Behaviourism
OVERVIEW
At its most simple, behaviourism asks: Can it (the behaviour) be quantifiably observed? Only that which can be is considered important. The theory has suffered under the scrutiny of questions like: How do we ‘observe’ thoughts and emotions? Through facial expressions and words, of course - but how often do these truly represent the full scope of the depth of the human experience from moment to moment? The issue becomes even more complex when we ask: Are only observable online behaviours the measure of learning?
So while this theory may at first seem counter-productive to Online Learning Theory, one could argue that it has laid some important foundations, as Patricia Deubel (2003) writes:
“Although instructional systems technology began rejecting many behaviorist assumptions in the 1980s in favor of the cognitivist view (Jonassen, 1991), the theory is the basis for innovations such as computer assisted instruction, mastery learning, minimal competency testing, educational accountability, situated cognition, and even social constructivism” (p 65).
Behaviourism believes that all human responses are the result of stimuli, and that no matter how complex the reaction, it can be traced back to some form of conditioning that has constructed said response. The work of Pavlov influenced two other major thinkers in this field: B.F. Skinner and John B. Watson, who extrapolated the infamous ‘bell and dog’ experiment into human contexts. In an educational context, it is the systems of contracts, consequences, reinforcement, extinction, and behavior modification that are most commonly used (Standridge, 2002).
It’s important to note that while behaviourists believe in the role of stimuli, learners are not seen as passive receivers of content, but that their individual past experiences play a major role in how they engage with learning; and that their engagement can change with intervention (Standridge, 2002). So while some parents and teachers might fear that the internet turns students into zombies, a creative behaviourist could still find value in capitalizing on digital platorms for learning!
Implications for Online Learning Theory
So how does Online Learning Theory work in conjunction with behaviourism? The answer is: with a little creativity! Since behaviourism only looks for observable behaviours - and we all know that a lot of what we do online isn’t easily observed (especially interaction), the two might not seem to be a good fit. However, the frameworks suggested in Anderson (2008) can still be applied to help get students where we want them to be through the use of behaviourism.
Learner-Centered
While behaviourism might not tout the idea that it is the content which should change in response to the student, the use of contracts can help to bring students into the conversation about what can be done to correct the behaviours that may be obstructing learning. A contract can be drawn up collaboratively online, which works nicely with Anderson’s (2008) ideas about “content that is created, augmented and annotated through student and teacher use” (p. 66). A contract may even be that agreement that certain forms of online interaction or use may be allowed once desireable behaviours are observed - although the limits a teacher can put on such online use outside of class are perhaps impossible to assess.
Another behaviourist approach is consequences - either negative or positive. The use of positive feedback could include: students and teacher comments on a blog or digital rough draft, a like or a share, a retweet or reblog - etc. Positive reinforcement and consequences are much easier to imagine through online learning, as the platforms assume there will be some form of interaction - which all add something! Negative reinforcement or consequences (the subtraction of something) may not be as applicable to OLT.
Knowledge-Centered
As described by Ertmer & Newby, behaviourism emphasizes a set number of principles for instructional design:
♦ An emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in students [behavioral objectives, task analysis, criterion-referenced assessment]
♦ Pre-assessment of students to determine where instruction should begin [learner analysis]
♦ Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance [sequencing of instructional presentation, mastery learning]
♦ Use of reinforcement to impact performance [tangible rewards, informative feedback]
♦ Use of cues, shaping and practice to ensure a strong stimulus response association [simple to complex sequencing of practice, use of prompts]
Although this list may make many (current and former) students think back to lectures, flashcards, drill practices, and check-marks - Online Learning Theory allows for greater diversity and interaction in the delivery of these activities. Some examples may include:
-
co-creation of success criteria using a Google document;
-
editing a wiki for an introduction to simple coding prior to taking the leap to more independent website-building;
-
flipping lessons with gradually more challenging content and activities that teachers provide timely feedback on in class.
-
using live quizzes (like Kahoot! and Quizlet) where students chime-in on their wireless devices in a game-show style format
Deubel (2003) outlines the construction of knowledge in behaviourism in the following manner: “Material is broken down into small, logically discrete instructional steps and is often presented as a rule, category, principle, formula, or definition. Positive examples are given to reinforce understanding, followed by negative examples to establish conceptual boundaries” (p. 66). Any of the preceding techniques would facilitate this, and the incredible vastness of internet material could provide exemplars for teachers without their needing to create one themselves.
Community-Centered
As Anderson (2008) describes it, community-centered learning encourages students to work together towards learning, which does not lend itself immediately to the traditional behaviourist methodology that primarily values the leader/teacher role.
Perhaps the best lens through which we can imagine behaviourist theory being applied to OLT is when we imagine the chance for collaboration through the progression of specially sequenced activities. “Designers write sequences of prespecified formal instructions with conditional or unconditional branching to later/earlier parts of the program and specify branching choices at predetermined points in the program” (Deubel, 2003, p. 66). This model breaks down, unfortunately, when members within that learning community begin to distance themselves in achievement and some are permitted to progress to the next ‘stage’ and some must stay and repeat the task until satisfactory achievement is displayed. It could be argued this is a key reason why behaviourism has been less favoured since the 1980s, losing popularity to theories like cognitivism (Deubel, 2003, p. 65).
Assessment-Centered
The great news for behaviourists is that assessment-centered learning fits well with this model, as it is easy to provide the learner with timely feedback that corrects them towards the desired outcome. Whether it is through a program that has a particular path in mind, or a teacher who can use a variety of platforms or apps to check in on student work, the meeting of explicitly-defined standards is made much easier. “Atkins (1993) concluded that a structured, deductive approach to design multimedia applications can lead to rapid acquisition of basic concepts, skills, and factual information within a clear framework” (Deubel, 2003, p. 66). Unfortunately, the question of whether even ‘just-in-time’ (Anderson, 2008, p. 66) feedback helps facilitate higher-level learning is as of yet unanswered (Deubel, 2003, p. 66).
Want to comment on or add anything to the discussion on this page? Please do! We'd love to hear from you!