There are many instructional design and performance improvement models and theories that help guide design, development, and implementation in learning. So is behaviorism dead? Well, to me, the answer is NO. During our readings, we learned that behaviorism is based on observable external changes in behavior. It focuses on a new behavioral pattern being repeated until it becomes automatic. This helps with focus and learning, which is how we develop. Rob Foshay, stated that Cognitive psychology and constructivism have focused almost exclusively on cognitive learning (Foshay, R, July 2001, p. 1). Personally, I feel; that HPT is a process that will continue to grow and evolve with understanding people, behavior, and learning. Theories provide a general explanation for observations made over time. Theories are supposed to explain and predict behavior. When it comes to education, there are three main theories, Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism.
Well, behaviorists believe that learning should occur through reinforcement of desired feedback. My goal is to examine how the constructivist view of learning translates into a constructivist view of teaching (Mayer, R. E., 2004, p.14). You see Cognitivists think that learning involves storing new information with related prior knowledge. On the other hand, constructivists feel that expertise is individually built as learners try to make sense of the world around them. Those three learning theories are not always used equally, although most can understand that practical learning experiences should be built on learning events.
According to Learning-Theories.com, Discovery learning is an inquiry-based, constructivist learning theory that takes place in problem-solving situations where the learner draws on their own past experience and existing knowledge to discover facts and relationships and new truths to be learned (http://www.learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html). Mayer, claims that the discovery learning school of thought is misinterpreting the meaning of constructivism. Referred to as the constructivist fallacy (Mayer, 2004, p.15), Mayer states that discovery learning experts believe that the only way to encourage active learning is through active teaching. I feel that we are always trying to compare and analyze learning and sometimes get lost in what we are trying to prove. Our focus should only be on making sure learners get the proper education. Debating to me over theories and beliefs seems like no one really ever wins.
Foshay, R (July 2001). Is Behaviorism dead? Should HPT care? ISPI News & Notes, 1-2.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
Video Lecture Supplement: Curt Bonk on Behaviorism (Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B. F. Skinner as well as Hermann Ebbinghaus and Edward Thorndike). Archive URL (45 minutes): https://youtu.be/KefAapQdAHs
Debbie,
I agree that behaviorism is not dead. We use it many times to teach and learn the basic and/or foundational skills. Behaviorism may not have much application in gaining advanced skills or knowledge. Constructivism may be a better tool to use for advanced skills. I definitely agree with your last point. Many times we forget that outcome is equally important to the methods for teaching.
Towards the end of your third paragraph of your reflection this week really hit home for me. After completing a master’s degree in psychology and another master’s degree in instructional design, I have concluded that the focus as you mentioned should be to ensure that learners are provided with the appropriate education. What we have learned from the articles this week has been useful information that can be applied to our knowledge bank. Now, as people with the knowledge, our piece is to apply it accordingly. The point you made on how no one wins is true. I see the various theories as a way to keep people accountable when they share their view(s). From the student end, that can…
I also agree that behaviorism is not dead. In very early childhood, it takes a while for cognition to develop about why something should happen or not happen. Applying positive and negative reinforcement (and removal of the same) is often the only way for a parent to help their young children navigate the world. As cognitive function/awareness increases, it is definitely time to apply other methods of learning. For example, if a child will not share a toy with a playmate, the parent might first isolate the child in timeout but shortly after have a discussion with the child to help them question how they would feel if their playmate would not share. This feels like guided discovery to me.
I do not think that behaviorism is dead, either. I do believe that is part of many theories and that it could be applied to different scenarios. It is difficult for me to imagine a learning context where students do not receive some type of positive reinforcement. It helps to increase motivation and it encourages to create a more a better learning environment. At the same time, it is important to make sure that educators do not give the same positive reinforcement. At the same time I think that as educators, we need to explore new techniques and theories. We cannot have monotonous lessons that do not adapt to the current times or new generations. - Claudio Eduardo