B.F. Skinner created to concept of operant conditioning (later to be included in the larger term of behaviorism) in part to answer two fundamental questions. How do we learn to behave in the manner that we do and how do we develop behaviors in others? Skinner, along with other behaviorist, rejected the internal workings of the mind. He would argue that since there is no way to prove the thought processes of an individual they are largely unimportant. Instead the observable behaviors of an individual should be studied. These individuals will then respond to the environment in which they find themselves in. What in the environment makes people respond? If something pleasurable immediately follows an action that action is more likely to be repeated, the behavior has been reinforced. If something unpleasant immediately follows an action that behavior is less likely to be repeated, it has been punished.
The concept of behaviorism becomes more complicated because we are not talking about normal rewards and punishments. A normal reward would be a congratulatory pat on the back. A normal punishment would be a detention for being late to class. Any educator that has spent time in a classroom will agree that these actions have mixed effects. They are not going to produce the same results each time they are administered. True behaviorism seeks to increase the likelihood or decrease the likelihood of specific behaviors. It has to be intentionally planned and carried out in every situation. A token economy is a good example of behaviorism in the classroom. Positive feedback from a teacher does not necessarily mean behaviorism is at play. Positive encouragement is simply encouragement. To be true behaviorism there has to be a measurable increase or decrease of specific behaviors.
These behaviors are completely different from internal knowledge and thought processes. I cannot increase the accuracy of a homework assignment through behaviorism. I can only increase the likelihood that homework will be completed. With this in mind the strategies outlined in chapters eight and ten of Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works are not behaviorist methods. They may be good teaching strategies but they have merit completely independent of behaviorism. The first strategy calls for students to track their effort in comparison to the results on their tests. After four weeks of tracking the students will be able to see that higher effort results in higher test scores. If higher scores are valued by the students and they understand the relation to effort logic would dictate that their effort would increase. The students effort will increase but not because of external reinforcement or punishment. True behaviorism would be evident if the teacher provided something that the student wanted everytime good effort was shown. It might also be shown if the teacher provided an unpleasant consequence when poor effort was shown. Allowing four weeks to pass before the lesson is reviewed is not an immediate consequence and therefore not behaviorism. A second strategy that is oultined in the aforementioned book follows a fictional football coach how is attempting to help his players review mathematical concepts. In this strategy the coach encourages his players to track their workouts in an Excel spreadsheet. This is a great idea to help with data analysis but I have to ask, what behavior is increasing or decreasing? Remember, behaviorism does not teach concepts or any new knowledge, it teaches behaviors. These students still workout on the proscribed days, whether the strategy was used or not the players will probably lift heavier weights, and there is no gaurantee that these players are more or less likely to do their math homework. I do not know any psychologist that would define these strategies as behaviorism.
Skinner tried to relate behaviorism to education. His thesis was that eventually students will learn that the consequences of answering a question wrong are not worth it. Once this realization is made students will not answer incorrectly to avoid to unpleasant stimuli. What Skinner failed to realize and what educators should know is that there are times that we have no choice but to answer incorrectly. If the concept has not been taught how do we answer correctly? That same misconception is repeated in online tutorials and remedial programs. These technologies assume that we are motivated by their feedback, that we learn from our mistakes, and that we are investing our complete attention to their problem. While some resources are beneficial and expertly created, while some resources truly use behaviorism in their delivery, they tend to still fall to the same fallacy that Skinner fell to. I want to reiterate this one very important point. The strategies outlined above and the online resources that tutor and remediate are wonderful educational tools and techniques. They can deliver the lesson perfectly. Some of these lessons will stay with students for years. No matter how good they are behaviorism is not in play. Simply because a lesson is not behaviorist does not mean that its quality is diminished it just using another learning perspective.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Standbridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (ED.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 07/03/2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt
Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (2006). Invitation to Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Your discussion of the characteristics of behaviorism was well articulated, in fact it increased my understanding of this theory.
The information you shared and your thoughts present a new perspective to me.I am interested in your insight on this question, Is it possible for a strategy such as the ones described in chapters eight and ten to have a foundation in behavioral theory, but not result in a behavior change for each student participating? If the strategies change some students' behavior by an increase in their efforts, for example, is that behaviorism or not?
Carolyn,
Thanks for asking a very important question.
Like any other experiment not all attempts will produce results. Simply put, just because I create a system of reinforcement or punishment behavior does not have to change. If I created a behaviorist strategy and it did not change behavior the strategy didn't work. As the experimenter I would have to analyze why the failure occurred and adjust accordingly. For that reason classroom policy is typically not behaviorist in nature, neither is teacher personality. I point these out because they seem to be prevalent in our classmates comments. Responding with positive feedback like a smile or a "good job" is personality. There was no pre-planned strategy. There was no attempt to identify if this response would impact student behavior. In short, this response is probably consistent with every student in multiple situations. Let's look at policies. If I have a policy that says if you are late to class you recieve detention. The same steps were missed as with teacher personality. I did not analyze to see if this consequence would be a motivator. If the student does not change behavior the policy is still in effect.
With this in mind I would say that the strategies in chapters 8 and 10do not have a foundation in behavioral theory because they did not analyze to see if the consequences were motivators and the original goal was knowledge based and not behavior based. I can hear the arguement right now. Wasn't the intent of the strategy in chapter 8 to increase effort (a behavior). I argue that the objective was to show the students that if the students wanted higher grades they need to work harder (a thought). It seem like we are splitting hairs but the difference is huge in the behaviorist school of thought. The strategy implemented by the football coach has holes everywhere. What is the motivator? What behavior is intended to be changed? What is the punishment if an unacceptable behavior is expressed? There are too many holes to have this strategy founded in behaviorism.
Institutional behaviorism is different. Implementing a behaviorist strategy for an entire class will rarely result in 100% success. For that reason the objective of the experimenter is to see if the motivator is indeed a motivator for the majority of test subjects. Notice the goal. In true behaviorism the goal of large scale studies in on the methods and stimuli and not on the people involved. After I review my findings and realize that a certain stimuli is a motivator I can then institute a behaviorist strategy with the students as the goal. This strategy, no matter what the results are, is founded in behaviorism because it began in research and was implemented based on the findings.
I enjoyed your insight into the true nature of behaviorism. When I read the passage involving the fictitional coach, I merely wondered how would he find the time to devote to such an undertaking, and how could they all be in the same class!
Jerry,
Interesting points! I read the biographies about the authors after that strategy. What I found out is that only one of them has spent time in the classroom. The lead author spent ten years in the classroom and fifteen years in administration before moving into research, enough time to lose connection with the workings of a real classroom. The other authors are simply researchers and do not claim time in the classroom. I wonder what these strategies would like coming from actual teachers.
Your posting, did open my eyes to behaviorism theories. I can see how your quote about avoiding answering incorrectly can not be avoided. Students answer question incorrectly quite frequently and they're are not usually any consequences at all. I can also see that if a student puts forth all the effort in the world but still does not comprehend the subject they're grade will not improve, despite the effort.
Dierdre Amey
Post a Comment