During class, we discussed the way that students think and how they might be taught. We began by covering what behaviorism is, which is detailed in Catherine Twomey Fosnot and Randall Stewart Perry’s Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning (2005). Behaviorism is the theory that learning is based in peoples’ behavioral responses to physical stimuli (p. 1). The learner is assumed to be a passive, and will not learn unless they have incentive to. These incentives lead to learners being shaped by their environment since they need external motivation to learn. The catalyst for learning creates specific behaviors that the environment encourages. When behaviorist learners are assessed, and respond correctly, it is assumed that they know the content. The content that they regurgitate is evidence of the mastery of behavior that they were positively enforced to follow. It would be a leap to assume that a learner truly knows something if they only respond with the right answer. The conversation continued to examples of how this theory was viewed by others over time. BF Skinner, the “father of behaviorism.” He did a study that involved training pigeons to play ping pong. He did this with positive reinforcement, which awarded the pigeon who knocked the ball off of the table with food. This study proved to others that complex behaviors could be taught through rewards. In short, knowledge is learned through behavioral reinforcements. While it is a valid theory in some circumstances, it is not the key to keep learning and creating a life long learner. This is particularly important today because of the need for students to develop 21st Century Skills. These are the more complex skills that are needed to succeed in today’s world, which are not achieved unless deeper learning takes place. This kind of learning is needed to apply knowledge in various situations.
After discussing the readings and what is required for deeper learning, we did an activity where we organized statements into categories that describes the learner, describes the learning process, and describes the nature of knowledge. Then, we analyzed the big ideas, tensions of ideas, and questions from the statements. From this activity, I was able to better understand the differences between the behaviorist and constructivist theories. Since it was a group activity, it was also helpful to talk to others about what they thought about the statements and the theories overall. After organizing, we engaged in a discussion that reinforced the idea that knowledge cannot be told to someone, and be expected to have deeply understood what they were told. True understanding of a subject would allow students to transfer their knowledge of one subject to another in order to enrich both experiences. It also suggested that learning takes place indirectly, and the counter argument that if two children are demonstrating the same knowledge if taught the behaviorist method, then what validity does the constructivist method have?
While the discussion went on, I was constantly reminded of the lessons I learned in my own program. As John Dewey, educator and philosopher, said “learning by doing” is essential for students, my program advocates for children learning through experiences made for them by teachers. I was also reminded of a class I was in last semester called, Technology and School Change. Specifically, while discussing school change, it was concluded that school culture has a huge influence on overall change. If a single teacher wants to encourage learning for learning’s sake in a school that is run by behaviorist theory, then their efforts will surely fail. This reminds me that regardless of constructivist theory having “no structure,” there needs to be a structure/system that values that kind of learning. Without it, students would not be deep learners. On the other hand, one could say that that is just a form of behaviorism where students are rewarded by their desire for learning.
Personally, this debate inspires me to find a balance between both theories. I find myself back at the same dilemma with my own artistic development. During my grade school years, I was motivated by the praise of others and grades. I was taught all of the technical skills of art, which gave me the gift to represent the relationship I have with the world around me. While this kind of learning gave me the tools to do this, they did not teach me how. Which is a skill I am still working on today. For the longest time, I thought that the only kind of art was “art for arts sake.” It confused me when I was in my undergraduate program and professors were criticizing my work for not having a “point” to it. (Their criticism did not give me the help I needed for expressing myself deeper, but they criticized my work anyways.) It was not until I came to Teachers College where I began to create more works that were more personal to me and my experiences. I felt safer to do so, and am thankful for the skills I have learned over the years to accomplish exactly what I wanted. I also feel confident to explore different techniques in various materials as well. Point being, my artistic development has been shaped by both behaviorist and constructivist methods. I know that deeper learning took place in a constructivist environment, where that kind of learning was appropriate/accepted. But, I am not sure it would have worked fully in my high school environment. It also troubles me that I would not be as successful as I am (artistically) if not for my grade school education, and the many out of school classes I attended. Again, where is the balance? My art education program teaches us that students will learn the technical skills if they are able to openly explore materials and ideas with the guidance of teachers, and I agree. I am still learning about how to insert technique and skill into open-ended lessons.
Towards the end of class, we watched videos that demonstrated Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. In one of them, a 3yr old girl was asked to draw a picture of a triangle after looking at another drawing of a triangle. There was no other instruction but to draw it. The child drew an amorphic shape that had some semblance of three corners. It made me think about the ways that I could have helped that child’s development, cognitively and artistically. I would have had the child describe to me what she saw, then trace it with her fingers, and maybe hold a triangular object. I am not sure what would happen, but based on what I know about children and their capacity for learning through touch and the environment around them, I hope that it would improve her drawing. In that way, she would have had a better understanding of what a triangle is through the open exploration and guidance by a teacher. This reminds me of the experience I had in my technology class during elementary school. While I was able to find a new technique on the program we were exploring, I do not remember much else. It probably means that the teach did not foster this kind of learning further than the lesson that day. With these two ideas in mind, it is important for me to remember that in a sequence of lessons, a teacher should be recalling skills students learned in other lessons and encouraging reflection from students to get them to understand what they learned.