be·hav·ior·ism:
a school of psychology that takes the objective evidence of behavior (as measured responses to stimuli) as the only concern of its research and the only basis of its theory without reference to conscious experience.
Quotes:
I liked both of these quotes from Skinner’s 1984 article, "The Shame of American Education":
“There is a conspiracy of silence about teaching as a skill. . . . Pedagogy is a dirty word” (p. 947).
“Among the ultimate but useless goals of education is excellence” (p. 951).
I thought this quote from Skinner’s 1987 article, "Whatever Happened to Psychology as the Science of Behavior?", summed up his views on behavior:
“Perhaps what is wrong is that behavior has seldom been thought of as a subject matter in its own right, but rather has been viewed as the mere expression or symptom of more important happenings inside the behaving person” (p. 780).
Question: In his article, “The Shame of American Education,” author B.F. Skinner makes note of America falling behind other countries in the areas of mathematics and sciences, using the example of Sputnik in the 1950’s. Currently, our President is making a push for American’s to excel in mathematics and sciences. He recently stated that winners of science fairs should be celebrated just as much as Super Bowl winners (Harmon, 2011). It seems as though America is still falling behind other countries in these disciplines/areas, over 50-years since Sputnik. Why is this happening? What American educational reforms have been implemented in the past 50-years which have helped close this gap? It seems to me that educational standards do not match the everyday classroom reality in ways which have helped close this gap. The New York Times article mentioned above addresses this concern and offers examples of this disconnect in interviewing science teachers. It is a complex problem that needs a better solution.
Direct Experience: While I do not believe that behaviorism can be the sole answer to better teaching, education and learning; I believe it completely discounts the socio-cultural issues affecting these areas, I do think Skinner made an interesting point when discussing children’s attention and focus when it comes to video games. While his discussions of behaviorism as a solution to education can seem somewhat simplified (reinforcement and operant conditioning can only do so much), his comparison to video games was interesting to me. What I find interesting is that he makes note of a child’s willingness to play video games for hours in order to obtain access to the next level (or to win). I’ve experienced this personally and think there is a message in this relationship which would prove very useful in incorporating gaming technologies into education. Gaming can be used in conjunction with teaching goals as a way to engage children in learning. While it cannot be the sole teaching module, gaming can be incorporated into lessons as a way to maintain students’ attention on a subject matter.
Indirect Experience:
Skinner (1984) states, “A good program of instruction guarantees a great deal of successful action. Students do not need to have a natural interest in what they are doing, and subject matters do not need to be dressed up to attract attention. . . . Students do not have to be made to study. Abundant reinforcement is enough, and good programming provides it” (p. 952).
This quote is in direct contrast to William James’ assertions that students learn more when they have a natural interest in the subject-at-hand. James was a strong supporter of engaging students by tying subject matters to natively interesting issues/topics for the students. If a lesson drew upon already interesting areas, then students would be more likely to be interested in the (new) topic/lesson being presented. In direct contrast is Skinner’s assertion that students only require reinforcement and programming in order to learn.
References:
Harmon, A. (2011). It May Be a Sputnik Moment, but Science Fairs Are Lagging. New York Times. February 4, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05science.html?_r=1
Skinner, B.F. (1984). The Shame of American Education. American Psychologist 39 (9), 947-954.
Skinner, B.F. (1987). Whatever Happened to Psychology as the Science of Behavior? American Psychologist, 42 (8), 780-786.
I too commented on the quote that Skinner stated that students do not need to have an interest in the subject matter. As a fan of James, I wondered what these two would talk, discuss, or argue about on this point. I do believe that instructors need to connect class material to students' native interests and think you make a good point when discussing the appeal of video games. However, although games can appeal to students' native interests, do you think that there is a downside to incorporating video game technology into instruction? Could we be conditioning students to engage in more individualized, static learning opposed to engaging in broad, group based discussions? What do you think Skinner and James would say?
ReplyDeleteI like your discussion about video games. The topic of my thesis was helping students using internet in a healthy manner. But I found this was a very difficulty task. Children could spend hours even whole day on online games, watch videos, and chat. They could be concentrated for a very long time, sometimes they even forgot hungry. Connecting to the chapter of Bargh's, I think their preference on internet and video games might be some sort of "automatic attitudes " (p. 137). However, I also found when I tried to use internet as a study instrument with which they can discuss their coursework or communicate with teachers, they showed low level of interests. Children suggested that internet is just something fun to them, it is a little trouble if they had to connect their "fun stuff" with school work. At this point, I felt so confusing whether James's idea about sharing interests to broader objects could work. Do you have any successful experience?
ReplyDeleteWilliam James believed that native interests played an essential role with capturing passive attention of the students. Yet when it came to free will, he believed that the most important attention was voluntary attention. Why would Skinner think that students' voluntary attention on a machine be more effective than their voluntary attention on the teacher?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Skinner and James did differ when it came to the importance of the interests of the students. Skinner does not seem to concern himself with the student as much as James, if at all. When Skinner said that students just need programming and reinforcement it makes me wonder, who is the programmer? Or for that matter, who is the programmer's programmer? Basically, where do these programs start and whose values/interests do these programs serve? If a students' interests (or parents' interests) are not a factor in the process of programming, then this idea could be a very dangerous one.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the attention and focus to the video game rather than the teacher is connected to the fact that they get immediate feedback when using the video game. This of course we know is an important component of sustained learning. Students instantly get feedback on what they did correctly and what they do incorrectly. Skinner also mentioned that it takes a very long time for new initiatives to be put into action advancement in Math and Science during the Russian's race to space era he stated took over 40 years. So the fact that the president is still encouraging Americans today to encourage the youth to advance in Math and Science is typical. Maybe now some of the initiatives will finally come to fruition and advancement in these areas will be common place.
ReplyDeleteSkinner also mentioned that computers have changed over the years to meet the new demands but yet teaching remains the same. What do you think schools of education can do to encourage the use of technology in the classrooms, outside of technology education programs?
Great conversation here. Isn't it amazing that Skinner wrote this in 1984?
ReplyDelete