UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
Behaviourist Views of Learning
This entry was posted in Reading Reflections. Bookmark the permalink.
19 Responses to Behaviourist Views of Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I suppose I’ll go first, I’ve got a busy day tomorrow so…here it is!
Abramson’s concerns are clearly listed in the first few paragraphs of the article: ” I hope to lend a voice to educators such as myself who are dissatisfied, and perhaps even saddened, by a revolution that neglects some of the greatest contributors to the analysis of behavior; by a revolution that misrepresents the behaviorist position in textbooks; by a revolution where traditional behavioral issues are being tossed aside and all but forgotten by a new generation of students”. His primary objective in this article is to shed light on the fact that behaviorism is being poorly represented in education, and he hopes that this will spark the enlightened educators who read his article to portray behaviorism more accurately in their own classroom. He makes some compelling arguments dispelling behaviorist myths, backed by a myriad of important and influential behaviorists who are rarely mentioned in education. One more interesting point he mentions is that behaviorism is primarily represented as its own entity, when really there are various types of behaviorism, including neobehaviorism. According to Abramson, neobehaviorists “represent some of the most significant figures in the history of psychology”, which is shocking to imagine since neobehaviorism is most often overlooked in education. He then goes on to compare and contrast a list of definitions for cognition and behaviorism, drawing a conclusion that first, all definitions for cognition are broad and there seems to very little parallelism between definitions. Second, and surprisingly, pretty much all of the textbook definitions for behaviorism are flawed, incorrect, or absent entirely. He concludes the article with suggestions for how to better include and represent behaviorist views in the classroom. Overall, I found the article incredibly informative. I have very little background in psychology, and this article has shattered my existing understanding of behaviorism. Since I don’t teach psychology, or any subject remotely related, I cannot really find a practical application for his concluding suggestions. However, I also read the Etmer and Newby article, and found the links between behaviorism and learning to be fascinating. In technology education we begin the semester with a safety unit, where, unbeknownst to me, I have been using behaviorist instruction strategies, including the use of cues and reinforcement. Much of what happens in technology education has an observable outcome, since most of what we do is hands-on. Also, the shop is incredibly noisy, so we rely on the students’ understanding of visual cues to guide their work. I am surprised by the number of behaviorist principles that are currently embedded in my instructional design practices.
I enjoyed reading Abramson’s article because it is from the perspective of an instructor and outlines the difficulties he faces when teaching behaviorism to his psychology classes. I think back to my own Psychology 100 class, which I took at UBC back in 2001, and recall a concise and neat definition of the behaviorist theory. It was a single theory, as opposed to being introduced as a multitude of theories. I was unaware of there being various types of behaviorisms. Also, I have not learned about neobehaviorism at the undergraduate or graduate levels (that is until taking this course).
I think behaviorism is complex. I did not know behaviorists are “considered by colleagues as out of touch, anti-intellectual, old fashioned, and…simple minded” (p. 56). I was unaware of this hierarchy of importance within the world of psychology. The article critically analyzes the cognitive-centric views of introductory psychology textbooks. Furthermore, Abramson argues, “textbooks fail to inform the student of the many problems associated with cognitive psychology” (p. 64). It is taken for granted that cognitive psychology is the dominant type and overlooks the contributions made by behaviorist theory within it.
As an educator, it is extremely important to critically engage with the resources we select and use to teach course material. Abramson calls on the authors of introductory and cognitive textbooks to “incorporate[e] the behaviorist perspective into their texts and bring to the attention of students the many flaws associated with the cognitive perspective” (p. 65). As an educator, I encourage my students to critically reflect on what I am teaching them. My method of instruction is not the only way, and neither am I always correct. I want my students to be active learners and engage with the course material and activities. I do not want them to be dormant consumers and simply regurgitate what has been told to them. As a Social Studies teacher at the high school level, I try my best to incorporate various perspectives into the topics/time periods that we study. History is very subjective, but it is often taken for granted by students as being objective. There are many interpretations of events, places and people. I use material from various sources because I feel that the prescribed textbooks that I am supposed to use for my classes are very Eurocentric. It my responsibility to gather material from other resources to provide a more complete and true educational experience for my students. I want them to understand and appreciate that there are many histories rather than a History.
