Module 1: Behaviorism

Behaviorism, in a nutshell, is the idea that our behaviors are influenced by our experiences and environment. Behaviorism implies that if we receive a reward for a behavior, we will continue doing that behavior to get the reward. Skinner believes that people can be taught using this method; by providing some reward for an action, you are reinforcing that action, so that the student has now learned it. As Skinner (1984) claimed, “Students do not have to be made to study. Abundant reinforcement is enough” (p. 952).

There is much that I agree with about behaviorism, and much that I disagree with. First, I would say that most people can think of at least one instance where they have experienced first hand or witnessed the power a reward can have over our behavior. For example, since it is Halloween, children know that if they knock on a door and say “trick or treat” around Halloween, they will receive candy. Most children would have no desire to do such a thing if no candy was being offered as a reward. By this logic, are not reinforcements actually making students study, even though Skinner claims that they do not (see quote above)?

I know that rewards were (and still are) a big incentive for me to learn. I enjoy receiving good grades and praise from my teachers, parents, and friends. I know that a long-term reward is that I will have a higher degree and may be able to procure a better and higher-paying job because of it. But would I not learn if there were no rewards? Chance (1992, 1993) and Kohn (1993) both brought up the studies that have shown that students are less likely to perform an action where there will be no reward if they previously received a reward for it. Chance (1992) argued that this is more likely to happen “when the rewards used are not reinforcers, and when the rewards are held out in advance as incentives” (p. 119). That kind of situation sounds more like Pavlov’s classical conditioning, rather than Skinner’s operant conditioning. Chance explained that providing reinforcements using the correct contingency plan (i.e. success-contingent) will not provoke the same response.

Kohn (1993) still disagreed, however. He saw reinforcement as manipulation, and claimed that “in the classroom, [reinforcement] is a way of doing things to children rather than working with them” (p. 122). He feared that learning cannot be a lasting phenomenon, because extrinsic motivators only temporarily changes our behaviors, rather than creating “an enduring commitment to a set of values or to learning” (Kohn, 1993, p. 123). If students are learning so that they can receive a reward or grade, “or even worse, to get money or a toy for a grade, which amounts to an extrinsic motivator for an extrinsic motivator – [it] is likely to turn learning from an end into a means” (Kohn, 1993, p. 124). He provides the example of students asking if they need to learn something for the test, and I have a great deal of personal experience with this issue. I would guess that most everyone in here has had some one ask them this question, or has witnessed it being asked of a professor. Some professors answer by telling exactly what will be on the test, while others are outraged that the students are so concerned about it, rather than being concerned about learning everything presented in the course. The former seem to be better at getting certain information across (and being slightly easier), while the latter may teach more information (but may be slightly harder). Which method do you think will cause the knowledge to stick around longer, if either? Is it ok to let students know exactly what they need to know for the test? Why teach anything else if you only want them to know those certain things? How do you let students know that some things are more important than others, without making the less important subjects seem completely worthless of study?

Related to the idea of rewards and reinforcement, I think I agree with Chance’s (1992, 1993) idea that the reinforcements need to be of a specific kind, and need to continuing coming. However, I do not think this means that the same kinds of rewards need to constantly occur, nor that physical rewards are necessary. I was talking to a friend about this class, and he mentioned the great point that we now receive all kinds of “fake” rewards; for instance, someone “likes” your post on Facebook, and that is a kind of reinforcement. These kinds of reinforcement seem to be the most important, and it is crucial that they do not stop. The key is letting students know that the classroom is not the only place where they may get rewards. For example, someone may receive praise or some form of reinforcement from their teacher. They may also receive it from their parents. Eventually they should receive it from a boss and coworkers. Reinforcement occurs outside of school and work, as well; I may be at a party talking about a book that I read, and my friends may be impressed and provide praise at how much I knew about the book and what connections I made. If a student is only expecting reinforcement from their teacher, that can be an issue, but if the teacher can show how reinforcement can occur in all kinds of circumstances, it seems that this would help alleviate the issue where students are less likely to do something when they know they will receive a reward. In short, you never know when you might be reinforced, so you know there is always that possibility and this is motivating.

