A case for Behaviorism
I worked in Adult Basic Education (ABE) prior to my current position. Within my basic education classes there was a wide range of literacy and numeracy competencies, and it was sometimes challenging to find common levels of academic understanding within my classroom. After I taught in the classrooms at the Native Education College (NEC) in east Vancouver – the institute where I taught ABE – I moved into the position of Student Advisor in the same institute, where I worked with incoming students. Through these two position – Instructor and Student Advisor – I was able to gain a rounded view of Adult Education, and specifically, Adult Education students. What I found in my own work experience was that ABE students can come from very diverse academic backgrounds, and that there was not a common educational path that was shared by all the students. This varied academic background proved to be a challenge as an Instructor in the classrooms.
As an adult education institution that focuses on Aboriginal Adult Basic Education, the institute was concerned with creating the most successful outcome for it’s students. The school focuses on providing services for off-reserve First Nations people. There is only a 59% proportion of young (18-24) off-reserve First Nations peoples who complete high school by the age of 18, and 29% left school before finishing (Statistics Canada, 2018). Developing an effective and appropriate approach to Instruction Design and delivery is a strong focus of the NEC (Native Education College, n.d.). An appropriate Instruction Design approach would contribute to creating a successful environment, leading to successful outcomes for its students.
In my classrooms I applied a Behaviorist learning theory informed approach to my instruction. As Ertmer and Newby state: “Behaviorism equates learning with changes in either the form or frequency of observable performance” (2013). Behaviorism is founded in the student’s reaction to the environment, and the mental process of working within that environment is not paramount in the learning cycle; it is the observable outcomes. Ertmer and Newby point out that; “The learner is characterized as being reactive to conditions in the environment as opposed to taking an active role in discovering the environment” (2013). Behaviorism is the act of stimuli-response, and it forms the foundation of many of the “basic assumptions and characteristics … embedded in current instructional design practices” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). I have found in my own instructing that students are most familiar with this theoretical learning approach then any other, and by that familiarization, can be quickly and efficiently brought into the learning environment. I have found that the laddering of information, that of the “emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013), is a helpful tool in my ABE classrooms. Behaviorism is not a default choice for my classrooms; I have carefully examined other learning theories (and I have applied others in different classrooms) and have chosen to use Behaviorism in my ABE classrooms. As Ertmer and Newby point out: “the role of designers remains that of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each learning theory in order to optimally select and implement strategies that support student learning in a variety of contexts” (2013).
My use of Behaviorism in my classrooms also fulfills all of Merrill’s “five principles” (2002), and I build much of my curriculm around problem based instruction. As Merrill points out in his paper, after surveying a range of theories and models: “these theories do include first principles of instruction that are similar, regardless of theory or philosophical orientation” (Merrill, 2002). The use of Behaviorism in my classroom is a valid, informed choice.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/BF02505024
Native Education College. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.necvancouver.org/about-us
Statistic Canada. (2018). Back to school…by the numbers. Retrieved from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr08/2018/smr08_220_2018
September 21, 2019 at 9:58 pm
Hello Earl, thank you for sharing a very interesting blog. You have provided a fascinating insight and statistics on Aboriginal Adult Basic Education environment. The connection of the behaviorism theory to the development of courses makes a lot of sense ‘either the form or frequency of observable performance’ (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
The more we read, the more we realize that there are many different ways of explaining how adults learn (Merriam et al. 2007). In the late seventeenth century, the pervading view was that all knowledge derives from experience. This was further developed by behaviorists, such as Skinner (1954) who demonstrated that some forms of learning could be demonstrated by a simple stimulus-response paradigm, so that a reward could be used to ensure an appropriate response to a stimulus. I think this theory is more appropriate when applied to teaching kids and adolescent, just because they are impressionable and lot of their learning takes place primarily with observable behavior, Adults on the other hand are more complexed because of their experiences and internal events like thinking and emotions.
Also, many critics argue that behaviorism is a one-dimensional approach to understanding human behavior and that behavioral theories do not account for free will and internal influences such as moods, thoughts and feelings. It only considers what is observable and measurable, well in fact there are various unseen aspects of an individual that are very vital in his or her personalities and learning capabilities.
As in my blog I mentioned no single theory could ever explain fully how we behave and learn in the context of a changing environment. Other theories were purposively developed because proponents did find significance. It is now imperative for us, to go out of the box, incorporate and synthesize the impacts of these many theories. You may or may not agree with this statement, What are your thoughts as an educator about this perspective?