The topic of psychology is a new one for me as I haven’t taken any psychology courses throughout my university career. However, after reading this week’s assigned articles I’ve realized that psychology is very important in my teaching career. I especially enjoyed reading about Skinner’s research on conditioning. It suddenly dawned on me, after reading the articles, that I use behaviourist instructional strategies and conditioning in my classroom. It seems odd to me that I condition my students into behaving a certain way but in reality, all teachers, child care givers, and parents are using similar strategies. An example from my classroom that stands out to me is the strategy I utilize to get the students’ attention. I countdown from five and expect them to be quiet by the time I get to zero. Sometimes I use a nonverbal cue and only use my fingers to count down. The majority of the time, my students’ behaviour changes as soon as I’ve said the word five out loud or have held up five fingers. At the beginning of the year we even practice this behaviour and see how fast they can do it. This is an example of a behaviourist strategy that I use in my classroom.
In the Abramson article, the definition of cognition that I related to the most was written by Wood, Wood and Boyd. It states that the “mental processes that are involved in acquiring, storing, retrieving, and using information and that includes sensation, perception, imagery, concept formation, reasoning, decision-making, problem-solving, and language” (pg. 64). I felt like this definition had the most clarity and was the easiest for me to understand. It made me question whether or not I am teaching all of these skills, such as reasoning and problem-solving, in my classroom. It’s important for children to be exposed to these in order for them to learn and develop. This definition also made me think about the relationship between cognition and learning and development. I think cognitive skills are mostly learned but also come from our genetic makeup. As well, I think that perhaps cognitive skill development leads to learning. I will need to read and learn more about cognition before establishing what I believe to be the relationship between cognition, learning, and development.
One last part about the Abramson article that I found interesting was that it was written in the perspective of the teacher. I admire the fact that the author observed that there was a gap in the resources available to him and so he set out to fill that gap. It makes me think about the gaps which I am currently experiencing as I attempt to teach the new curriculum in my classroom with a lack of resources and which of these gaps I could attempt to fill!
Abramson is clearly passionate about behaviourism and advocates for a more thorough presentation of the perspective in university level courses. He makes the case that it has been misrepresented by only focusing on the most extreme positions of Watson and Skinner with no discussion of neobehaviourism which considers “intervening variables” or cognitive processes” (p. 59). In his list of neobehaviourists, Abramson includes theorists who would probably classify themselves as cognitivists. There are multiple definitions of cognitivism, including “what I like” by Amsel (p. 62), that are so broad that they end up including behaviourist positions as well. In many texts, behaviourism is undefined or simply dismissed as that area of psychology that observes measurable behaviour and does not consider mental processes; no mention is made of neobehaviourism. I have to admit that my understanding of behaviourism has been limited to Skinner, his box and operant conditioning. It seemed like a rather cold, robotic way to observe people and their actions.
I was surprised to see Dewey listed among behavioural theorists (p. 57) since he is often quoted when championing a learner-centred constructivist perspective. The phrase “unchecked cognitivism that is rampaging through our universities” (p. 57) caught my eye, since I am always suspicious of an exclusive point of view. I compare this to the rampant inquiry-based constructivism that pervades the current educational landscape. In my own practice, I see many times when I use behaviourist strategies to teach – not exclusively, but it is a part of what happens in my classroom, from classroom procedures to teaching strategies. I also use apps that train my students to a particular way of thinking or action. When I teach, I observe behaviour as evidence of thinking.
Abramson cites researchers who lament the narrow focus of cognitive research which does not examine the effect of motivation on behaviour (p. 65). I’m frequently looking for ways to develop and sustain interest in learning in my students. What will keep them engaged so that they will persevere to gain an understanding of the concepts I teach? While the extreme positions of behaviourism make me cringe, this article gave me some insight into the value of the behaviourist perspective.
I find the Abramson article an interesting one for this week, simply because it seems that I learned more about cognitivism than behaviourism. That said, I made a few connections to this and, combining with the backgrounder by Ertmer & Newby, there are some questions that was worth wondering about.