As a small side note, I noticed that often, receiving a sticker or treat, and especially sticker systems where they are displayed on a wall, can help feed the competitiveness that James spoke of highly. As James (1899/1962) stated, “The feeling of rivalry lies at the very basis of our being, all social improvement being largely due to it” (p. 27). Reinforcement may add an additional incentive that we get from our desires to emulate and compete with others.

One of my favorite quotes from Kohn’s article is related to his fear of learning not be a lasting phenomenon: “If, like Skinner, you think there is nothing to humans other than what we do, then this criticism will not trouble you. If, on the other hand, you think that our actions reflect and emerge from who we are (what we think and feel, expect and will), then you have no reason to expect interventions that merely control actions to work in the long run” (p. 24). This accusation that behaviorism has no room for the will is what makes the theory seem questionable for anyone who does believe that we have a will. It would seem that true behaviorists would claim that there is no room for the will, and that all actions are completely automatic.

Bergh and Chartrand (1999) also claimed that many of the things that we do in our lives are automatic. They provided a myriad of studies to show that our actions, and even our goals and ideas that push those actions, can be formed from automatic processes relating to the environment and our experience. However, they also posited that this automaticity is a good thing, as it leaves our mind open to concentrate on more difficult and important tasks. They claimed that automatic “processes are in our service and best interest . . . they are, if anything, ‘mental butlers’ who know our tendencies and preferences so well that they anticipate and take care of them for us, without having to be asked” (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999, p. 476). Gladwell (2005) promoted this same idea, by claiming that the unconscious associations are a “mental valet” that have the ability to notice the patterns of your surroundings and change your behavior, leaving your mind open to think critically. James (1899/1962) also supported this belief, and contended that “the more details of our daily life we can hand over to the effortless custody of automatism, the more our higher powers of mind will be set free for their own proper work” (p. 34).

Is automaticity always a good thing? From the above statements, it would seem that it is. However, I can think of several examples where automaticity may not be good. Bargh and Chartrand (1999) mentioned the example of a teenager learning to drive a car; they start out needing to focus their entire energy on driving, but eventually can drive the car while playing with the radio and thinking about other things (p. 467). They posited this as an example of a good thing, but we see the effects of automation on drivers all the time: car wrecks. Many people lose control of their car when they are looking down at their cell phones or “rubbernecking” to see another accident or something on the side of the road. In this case, automaticity causes us to lose focus and make mistakes. I think this is a good metaphor for how automaticity could affect our decision-making skills. If we make decisions automatically, based on limited amounts of information and deliberation, we could lose focus and result in a “wreck.” It would seem that there needs to be some other force that can oversee these automatic processes and make sure that they are not mistaken.

This need seems to leave a space where the will can still have a part in our lives, and that we can make decisions using our will on the big and important tasks. As James (1899/1962) stated, “Our acts of voluntary attention, brief and fitful as they are, are nevertheless momentous and critical, determining us, as they do, to higher or lower destinies” (p. 92). This puts a great deal of power in the hands of our will; while it might not make decisions very often, the decisions it does make are incredibly influential to our lives. Gladwell (2005) stated a similar idea, that just because our unconscious implicit associations are “outside of awareness does not mean they are outside of control.”

One quick thing I want to mention is the implication that Skinner’s “teaching machines” could have on my discipline, that is, online education. His insistence that these machines can help students move at their own pace and receive the reinforcement that they need, as well as free the teacher up to spend more time interacting with and reinforcing the student, lends hope that these can be achieved using computer programs. However, the introduction of how reinforcement can deter interest makes these seem less attractive. I still stand by the idea that interactive computer programs can guide students to learn more quickly and deeply, and I hope that I will continue to see this being backed up by other theories that we will learn in the course.

I am interested to see how my reflection on others’ blog posts and our class discussion will further influence my opinions on behaviorism. For now, I will make the (conscious!) judgment that I think behaviorism and the ideas of automaticity, unconscious associations, and reinforcement do seem to have validity, and can be very influential in teaching and learning. However, I disagree that we are simply walking associations; while that may be a very large part of what we are and what we do, we also have a will that allows us to make certain decisions.

References:

Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 4, 462-479.

Chance, P. (1992). The rewards of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 200-207.

Chance, P. (1993). Sticking up for rewards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 787-790.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Kohn, A. (1993). Rewards versus learning: A response to Paul Chance. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 783-787.

Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 42, 947-954.