EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

Individual Foundations Report Behaviorism

Many instructional arrangements seem "contrived," but there is nothing wrong with that. It is the teacher's function to contrive conditions under which students learn. It has always been the task of formal education to set up behavior which would prove useful or enjoyable later in a student's life. -B. F. Skinner Although behaviorism was popularized in the twentieth century, it emerged as a psychological theory in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Pavlov and his famous dogs established

the relationship between an antecedent, reflexive behavior, and reinforcement that is now called respondent behavior.

Less

known, but perhaps equally significant, was the work of E.L. Thorndike.

Thorndike also worked with animals but focused on

responses to stimuli that were deliberately controlled.

Stated

simply, his Law of Effect tells us that responses to stimuli that produce pleasant results are more likely to be repeated if the stimulus is reintroduced.

Conversely, behaviors that cause

an unpleasant result are less likely to be repeated when the same stimulus is introduced. (Herrnstein, 1970)

In the

twentieth century B.F. Skinner brought the field into its maturity.

Skinner's work is a great example of theory into

practice; he moved the science off the drawing board and into people's lives: classrooms, boardrooms, boot camp, Madison

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

Avenue and countless others; the application of behavioral psychology has run the gamut.

Behaviorism, ala Skinner, is known as operant conditioning. "Operant" refers to voluntary behaviors such as writing or walking; it is distinguished from involuntary behaviors, or respondent behaviors, such as shivering or the dilation of pupils. (Ashcroft, 2003)

The mechanics of operant conditioning

revolve around reinforcement and punishment.

A reinforcer is a

stimulus that increases the probability of a response occurring and can be either positive or negative.

A reinforcer is

positive when its presence strengthens or maintains a response, and is negative when its removal strengthens or maintains a response. (Ashcroft, 2003)

An understanding of punishment is

essential to a complete comprehension of operant conditioning, but Skinner cautioned against its use in shaping behavior. Punishers decrease the probability of a behavior recurring either by its presence or removal.

The trouble with punishment

is that using it is a reinforcer for the person doling out the punishment; because it works, he or she is more likely to use it again and again.

This becomes problematic because the punished

develops a sort of tolerance to the punishment which forces the punisher to increase either the frequency or severity of the punishment to achieve the same effect.

This cycle can spin out

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

of control to the point where the punishment is tantamount to abuse.

This scenario is particularly troubling when it unfolds

in the classroom.

Short of actual abuse, when escalation of

punishment meets up with zero tolerance policies or cookie cutter discipline plans, it can drive some students down the road to failure.

In just about every classroom there are both punishers and reinforcers at work.

Examples include token economies, getting

four points for not being tardy to class, and teachers tossing Jolly Ranchers to students the same way trainers at SeaWorld toss herring to Shamu.

The effects of operant conditioning in

schools are visible in a stroll across any campus.

Students

line up to move around campus, they react to bells, and they serve detention, just to name a few.

Without fail, there are

three our four teachers in our EDUC 605 class that come to college wearing their whistles on their lanyards; their students are conditioned to respond a certain way when they are stimulated by the sound of the whistle.

There are remarkable

parallels that can be drawn between these examples and the practices used in the military.

Close order drill, handling

small arms, and physical conditioning are just a few of the areas where the military uses similar techniques to shape behavior.

Both of these cases, military and civilian alike,

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

focus on creating what the military calls "good order and discipline."

These examples speak to rule-following on campus

and in the classroom, but they do not address behaviorism as an educational theory.

In both the military and industry the use of behaviorist principles to design, develop, and implement training solutions is commonplace.

Tasks like working on an assembly line, working

as a cashier, and lubricating a Jeep all can be taught through the application of behaviorist principles.

Any task that can be

broken down into a sequence of observable behaviors and mastered by drill and repetition is a prime target for behaviorism. Military training doctrine evolved in the 40's and 50's and still maintains a strong behaviorist influence.

In business,

programs to identify and implement best practices, e.g. Six Sigma, contain strong behaviorist influences.

The heyday of

behaviorism was probably when the nation's workforce was largely engaged in heavy industry such as mining and manufacturing.

At

that time, the public education system was more focused on preparing high-school graduates to enter the skilled trades. That is no longer the case and behaviorism has fallen out of favor in primary and secondary educational settings.

The trend

seems to be that constructivism is prescribed for those who are being educated and behaviorism is okay for those who are just

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

being trained.

BRIAN LAFFERTY

Even the trainees may see a slide away from

behaviorism toward constructivism.

Research by van Merrienböer

et al has identified what they call a "transfer paradox" where the practice of breaking complex learning tasks into components and tackling them individually results in good performance on the exam but poor performance on the job. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007)

This research suggests that instruction should focus on

authentic learning that employs scaffolding to enable whole task learning.

Of course, these terms are all right out of the

constructivists’ play book.

My tone here may seem overly critical of constructivism, but that is not my intent.

Personally, I see many opportunities to

apply constructivist principles in the military training arena. The nature of modern warfare finds us asking a lot more of our men and women in uniform.

Traditional tasks like "operate a

radio" or "assemble a weapon" are being pushed aside by higherorder tasks like "understand Arab culture" or "employ the rules of engagement."

Around the office, I tend to be alone on this.

Our instructional design processes remain firmly rooted in behaviorism and recent trends indicate that change is unlikely. In their discussion of Skinner, Ozmon and Craver emphasize the application of behaviorist principles to "learning machines." (2003)

The Department of Defense (DoD) places strong emphasis

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

and plenty of taxpayer dollars behind the creation and use computer based training and interactive multimedia instruction. To me, this is worrisome.

Through my involvement in the

Educational Technology Program and my attendance at conferences such as CUE, it has become clear to me that the use of technology in education has really outgrown the way DoD is using it.

Tools like WebQuests, wikis, blogs, and podcasts make up

what is known as either “Web 2.0” or the “read/write web.” These tools are inconsistent with the concept of learning machines offered by Skinner and are much better suited to constructivist learning.

WebQuests, for example, are

specifically offered as a constructivist tool. (Marsh, 2003)

In the end I think history will hold Skinner and the behaviorists in high regard.

The strong counter-behaviorist

movement that we are in now will eventually ebb and the role of behaviorist's in educating the baby boomers will be viewed as a success.

EDUC 605, WINTER 2007

BRIAN LAFFERTY

References Ashcroft, R. (2003, Fall). EDUC 603: Communication in education course guide and lecture notes. Herrnstein, R (1970).On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 13, 243-266. March, T. (2003). The Learning Power of WebQuests. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 42-47. Ozman, H, & Craver, S (2003). Philosophical foundations of education.Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall. Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (Ed.). (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.