One particular line that Abramson mentioned in his article resonated with me about my view on behaviourism. He said that “[b]ehaviorists are often considered by colleagues as out of touch, anti-intellectual, old fashioned, and one of my personal favorites—simple minded.” (p. 56) Going back to our curriculum ideologies course last year, it certainly made me think that way. The fact that I associated behaviourism with the social efficiency model and the widely accepted emphases on process over product, formative over summative assessment, and assessment for/as learning over of learning really made me think that the view is antiquated. Take the new BC curriculum for instance. Teachers in the province are no longer required to check off a list of objectives from the prescribed learning outcomes, but are encouraged to focus on the competencies that deal with learning about the big ideas and encouraging the use of inquiry-based learning to deepen thinking skills. Reading Abramson’s article certainly made me rethink about my own perception of behaviourism, which mainly came from what I’ve learned as a preservice teacher as well as through my experience in the classroom. It also leads to some questions that I wonder about:
– Montessori philosophy: Is it really learner-cantered? I’ve explored this in detail in my other assignment, but it’s worth noting that a lot of the things I’ve observed (and even done myself as a Montessori teacher) falls into the behaviourist approach, namely the use of pre/post-assessments and a strict adherence to a sequential learning order (especially in Math/LA).
– Where in Abramson’s “spectrum” of behaviourist approaches does Ertmer & Newby’s definition of behaviourism fall under? Abramson’s article focused on the fact that there are many approaches in behaviourism, yet there were no explanation of examples (cognitivism, on the other hand, was presented in much more detail).
– Abramson mentioned that “the definitions of the behavioral perspective are consistent” (p. 61) but he also said that there are very many perspectives “observed” by various behaviourists and neobehaviourists – is he contradicting himself?
– Lastly, where does habit fall under? Ertmer & Newby said that it is not given a lot of attention by behaviourists (p. 48) but from the examples given by Abramson on invertebrates (p.67) it seems that it falls under behaviourist views.
All in all, an interesting article that definitely got my brain stirred this week!
I would also be interested to examine the Montessori philosophy to see if it truly is learner centered.
Throughout my teaching career, I have implemented activities, tested and changed my classroom organization, planned and reinforced new rules in the classroom, and tried a variety of techniques to identify which work best. After reading the articles assigned for this week, I have realized that my approach to these techniques and ways of assessing their effectiveness have mostly had a behaviouristic approach. Skinner and Watson’s two major proponents of behaviourism highlight how learning is affected by changes in the environment and how behaviour can be predicted and controlled. The changes I made to the implementation of my practice seem to be based on observations. However, whilst reading the article by Weeger and Pacis (2012), the constructivist examples provided were: projects students learn on their own, students collaborating with others, and learning through interaction. I constantly try to incorporate these in the activities that I plan for the new generation of the 21st century. ‘Constructivists believe that children develop knowledge through active participation in their learning’ (p. 6). Reading both articles this week, I have learned that there are many different types of behaviourism and that it does not solely mean ‘observable measures’. I was not aware of the different behaviouristic approaches such as: Neobehaviourism, molecule behaviourism, radical behaviourism, and molar behaviourism.
Abramson (2013) highlights the general and broad definitions of cognition which try to include every aspect of psychology. Is this why theorists define cognition in their own way and why there are so many definitions of cognition in textbooks? Are theorists narrowing their own understanding of cognition into a form that is meaningful to them? As I read through the definitions that Abramson (2013) highlights, they all seem to have a common trend of identifying mental processes, memory, thought, reasoning, storing, and often problem solving. Generally, I identify the definitions to be very similar but vary to some degree in the angle taken, the depth in meaning, and the variety of skill processes. “What you will find are definitions of cognition that cover the entire spectrum of psychology and therefore are essentially meaningless while the definitions of the behavioural perspective are consistent although sometimes wrong when they exclude “inner events” (p. 61). Inner events can be challenging to identify or justify whereas behavioural aspects are easily noted as they can be ‘observed’.
