Behaviorist learning theory, a philosophy that maintains that a well-rounded understanding of the relationship between stimulus and response can promote desired behaviors within an individual has long been regarded as inconsequential to educators attempting to adapt to the needs of a 21st-century learner. Instead, behaviorism has been replaced by perspectives that promote constructivism, innovation, and deeper learning.
Despite resistance to behaviorism, there are many current instructional strategies that remain rooted in behaviorist assumptions. At a visible level, educators use methods to “control” behavior within the classroom or to ensure engagement on a topic. At a less visible level, we suggest that some teachers’ very inclinations toward technology integration actually reflect a desire to “control” student learning.
Control
Contracts, consequences, reinforcement, extinction, and behavior modification are all examples of behaviorist applications used in the classroom. Teachers utilize a variety of strategies to ensure that their classrooms run smoothly and effectively. However, behavior management is not the only reason for the ability to view current instances of behaviorist learning theory. More progressive uses of technology in instruction also utilize both gamification and elements of behaviorism.
This learning theory has been utilized by many app and software developers as they seek to modify human behaviors and keep them in the learning environment. Behaviorism in educational technologies could be viewed as instructional websites or platforms in which videos that explain a variety of educational topics and are immediately followed by a short quiz, after which, based on the outcome, students can assess their own understanding of the video and content material. The results are shown immediately upon completion and provide succinct explanations to help students better understand. Many of these electronic resources are constructed on a foundation of behaviorism as the students are challenged to complete a problem, place a word in the correct section of a chart, or define a section of a sentence, and if they do not immediately respond correctly they receive feedback and are given the opportunity to attempt the problem once again. Students will be willing to put forth more effort after reinforcement of higher scores (and thus, positive results). The key is the instantaneous responses and grades, which can be a source of praise or criticism, both of which are strong factors in student performance.
For example, in 2009, Leander presented four stances that educators hold towards digital literacies. These stances (resistant, replacement, return, and remediation) reflect beliefs about the relationship between “old” and “new” literacies. One of these stances, the “return” stance, is suggestive of an educator who believes the new literacies are valuable in so far as they support a student’s success in traditional literacy. In this, we need to question whether educators support behaviorist applications of technologies that condition a student towards a “correct” response.
There are current uses of behaviorism built into these digital tools and social networks that teachers may unwittingly be folding into learning environments. Behaviorism as an educational learning theory led to the development of several aspects of instruction and learning production, some of which we still use in classrooms today, including direct instruction, lecture, behavioral objective as classroom management, behavioral reward system, positive reinforcement, and individualized instruction, among other notions.
The human side
Examples of this show behavior management systems (e.g., ClassDojo) in which a teacher can reward AND take away points dependent on in-class behavior. Sounds and images reflect the addition or taking away of points, so good behavior is easily reinforced and bad behavior is also easily discouraged. The use of technology, such as spreadsheets, graphical representations of data, and correlation of data for large groups or classes allows students to quickly and easily understand the data being present and effect behavioral change much more quickly than if the student did not have the data presented in different media. Using technology to give students individualized and group data about their performance is an example of a stimulus (as described by B.F Skinner) that can provide the desired response of a student who is more dedicated during class and more willing to study outside of class.
In light of ubiquitous changes, we present the need to expand our very framing of “technology”, “learning environments,” and the associated literacy practices. Moving past a constrained consideration of “technology integration in schools”, we consider the role that behaviorism might play in our digital, social, and personalized networks that now form an integral part of the lives of individuals. What does it mean to be a human and how are we altering this definition or allowing it to be altered through technological and social engineering?
The challenge is not that educational technologies become self-aware. Much more concerning is that humanity becomes less aware, less cognizant, less thoughtful, even possibly, less human. Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger state this eloquently in their book Re-Engineering Humanity. “We’re not interested in the engineering of intelligent machines; we’re interested in the engineering of unintelligent humans.” There is a need to challenge the intersections that exist where technologies are utilized to impact how we think, perceive, and act.
For more on this, check out the presentation from Brett Frischmann below.
Mixed methods
There is a desire to move from Behaviorist learning practices to Constructivist learning practices through the increased use of educational technologies. However, there are still many learning practices that focus on more Behaviorist learning techniques, and there are arguments in support of their validity as well. There are also opportunities to blend the two theories, for they can be used in conjunction as well while utilizing educational technology. There are many factors to be considered when deciding which theory is more valid in certain practices, including curriculum, assessment, and resources. Though there seems to be a desire to shift toward more Constructivist learning practices or a blending of the two learning theories, the research and pedagogy to chart this course ahead remain vague.
There are many important factors involved along with challenges to both theories, and it is possible that these trends may be analyzed but put into practice in a variety of ways without any standardization. There is a for honest discussion and planning between educators, researchers, and developers of these platforms. There are so many factors involved that this debate seems to fall to the choice of individual educators, or these technologies are foisted on classroom teachers and students without an understanding of the complexities involved.
Behaviorism, although controversial in the modern academic setting, continues to remain a tool at every educator’s disposal to construct foundations for lessons and help students to succeed. The incorporation of current and burgeoning technologies will further fuel the debate regarding the use of behaviorist instructional/behavior modification strategies, however, these same technologies can help even the most struggling student to succeed and thrive in their educational career.
“We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” —Father John Culkin (1967) ‘A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan’
