Week 4 Blog
Theories of Learning: Behaviorism
“As a field of practice, we need to recognize that no theoretical
framework will meet all our needs, and pragmatically apply the framework to
each problem which seems to work best. Behaviorism is dead; long live behaviorism”
(Foshay, 2001, p2).
I will be the first to admit that all these grand learning
theories confuse me – especially as one tries to nail them down to explicit and
exclusive learning practices. This is why I felt a little bit of a rush when
Dr. Richard Meyer in this week’s class interview mentioned that he didn’t
subscribe to the theories, per se, but to getting the deed done using a
symphony of theirs and practices (Bonk, 2021).
That being said, I still find that I tend towards behaviorist
roots. I appreciate the fact that it is hard to know motivation of learners. It
is far easier to evaluate behavioral results. As a director of continuing education
for my research journal, I often deal with learning objectives (LO) for classes
that I oversee. I was initially surprised when Saettler (1990) mentioned that LO
were behaviorist based. Why I was surprised – I don’t know. Learning Objectives,
especially good ones, have a required behavior to show that learning has occurred.
What I have distilled from this week is that Behaviorism,
though often and increasingly maligned, especially in adult education, is alive
and well. Can we imagine learning taking place without feedback? Though we are
a long way from getting gold stars on our foreheads, can we really say that we don’t,
at least occasionally, offer ourselves rewards or punishments for tasks done or
undone?
I think Skinner (1954) himself said it best, “An advancing
science continues to offer more and more convincing alternatives to traditional
formulations. The behavior in terms which human thinking must eventually be
defined is worth treating in its own right as the substantial goal of education
(p.96). Until science progresses far enough that we know exactly how a brain
learns, viewing behavior will have to be the best we can get.
-Kevin
References:
Bonk, C. J.,
& Meyer, R.E. (2021, September 17). R511 Week 4 Module 5 Richard Mayer
Multi-camera. FA21-BL-EDUC-R511-12846. other, Indiana University. Retrieved
September 17, 2021, from https://iu.instructure.com/courses/1997405/external_tools/88994.
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review 24:1: 86-97.
Foshay’s quote resonated with me this week as well and I also included it in my blog post. I think it is important to use the learning theory approach that best aligns with the learner population and instruction. After working on the learning theories matrix project this week and identifying the key elements of each learning theory I think I tend to lean towards cognitivism and constructivism approaches when teaching. However, I have generally taught higher level college courses and these theories provide learners with opportunities to use higher level thinking. I think for K-12 and even lower level college courses behaviorism techniques can be helpful to learners.
ReplyDeleteKevin, you made a lot of very insightful points this week regarding behaviorism and its applications in education today. I wholeheartedly agree the behaviorism is still alive and well in education at all levels, despite its critics. You are correct until we are at a point where we receive more information about how the brain processes information, we will need to rely on tangible behaviors to confirm student learning. Obviously, instructional design best practices generally emphasize the importance of aligned objectives and instructor feedback which both stemmed from behaviorist principles, though now these practices are common in constructivist frameworks as well. I love Bonk's quote regarding the use of a "symphony" of frameworks to create quality courses. Every framework we have learned about this course can be useful in different instructional design contexts!
ReplyDelete-Shanna Sanders
Kevin, interesting perspective. When I look at behaviorism, I think of the instructor trying to teach the learner a behavior that the learner may not necessarily want or need to learn. It seems that we should be asking the learner what they want to learn and teach that topic because the incentive is already there. I think the small rewards offered up to the end of instruction would mean more. For those times when the learner must endure instruction as a requirement, then more should be done to convince the learner of the benefit and to allow the learner an opportunity internalize it as there own goal.
ReplyDeleteEd
There have been times in my military career that I was volunteered to participate in courses or activities that I did not have an interest in. One event was a memory study for those who had been deployed in combat zone. I wasn't thrilled to send hours completing a study. I wanted to see if I could change my mindset and turn it into a challenge. One part of the survey required me to look at 50 sets of words and choose one of the two for each set. I was told that I would have to recall those words at the end of the daily session. As I went along, I created a story with the words that I selected. As a result, I was able to recall all the words. The great part is that I participated in the second part of the study over a year later. I did not realize that they would have me look at the same list to see how many words I could remember. I remembered the story and got all the words right. I think the point is that learner can be set up to learn better if initial motivation and incentives are put in place. I think behaviorism works the best when the learner has a strong desire to learn the subject.