I believe in student engagement and hands-on approach as it provides students with opportunities to acquire knowledge beyond what is being provided by the educationalist. We are all learners, critical and creative thinkers, and problem solvers. We can work together to engage in and provide a better and stronger learning environment, as well as reflect on each others’ practices, including that of the educationalist.
Problems of Teaching the Behaviorist Perspective in the Cognitive Revolution, Abramson, C.I. (2013).
Abramson writes, from the perspective of an educator, about his concerns that students are not being adequately taught about the behaviourist perspective in psychology classes today. In university, he states, there is a focus on teaching cognitivism without teaching about other perspectives. I would concur that the behaviourist perspective is not adequately taught in teacher education courses. Much of my learning and reading throughout university focused on cognitive theory. In teacher education, we learned about Piaget’s theory of development. Abramson argues that behaviourism approaches consider cognitive processes and very little effort to reconcile the behaviourist and cognitive theories. According to Constance Kamii (1979) in her article Piaget’s Theory, Behaviorism, and other Theories in Education “the relationship between behaviorism and Piaget’s theory is not a mutually exclusive one.” We also studied Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development. Vygotsky felt that behaviourism ignored the social and cultural forces that influenced people. Both Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories influenced how I viewed learning and development during my teacher training.
Abramson feels strongly that behaviourist perspectives often get categorized into one category. He does a thorough job of explaining how the behaviourist perspectives differ in methodology and theoretical outlook. According to Abramson, Watson attempted to catalog behaviour, understand human nature, and study developmental influences by using a dynamic approach. The neobehaviourists studied child development, personality, language, and motivation which may be seen as cognitive approaches and which contradict Vygotsky’s belief that behaviourists ignored social and cultural forces.
I found a lot of value in reading an article written by an educator who feels passionately about how the behaviorist approach is important and has much to recommend it as a scientific enterprise. The behaviorist perspective can provide a framework to study complex human behaviour. Abramson questions cognitive theories and the theorists. This article points out the need to present various theories besides a cognitive theory. Student teachers and educators need to examine how we may accept a theory as status quo and not question if in fact the theory is based on broad research.
According to Ertmer and Newby, behaviourists “assess learners to decide what point to begin instruction and which reinforcers to use” (p.48). When examining my past teaching practices, I recall many times where I assessed my students’ level of learning (reading) to decide the necessary level of instruction or what is known as response to intervention. I never thought of this as a behaviourist approach but more of a cognitive approach which confirms Abramson claim that the broad definition of cognitive does in fact include behaviourist theories of learning. .
I realized after reading this article and as I learn more about theories of learning and development that I need to be more aware and critical when reading articles about a theory of learning by questioning the research behind the theory and more importantly the bias that may lie within.
It is interesting to see that when you copy in your reflection from a word document that the formatting is not kept, indents etc, and you can not seem to edit once you have made a post. Lesson learned for me.
The last time I learned about behaviourism and cognitivism was in university when I was taking courses to complete my Human Kinetics degree at UBC in the very early 2000s. The one thing I do remember was Pavlov’s dog. The dog learned to salivate at the sound of the bell. This was called a conditioned response. This conditioning became the basis for a theory of how humans learn.
While reading the Abramson’s article I noticed key terms that kept coming up for each of the theories’ definitions. I have listed them below.
Behaviourism: relationship, observable, environment, objective, behaviour, learning, measurable
Cognition: memory, intelligence, perception, problem solving, learning, information, storage, activation, brain, retrieval, knowledge, acquisition, mental, thinking, knowing, remembering, communication, reasoning, language, behaviour, sensation, imagery, decision making, concept formation
While many of the definitions differed, there seemed to be many commonalities. Perhaps a definition could be created by amalgamating the key terms from each of the theories listed above.
Being a classroom teacher for twelve years I feel I understand Abramson’s arguments. Much of what we do as classroom teachers includes both cognition and behaviourism. I do not feel that we can simply define development and learning using the cognitivist theory. Behaviour plays a vital role in what we as teachers do to help our students learn. Modelling is perhaps the most used instructional strategy in the classroom. For example, when we want students to learn how to make connections we read a picture book and give examples how we as teachers are making connections with the text, images etc. Another example is modelling the appropriate use of manners such as please, thank you, hello and goodbye. It is our hope as teachers that our students will also use their manenrs. It is through modelling appropriate behaviours that we hope students will learn.