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Kendra, Cherry. Learning Study Guide: Behaviorism. Retrieved June 23, 2013 from http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologystudyguides/a/learning_sg.htm
Skinner B. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educ Rev 1954; 24: 86–97
September 22, 2019 at 2:38 pm
Hi Tehreem, thank you for taking the time to post your thoughtful response. I agree with you that all modern Instructors – given the rich history of theoretical learning theories and frameworks that have been explored and discussed at length, and that we have the advantage of, to pull from in order to inform our work – that all Instructors should take advantage of these prior works in order to create classroom environments that bring the best, most appropriate methodology to bear in their classrooms. I believe the most important aspect of this posture is to examine each individual learning environment and to apply our full knowledge in selecting an appropriate learning model to use. As in all study, there is a knowledge of the field that we can use to create a decision model in order to choose appropriate frameworks/theories and bring them to bear on our learning environments, but work of choice must be made; it is important for Instructors/Instructional Designers to not simply apply a theory/framework that is the personal practice or belief of the Instructor. In making my choice for my ABE courses, I utilized a model that would be most impactful, but would allow me the freedom to recreate that model if needed with the same students, but in a different environment. Many of my students had been out of the school system for years, if not decades, and the familiarization they felt with this model also plays a role – these students live with homelessness and food insecurity, so having touchstones is very important in creating an effective learning environment.
Again, great response – thanks for you thoughts.
September 23, 2019 at 6:06 pm
Great post, Earl. And your blog conversation with Tehreem was equally as interesting. Your post confirms the importance and value of instructors/instructional designers not leaning on their personal choice or default theory of learning in their instruction, but focusing on the needs of the learners in making such a choice. As you shared, Ertmer and Newby (2003) stated “the role of designers remains that of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each learning theory in order to optimally select and implement strategies that support student learning in a variety of contexts” (2013).
What did you think of the behaviourist — cognitivist — constructivist continuum that Ertmer and Newby (2013) articulated in their article, “whereby the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems” (p.58)? This continuum made sense in terms of my students’ level of proficiency in a second language and development as young students.
Ultimately, as you and Tehreem have alluded to, a synthesis, or combination of elements from different learning theories seems to be where our flexibility as teachers is grounded, ultimately working to meet students’ learning needs.
September 26, 2019 at 8:46 pm
Thank you so much for your comments Leigh. Ertmer and Newby’s behaviourist — cognitivist — constructivist continuum is a very useful constuct to apply to the issue of choosing an appropriate learning theory/framework to a specific instructional design instance. Another tool I find really useful that Etmer and Newby(2013) point out that can be used by Instruction Designers in bridging the gap between learning theories and the creation of instructional approach and materials is keeping in mind that:
“the designer must understand the position of the practitio- ner. In this regard, the following questions would be relevant: What are he situational and contextual constraints of the application? What is the degree of individual differences among the learners? What form of solutions will or will not be accepted by the learners as well as by those actually teaching the materials?” (Etmer & Newby, 2013)
I really enjoyed Etmer and Newby’s insights into the issue of how an Instructional Designer goes from learning theories to practical use; it’s a needed discussion.
September 26, 2019 at 3:08 am
Hi Earl,
Your thought process in your application of the behaviourist learning theory into your instructional design speaks of how important to understand the needs of the learners and adjust our pedagogy based on students’ skills and experiences. As you eluded in your post, it is not a question of what is the best learning theory to apply but what is the best method to use for learners’ to learn what they need to learn. You also spoke of shifting pedagogy based on the needs of the students.
“I utilized a model that would be most impactful, but would allow me the freedom to recreate that model if needed with the same students, but in a different environment. Many of my students had been out of the school system for years, if not decades, and the familiarization they felt with this model also plays a role – these students live with homelessness and food insecurity, so having touchstones is very important in creating an effective learning environment.”
I find your comment impactful because as educators, we have to be consciously aware of not only the learning acquisition of the students but also where they at in their life situation. This empathetic approach is vital for building trust and harmony in the classroom that helps create an effective learning environment. I enjoyed reading your blog and the comments posted by Tehreem and Leigh. I am learning from you all and make me challenge my own preconceived notions of what is effective learning looks like.
September 26, 2019 at 8:53 pm
Hi Sandra, thank you for you thoughtful input into this discussion. I agree with you that the sharing of views from other practitioners such as yourself, Tehreem and Liegh really help to open my head up to other aspects of issues.