- There is more than one way to skin a cat.
- Many solutions makes for fewer problems.
- Things are not always black or white.
As a strong supporter of constructivism, it is sometimes difficult for me to branch into the behaviorist theory. These can sometimes appear to me as the quintessential yin and yang. Sure, I understand that many children watch their parents and teachers and learn behaviors as they grow. I always just thought that the debate going on in the child's brain as to whether or not they will act out the observed behavior was more relevant than the observation in itself.
Constructivism supports the theory that knowledge is constructed in our minds with the combined information of the new experience and prior experiences. Behaviorism supports the repeated practice of behaviors to reach the desired outcome. The debate as to where learning occurs contains two very different theories on opposing sides.
So, to challenge myself, I have combined the constructivist and behaviorist learning theories. I must admit, this was very difficult for me to do; there is a reason this quest has taken so long to write and to publish. I had to really stretch the way I think to make this work!
For the sake of this assignment, let's call this theory, 'Constructive Behaviorism'. This theory consists of three different processes that combine for optimal learning.
The learner begins by observing the desirable behavior. Maybe they are watching a video about children who work together politely and cooperatively. The second step would require the learner to imitate the desired behavior; being polite and working cooperatively. Third, the learner would reflect on their observation, the imitated behavior, and their experiences with the behavior over all.
This mash-up theory may be labeled as many things: interesting, idiotic, crazy, possible, with many holes, etc. I am okay with that, as this activity has actually forced me to look more into behaviorism, a theory I had dismissed long ago.
I'm very glad that you both reconsidered and included behaviorism because it has some truth - reinforcement learning is a fact, and punishment is just the other side of that fact and is still true. For example if I eat something bad for me, I get sick and then learn that I hate that feeling and then I'll avoid that bar of soap in the future when I'm hungry. Reality punishes as well as rewards.
ReplyDeleteBut, there is also no conflict with constructivism because its telling us HOW that learning takes place (by integrating new experiences with old ones and making new meaning from that). So both theories work together.
What I like very much about your theory is that "imitation" is there. I notice that another word that you might want to add as an "or" might be "action." For sure, imitation is a form of action, and there are also other actions that are just me playing with things, trying things out, or practicing that new walking behavior I have almost mastered that makes all the giants smile and laugh. The critical element I think is that its me acting on and in the world...which then gives the chance for feedback both positive and negative (the behaviorist part) which leads me to integrate new with old knowledge (the constructivist part). Action is indeed the bridge, I think, and that is exactly where you put it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteArgh! Trying to reply to blog posts on an iPad can get frustrating! Sorry for the cluttered deletions above.
ReplyDeleteIf you've looked at my mashup, then you know that I'm a big proponent of looking at learning theories as highlighting different aspects of a more complex process we call "learning". I think you've done that nicely with your Constructive Behaviorism. Here are a few questions it brings to my mind.
Does the repetition aspect of behaviorism act more on the reinforcement end of things (rewards and punishments) or on the selection/reflection part of the process? I.e., does behaviorism work for learning to some degree because of our tendency to like rewards and dislike punishments, or does it work more by encouraging us to select certain inputs to process/integrate and therefore retain?
How important is the repetition? If you work hard on the reflection/integration, does that reduce the need for repetition? Is there an optimal blend of reflection/integration and repetition?
I am a constructivist at heart as well. I think that you have done an excellent job of mashing up the two theories. All though behaviorism is based on things that can be measured through observation, the cognitive factor cannot be avoided, hence the weakness in the theory itself. I find your mash up general enough to apply to a wide range of learners. In particular, you stated that the learning takes place in a way that supports the most optimal learning experience. When I ponder this, I consider how information that is familiar and repeated is often easier to access in the brain than less familiar or relevant information. In this respect, the information becomes more cemented based on the cognitive and behaviorism perspective. Additionally, the learner community and feedback play a major role in distinguishing how valid the information is to the learner and therefore affects the ease of access to the brain.
ReplyDeleteI liked your mash up. It made me think more about what I believe. I really resonate with the steps you created for how the process works. I believe that this is probably a lot closer to the truth than what each of the theories would indicate. We are such deep and complex people that I have a hard time with only one theory being "right."
ReplyDeleteThe struggle that I have always had with learning theories is the uncertainty of knowing when and what learning has taken place. You address this nicely with the visible behavior coming first then the cognitive reflection. I agree with Dr. Gibson that the idea that we imitate others is important. I used Bandura's Social Cognitive theory in my mash up and feel very much that social factors often drive our learning.
The feedback mechanism in this mash-up theory is probably the other learners if I am reading between the lines. I immediately think of social situations where one quickly learns what the "correct" behavior is with practice and reflection after receiving feedback, whether in words or the unwritten.
I really like your graphic representation of your mash up! Just those simple graphics tell the story behind your mash up. The steps outlined make sense for learning behaviors. The first step of observation leads directly to imitate the desired behavior and then reflect on what they learned. Behaviorism does emphasize the influence on the environment on learning but as you did - mashed it up with constructivism the learner learns from the new (or previous) experiences. Good job - you got me thinking....
ReplyDeleteI also tend to think of constructivism and behaviorism as opposites. However, often times behaviorist learning comes into play when students are working their way through an activity totally on their own. The feedback that they receive is processed according to behaviorist theory. I tend to see behaviorism as a stepping stone that enables constructivism to work so well. Awesome mashup!
ReplyDeleteI really love what you did with this article. It's so easy for all of us (myself definitely included) to take an assignment like this and just jump straight into whatever feels easiest or most comfortable. I'd have such a hard time taking the plunge like you did and going straight for a topic that you know will be challenging. I think it's especially cool that you played a bit of devil's advocate and went with Behaviorism, which you stated you'd already written off.
ReplyDeleteWhat's great about the conclusion you came to is that you didn't feel like you needed to compromise and agree to use anything from Behaviorism that you didn't like. You just took the best parts of it and combined them with Constructivism in a way that I think does a great job of authentically mirroring some of the best ways to learn in a real environment. Not only did you purposely go for a challenge, you did an excellent job with it.
I’m impressed with your ability to combine these two very different learning theories. I also appreciate that you went out of your comfort zone and were willing to combine a theory you believe in (constructivism) and what some would argue is its opposite (behaviorism). Your graphic does a good job of describing the combination of the two theories. At the end of your post you mention that you are alright if your theory has holes. I think all learning theories have holes. That’s one reason why there are so many! I like the three step process of applying your mashed theory. My question for you would be what assessment tools you think would work well? Reflection can be a powerful tool, but are there more concrete, behaviorist assessment tools that you could add to draw from both theories? Great work!
ReplyDelete