The Abramson article raises some interesting points about how psychology is viewed and taught in University settings. For example, he points out that behaviourists are often ignored or considered to be “simple minded” while cognitivists are cutting edge and forward thinking (p. 56). The fact that many University students are being taught psychology through the constructivism lens while other, seemingly valid theories, are depicted in a negative light has made me reflect and ask questions about my own University education. I do not remember much from my first year psychology courses but I do remember learning a great deal about Vygotsky and Piaget during my B.Ed. As a result, when I first began teaching I used Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as one of my underlying beliefs about how students learned. To Abramson’s point, I do not recall learning a great deal about behaviourism or neobehaviourism. According to Abramson, neobehaviourism is shamefully neglected in introductory and cognitive texts (p. 59). I would have to agree with Abramson, as I was unaware of this type of behaviourism until reading this article.
I find it interesting how Abramson argues that many see behaviourist positions being replaced by cognitive positions and therefore the behaviourist position is outdated (p. 60). In my experience, one theory doesn’t replace another but instead I see both as co-existing when I think about how students learn. The Ertmer and Newby article addresses this concern in that they do not advocate one position over another. Instead they point out, “the usefulness of being well versed in each” (p. 61). When I think about my own teaching I clearly see the validity in knowing multiple theories about how students learn. I often find myself drawing from behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism to reach the diverse learners that I teach. I believe that Abramson raises some important concerns about behaviourism and the lack of recognition it receives at the University level.
I started out reading the Abramson article feeling like I would be steered towards agreeing with the viewpoint that cognitive psychology owes much of it definition to the behaviorists. As I continued to read comparisons of the many glossary definitions of cognition and behaviorism from the eight text books that she reviewed, I find that although he tries to point out the disconnect between the textbook authors, I see that they actually agree very closely in their choice of definitions.
The term neobehaviorist seems to be a term that tries to bring behaviorist theory into the realm of cognitivists. Was this category created because much of the cognitive theory is based on the early behaviorist model, or is it that the behaviorists are trying to remain current by moving toward a new definition of behaviorism for current psychology?
Another aspect of this article that steered me away from adopting his side of the Behavourist vs Cognitivist argument was the distractingly poor editing of the article.
Abramson (2013) sets out to demystify the negative stereotypes of behaviourists, who are often characterized as “out of touch, anti-intellectual, old fashioned, and…simple minded,” while cognitivist theorists are often seen as “cutting edge, forward thinking, insightful, and entering new frontiers” (p.56). He examines the difficulties that are associated with teaching the behaviorist perspective in psychology classes, and within the broader educational structure. Abramson argues that the cognitive perspective is commonly defined as the “modern perspective that focuses on memory, intelligence, perception, problem solving and learning” (p. 62). He suggests that this statement implies that the behaviorist approach is the old and outdated approach. Throughout this article, it is clear that Abramson does not want to discredit the cognitive perspective and would rather the two approaches be reconciled. He gives recognition to Watson and Skinner as their works dominate the study of behaviorism but he believes that there are also negative implications surrounding their studies. He believes that scholars view their works as too extreme and are often deterred from behaviorist perspective.
As an educator, I believe that it is important to teach and observe through both behavioral and cognitivist perspectives. I agree with Etmer and Newby’s sentiments that behaviorial and cognitivist perspectives are interrelated and do not have to be seen as completely separate theories. Although I was not exposed to psychology courses during my time as an undergraduate or even while in the Bachelors of Education program, I was surprised that the behaviorist perspective is already embedded in my teaching philosophy. Every single day, the actions of my students and myself are the results of learned behavior. Through implicit and explicit instructions and modeling the atmosphere of my classroom is full of respect, plentiful conversions and structure. It is very important that in my social studies classroom, students can critically engage with the material, view history through multiple perspectives and carry out project-based inquiries.
As Abramson critically examines multiple definitions of behaviorism and cognitivism, it becomes clear that it is impossible to restrict such important perspectives to only one concise definition. After examining Abramson’s and Etmer and Newby’s articles this week, I will definitely research more into the behaviorist and cognitivist approaches and their implications on both the teaching and learning processes for my students and myself.
