In “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching”, Skinner (1954) argued that the shortcomings of the educational system could be repaired by switching from reliance on aversive control, i.e., “the teacher’s displeasure, the criticism or ridicule of his classmates, an ignominious showing in a competition, low marks, a trip to the office ‘to be talked to’ by the principal, or a word to the parent who may still resort to the birch rod” (p. 90) to the systematic use of positive reinforcement.
Skinner’s account of the learning process was through that of a behavioristic lens, where students learned arithmetic by acquiring a sequence of written or spoken verbal behaviors (1954, p. 90). His understanding of the learning process aligned with that of the empiricist view, that saw the process of learning as the forming and strengthening of cognitive or stimulus-response (S-R) associations. Under this perspective, knowledge is generated by exposure to pattern; efficiently recognizing and responding to pattern; and recognizing patterns in other contexts.
Similarly, Skinner’s account of learner motivation and its role in the learning environment aligned with that of the empiricist view, where motivation was understood to be a function of how the external environment rewarded or punished routines of activity needed for learning to occur. To this end, he argued that curriculum be redesigned to increase students’ production of correct answers and the number of positive, instantaneous reinforcements that they would receive.
Skinner’s (1954) account of the learning process and learner motivation contrasts with the constructivist view. In contrast to the behaviorist, or empiricist, perspective the constructivist perspective views the process of learning as engaging in an active process of making sense of the environment, whereby the mind applies existing or develops new structures, or schemas, to make sense of, or accommodate, new information. The constructivist view of motivation is that of a natural intrinsic tendency to make sense of the work seeking consistency and coherence. Motivation is presumed to be diminished by the presentation of extrinsic rewards or punishment.
Foshay (2001) brings to light some important questions for instructional design or HPT practitioners in light of decades of evolution in learning theory: Is behaviorism dead? Should HPT abandon behaviorism and move on? Or should HPT practitioners even care?
He puts it well for practitioners in stating: “As a field of practice, we need to recognize that no theoretical framework will meet all our needs, and pragmatically apply the framework to each problem which seems to work best” (p. 2).
In what ways have you grappled with behaviorist and constructivist perspectives of learning and motivation? How do you apply these theoretical frameworks in accordance with performance problems in your practice?
References:
Foshay, R (July 2001). Is Behaviorism dead? Should HPT care? ISPI News & Notes, 1-2.
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review 24:1: 86-97.
Andrew R. Claassen 
A little bit of positivity goes a long way when learning a new topic or skill. Even as adults, we like to celebrate the wins. A positive remark by our boss, an A on a paper, and even a compliment from a stranger leave us feeling more confident and open to new things. Like the example Dr. Bonk gave in class– if a child is told they are terrible at reading at a young age, they may avoid reading in the future and therefore, and may never become a great reader. If the small wins were celebrated, that same child could have had the confidence to keep trying and overcome!
LikeLike
Behaviorism sometimes seems brutal and seems to have significantly simplified the motives of human behavior. However, it is also true that this theory can explain the most fundamental part of the motive for human behavior. Indeed, we are strengthened by compensation and weakened by punishment. However, such simple logic of stimuli and responses cannot fully explain all of the complex processes we call learning. Behaviorism is particularly effective in dealing with details and peripheral aspects of education. For example, generating cues needed in the instruction could be well-designed using such theories.
LikeLike