’s notion regarding the inclination to symmetry does not suggest the experiential supremacy of constancy over dynamism.
Parson however, does hold that such dynamism happens smoothly. Persons, while interacting with dynamic circumstances, adapt by way of the role negotiation process. When roles get created, they develop standards which direct further activities and thus are institutionalized, developing constancy across societal interactions. In case adaptation processes are unable to adjust, owing to immediate fundamental change or sharp upsets, structural disbanding happens and fresh structures, implying a fresh system, get created, or such society ceases to exist.
Such as societal change model is referred to as some shifting equilibrium; it emphasizes a longing fro societal order. Robert Merton emphasized middle-range hypothesis, as opposed to Parson’s impressive theory, implying that Merton dealt particularly with particular drawbacks regarding Parson’s hypothesis. Merton pointed out three key drawbacks: collective functionalism, dispensability; and functional harmony. Merton as well generated the deviance concept plus differentiated latent from manifest functions.
Merton posited that not every component of a contemporary, intricate society function to facilitate societal functional harmony. Some structures and institutions could have additional roles, and several could as well usually remain dysfunctional, or else, depict functionality for a specific time while malfunctioning for other times. This results owing to the fact that not every structure is generally practical for the society. Particular practices only are functional for some dominant person or some group.
Merton brings in the coercion and power concepts within functionalism plus defines the tension sites that could result to conflict or struggle (Leonard, 2002, p. 59). He declares that through acknowledging and scrutinizing societal aspects, it is possible to give details regarding the generation and perseverance of substitutes. Merton as well observed that functional substitutes to the structures and institutions currently accomplishing societal functions may as well exist. This implies that the currently existing institutions are not essential to civilization.
Such a functional substitute’s notion is vital since it minimizes functionalism’s inclination to suggest the endorsement of the status quo. Merton argued that five circumstances influence actors including: conformity; innovation; ritualism; retreatism; and rebellion. Conformity happens when persons have the aspiration and ways to attain cultural objectives socialized into them. Innovation occurs when individuals strive to achieve established cultural objectives but decide to perform such though unaccepted or novel methods.
Ritualism happens when individuals carry on doing things according to what society proscribes however, forfeit goal achievement. Retreatism refers to the refusal of the ways and goals prescribed by civilization (Willets, 2006, p. 62). Rebellion refers to a merger of the refusal of communal goals plus the methods and the replacement of different means and goals. It may thus be noted that modification may happen internally within society by way of either rebellion or innovation. Society attempts to manipulates such persons so as to negate such changes.
However, as such rebellion or innovation gathers impetus, society ultimately adapts or else faces dissolution. Merton went on to differentiate latent from manifest functions. Actors’ conscious purposes constitute manifest roles; whereas objective effects of actors’ actions, that usually are unintended, constitute latent roles. Merton explained that at times a persons understanding regarding their reason for some action could not entirely elucidate why such act goes on being undertaken.
At times acts satisfy a role of which actors are not aware; this constitutes an action’s latent function. References Budwing, N (1995). A Developmental-Functionalist Approach to Child Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inequality in American education, sociology of education overview. Retrieved June 26th 2009, from http://74. 125. 77. 132/search? q=cache:CfudDq_K5ZQJ:tepserver. ucsd. edu/courses/tep117/W2Lect2. ppt+Functionalistic+Theory+of+Learning&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ke Jarvis, P & Griffin C (2003).
The theory & practice of learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge Leonard, C (2002). Learning theories, A to Z. Blackwell Publishers, New York Uson, R. M. & Perez, M. R. (2002). New perspectives on argument structure in functional grammar. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Willets, P. (2006). The Cardoso report on the UN and civil society: functionalism, global corporation, or global democracy? Global Governance, Vol. 12. 56-64Sample Essay of RushEssay.com