I have only taken one psychology course, which was during my B. Ed. program, so I am not very familiar with the concepts of behaviorism and cognitivism. The Abramson article helped me to think about the issue of how the two perspectives are presented in the introductory psychology classroom. Abramson explains that behaviorism is often included in textbooks as a simplistic and out of date theory when compared with the current trend towards cognitivism. As well, only two researchers, Watson and Skinner, are often associated with behaviorism and when used as examples they are often misquoted or sections of their quotations are manipulated and only specific ideas and time periods are focused upon to help condemn behaviorism (p. 58). Abramson points out that there is a wide range of theorists associated with behaviorism that are often omitted, which have contributed to and deepened this theory over time. Various perspectives have been developed from behaviorism, such as neo-behaviorism, and have been overlooked as the focus on textbooks is on the cognitivism perspective. He also notes that cognitivism is often presented as a replacement of, or in conflict with behaviorism when “there have been attempts to reconcile the two perspectives” (p. 60). Abramson argues that without a proper study of the history and scope of psychology and of alternative perspectives to the current trend towards cognitivism that students will not properly understand the development of this scientific field (p. 61).
This trend towards cognitivism and away from behaviorism makes me think of the conversation I was having with Jenn and Joti in our first class about educational and learning trends in the classroom. Jenn pointed out the ebb and flow of whole language versus a phonics approach in a language arts classroom. They are often viewed as two opposing approaches to reading and that a teacher chooses one way or the other. As Abramson points out that behaviorism and cognitivism can in fact be reconciled, both whole language and phonics actually can work together to give a reader a more solid understanding of written language and one should not be disregarded for the other.
Just as psychology textbooks need to include a broader scope of sources and perspectives about the history of the field, I also need to consider this as an elementary teacher when choosing how to approach a concept or subject with my students. With the implementation of the new B.C. curriculum that promotes inquiry based learning, I need to consider several resources and show my students that reliance on one perspective, text, definition or explanation is not reliable to gain a comprehensive understanding of a concept. It is important for myself as the teacher and for my students, even at the primary grade level, to think critically about where the information is coming from and to look at many sources to help them gain a broader perspective.
I really liked how this article was written from the view point of an educator and it helped me appreciate and understand Abramson’s struggle. His article supposedly focuses primarily on teaching the behaviorist perspective in psychology classes. It provides popular behaviorist names, various definitions for cognition and suggestions to instructors but I found the article focused more on cognition than behaviorism. I believe the only time I have taken a psychology course has been in my education program year which took place fourteen years ago. I do not recall doing a lot of readings but I believe it too focused more on cognition than behaviorism.
Connecting this article to my own practice, I reflected and found I focus on behaviorism at the beginning of the school year and on cognition soon after. Particularly this year, I have been stricter which is bizarre because usually I am the teacher with the chaotic class and my neighboring teachers are extremely orderly. Or maybe their teaching methods and behaviors are influencing my practice?!
Abramson said he hopes “to lend a voice to educators such as myself who are dissatisfied … by a revolution where traditional behavioral issues are being tossed aside and all but forgotten by a new generation of students” (p. 55-56). This part stood out for me and I disagree. Society and social norms change over time; therefore, we accept different behaviors over time. For example, children use to stand up when a teacher or adult entered the room, nowadays children stay seated and greet the guest from their seat. At the end of the article I felt I needed to learn and read more about behaviorist perspective and cognition revolution to understand fully the differences between the two.
Abramson’s despair of behaviorism being incorrectly defined by introductory psychology texts is a novel approach to an academic article for me (I do understand that this is a personal reflection).
He complains that behaviourist theory is not done justice by introductory professors and textbooks, within a “cognitive revolution”. I do think his assertions are important to clarify within the academic community. Clearly, he wrote this article out of frustration and sadness that students would not be exposed to all of the facets and authors contributing to behaviorist theory. His argument for students to be presented with all of the information and authors that contribute to the definitions of these terms is compelling. Why is that NOT occurring? Which agenda(s) is/are being served by leaving information out of first year textbooks?
