An effective STEM teacher understands how learners grow and develop. We are able to recognize that patterns of
learning will vary greatly across the cognitive, emotional, social, linguistic, and physical areas, and so we must create lesson plans that are developmentally appropriate, challenging, and most importantly, engaging. Below are my words on two schools of thought regarding teaching approaches.
learning will vary greatly across the cognitive, emotional, social, linguistic, and physical areas, and so we must create lesson plans that are developmentally appropriate, challenging, and most importantly, engaging. Below are my words on two schools of thought regarding teaching approaches.
In your own words, what is behaviorism?
What evidence of behaviorist ideas do you see present in modern schooling?
Behaviorism claims that consciousness is neither a definable nor a usable concept, it is merely another word for the soul of ancient times. Behaviorism holds that the subject matter of human psychology is the behavior or activities and the stimulus conditions that control the human. Behaviorists conceptualize learning as a process of forming connections between stimuli and responses. Learning is driven by motivators such as hunger, and the availability of external forces, such as rewards and punishments.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is an example of behaviorist principles. Maslow claims that learning can not occur until basic needs are met, such as food, shelter, and a sense of safety. A behaviorist would say that the student learning is driven by the need to maintain these needs, ie. the students know they get food love and shelter at school, therefore they must continue to learn so they can continue to go to school. I’ve also witnessed an uglier side of behaviorism being used in school. At one of my previous schools my team made it clear that they used extrinsic rewards and snacks for the majority of their lessons as a motivator and as a sort of behavioral management system. If a student finished their assignment, they would get skittles. They did this for all of their lessons and tried to get me on board as well, but I knew there were much more effective ways to motivate students other than baiting them with candy.
Constructivists vs. the New Science of Learning
The authors talk about how many curricula are emphasizing memory rather than understanding. Textbooks will list a series of facts students are expected to memorize so they can regurgitate those facts onto a test later. This only helps students take a test, it does not help students make connections for understanding. The example used in the book is regarding arteries. The authors give 3 basic facts. In isolation they are just that, facts. They can be easily recalled but can’t be used for anything other than repeating it back to a test. A constructivist would think of all of the reasons why those facts are true, how it fits in with other bodily functions, and can use the knowledge to solve novel problems.
What evidence of behaviorist ideas do you see present in modern schooling?
Behaviorism claims that consciousness is neither a definable nor a usable concept, it is merely another word for the soul of ancient times. Behaviorism holds that the subject matter of human psychology is the behavior or activities and the stimulus conditions that control the human. Behaviorists conceptualize learning as a process of forming connections between stimuli and responses. Learning is driven by motivators such as hunger, and the availability of external forces, such as rewards and punishments.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is an example of behaviorist principles. Maslow claims that learning can not occur until basic needs are met, such as food, shelter, and a sense of safety. A behaviorist would say that the student learning is driven by the need to maintain these needs, ie. the students know they get food love and shelter at school, therefore they must continue to learn so they can continue to go to school. I’ve also witnessed an uglier side of behaviorism being used in school. At one of my previous schools my team made it clear that they used extrinsic rewards and snacks for the majority of their lessons as a motivator and as a sort of behavioral management system. If a student finished their assignment, they would get skittles. They did this for all of their lessons and tried to get me on board as well, but I knew there were much more effective ways to motivate students other than baiting them with candy.
Constructivists vs. the New Science of Learning
The authors talk about how many curricula are emphasizing memory rather than understanding. Textbooks will list a series of facts students are expected to memorize so they can regurgitate those facts onto a test later. This only helps students take a test, it does not help students make connections for understanding. The example used in the book is regarding arteries. The authors give 3 basic facts. In isolation they are just that, facts. They can be easily recalled but can’t be used for anything other than repeating it back to a test. A constructivist would think of all of the reasons why those facts are true, how it fits in with other bodily functions, and can use the knowledge to solve novel problems.