His argument that behaviorism is being presented as a “traditional” and therefore old school approach that is thrown to the wayside by his colleagues reminds me directly of a few articles I read recently regarding academic and intellectual freedoms.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/welcome-to-college-and-the-thought-police/article31800325/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/29/u-chicago-letter-new-students-safe-spaces-sets-intense-debate#.V9i8HCuYr2U.twitter
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt/
While not addressing all of the issues presented by the letter in question, I will address the idea of academic and intellectual freedom.
(For those of you who haven’t read these articles, John Ellison, Dean of students at the University of Chicago, recently sent out a letter to new students has received much criticism in the academic community. The letter addresses the University’s commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. “Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.” Further, “….we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we don not condone the creation of intellectual “ safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”)
Through Abramson’s article, one can assert that his frustration is a result of a lack of alternative perspectives in this “cognitive revolution”. This speaks to academic freedom and the stifling of alternative perspectives that fuel academic debate.
“I am sure that I am not voicing the popular opinion but it is a real intellectual tragedy, and I would further say intellectually dishonest, that students are not exposed to an accurate account of the behaviorist perspectives in introductory and cognitive classes. Those readers, who teach psychology courses from the behaviorist perspective like me, find it difficult to provide students with materials that adequately and fairly present alternative perspectives. This is a serious issue because it affects the training of the next generation of students.” (p. 61)
“Yet in the preliminary comments, the cognitive perspective is defined as “Modern perspective that focuses on memory, intelligence, perception, problem solving and learning.” The reader can only assume that by using the word “modern” the authors of the text believe that the behaviorist approach is antiquated.” (p. 62).
“As [Jonathan Haidt] has documented, university culture (outside the sciences and technical schools) is increasingly a monoculture, dominated by a class of self-perpetuating ultraprogressives.” from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/29/u-chicago-letter-new-students-safe-spaces-sets-intense-debate#.V9i8HCuYr2U.twitter
Again, who’s interests are being served by limiting the perspectives presented on behaviorism in introductory psychology courses?
As Abramson says, it does seriously affect future generations studying at universities, if alternative perspectives and ideas are not presented in an accurate way. What type of students are being produced at the end of a 4 year bachelor’s program? Which messages are they taught to convey and why?
In the end, I do agree with Angela that new theories are developed over time and societal norms change. I feel that there is still room for debate and discussion in the academic community afforded by freedom of thought and opinion offered through study at a university level. I felt this was an interesting way of presenting an article and I need to do some further research before I add these two ideas to my C-map.
Reflection on Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from and Instructional Design Perspective (Peggy A. Ertmer and Timothy J. Newby) and Problems of Teaching the Behaviourist Perspective in the Cognitive Relolution (Charles, I Abramson).
In this weeks readings we look at how knowledge is acquired, Behaviorism theory, and Cognition theory. According to Ertmer and Newby, in behaviorism, learning occurs when a proper response is demonstrated to la specific environmental stimulus. The learner reacts to conditions in the environment rather than take and active role in the discovery of the environment. The environmental conditions are very important to learning. Without having a strong understanding of each theory it is hard to be overly reflective. I was reading and collecting information about both theories. My understanding of cognition is that it s the mental action or acquiring knowledge. In the second paper, Abramson gives a passionate, comprehensive explanation about the problems of teaching the behaviorist perspective in cognitive theory. Abramson explained how he felt that the behaviorist perspective was “misrepresented” in the cognitive revolution and that “traditional behavioral issues are being tossed aside and all but forgotten by a new generation of students” (Abramson, p.56) Behaviorism is more than observable behavior. He also feels current definition of cognition is too broad and without meaning and has overshadowed the behaviorist contribution to psychology. Cognition seen as “cutting edge and forward thinking”, but behaviorism is criticized and seen as “out of touch” or “old fashioned”. The ideas of behaviorist scholars are still “vital”. Skinner and many other behaviorist’s ideas are given little or no consideration. All the ideas from the behaviorist approach cannot be lumped together as one. There are various approaches to behaviorism. Behaviorism “can still provide a framework to study complex human behavior”. There are so many definitions of cognition they become broad and meaningless. In contrast to behaviorism, here is no consensus in understanding what is cognition. Abramson cautions us to be aware of “the many flaws associated with the cognitive perspective” (p.65) and to be aware of generalizations and that there needs to be a better job done of presenting the behaviorist approaches to theory construction.
Learning this viewpoint is something we need to be aware of because as we write our human development theory we need to beware of the multiple perspectives and of where knowledge comes from. In our research we will be looking at our practice as classroom teachers and choosing the appropriate learning theory that works with how we teach. We also need to reflect on how do people come to know things.
I know very little about behaviourism. Aside from taking psychology 100 many, many years ago, I would agree with Abramson that my understanding of behaviourism is limited to Skinner, and Pavlov’s work around conditioned responses.
What stood out to me in both the Abramson and Weeger/Pacis articles are the distinctions between definitions of cognition and behaviourism. The various definitions of cognition seem to focus on mental processes, while definitions of behaviour focus on observations of behaviour. How do you separate behaviours from what is observable and the mental process? Isn’t what is observable the result of mental process (whether the behaviour is unconscious or intentional)?
“Skinner expressed no interest in understanding how the human mind functioned… [he] was concerned with how behaviour is affected by external forces. Skinner believed that everything human beings do is controlled by their experiences” (Weegar and Pacis, p. 5). While I agree that external stimuli impact our behaviour, I still struggle to see how the cognitive and behavioural processes are not inextricably linked. If someone honks at me for cutting them off while driving, it may impact my behaviour to not do it again. However, I also think that is the result of what I think about the situation – therefore linking cognition and behaviour.
For this reflection, I read the Abramson and the Weegar and Pacis article. I found the connections between the two articles to be interesting. Weegar and Pacis demonstrate to a degree the critique put forward by Abramson. However, they (Weegar and Pacis) also are more successful than Abramson in illustrating a number of ways that behaviorism is relevant in modern approaches to psychology and education.
Abramson’s critique focuses on two ideas: that behaviorism is oversimplified and misrepresented, and that cognition is not clearly defined (or defined in too many different ways), which makes it unchallengeable. In response to his first critique, I find it interesting that although he lists a large number of studies, approaches (i.e. neo-behaviorism), and researchers that he asserts demonstrate how it is unjustified to represent behaviorism with only the early research of Watson and Skinner, he doesn’t describe any of these in detail. I finished the article without a clear understanding of how these approaches demonstrated increased depth in the behaviorist approach.
Abramson’s second critique looks at the lack of a clear definition of cognition. I find this to initially sound like a valid critique. However, the examples given of various definitions do not seem sufficiently different to claim they are not in agreement. “The mental processes that are involved in acquiring, storing, retrieving, and using information…” (61), “Mental activities involved in acquiring, storing, retrieving, and using knowledge” (62), and “All processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used” (62) seem to be pretty similar definitions. Clear examples demonstrating the disagreement between definitions are not given. Abramson goes on to state that definitions of cognition are so broad as to cover the entire scope of psychological study, making it impossible to refute them. I find this to be an interesting critique, but I would like to see more examples to illustrate the point. Perhaps Abramson’s intended audience would have more knowledge of the references cited, such that describing the examples would be unnecessary.
In the Weegar and Pacis article, I found the initial description of behaviorism to be a clear example of Abramson’s critique. Weegar and Pacis define behaviorism by referring only to the work of Watson and Skinner. They then go on to critique the simplicity of behaviorism. Their critique seems to rely heavily on secondary resources, citing the analyses of other writers, rather than making their own analysis. This validates Abramson’s critique that behaviorism is not given a fair chance; by relying on secondary analyses, Weegar and Pacis dismiss the possibility that behaviorism is more than what those sources saw.
What I really appreciated in the Weegar and Pacis article was the clear explanation of what behaviorism is, and the number of examples given of how behaviorism is and can be applied in modern educational settings. The clear examples helped me to understand what the behaviorist approach looks like when applied. It helped me to understand how behaviorism is not outdated or useless, but is simply one useful component of a rich, diverse pedagogical approach.