Teaching and Learning and the Curriculum

A Critical Introduction

Emmanuel Mufti, Mark Peace

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781441194916
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica delle scienze sociali

The authors encourage critical engagement with the practice and research behind the growing number of teaching and learning models and provide an overview of the research basis of many recent theories, looking at their features and use, before considering the overall approach. The formation and development of the curriculum is scrutinized from the classical era to the modern day, highlighting key developments, movements and theorists in the philosophy of curriculum design and providing a grounding for recent theories and practices. With key questions and extra reading boxes throughout, this text provides a really user-friendly guidef or undergraduate students on Education Studies courses and postgraduate trainee teachers looking to gain a deeper understanding of teaching and learning theories and curriculum development. It will also provide critical supportfor all teachers looking to develop their practice.

1	Learning Theories : Conventions and Traditions

Chapter Outline

Behaviourism

Constructivism

Summary and conclusions

The central content of this text is structured around the division between two core concepts in education studies: pedagogy and curriculum. In this chapter and the two that follow, our focus is very much on the former of these concepts: on the techniques and approaches which educators use to promote learning and, more fundamentally, on the philosophies and theories which underpin these practices. We begin to explore what the nature and processes of ‘learning’ actually mean in theoretical terms by focusing on the two ‘conventional’ approaches which comprise the foundations and bedrock of learning theory: behaviourism and constructivism (or cognitive psychology).

Following a common structure, consideration of each of these approaches begins by exploring the most important central features of the perspective before providing a summary of its history, development and key contributing theorists. The final segment of each exploration is given over to a critical examination of the influences and legacies of the perspectives which considers the implications of theories for pedagogy and policy and the tensions and problems inherent to these influences.

Stop, Think, Do

Think of an experience of your own in which learning has been really effective. Analyse your experience. What were the features that made it effective? What does the experience tell about the process of learning in general?

Behaviourism

It is fitting for two key reasons to begin this exploration of the nature of learning with the behavioural school. First, in dating back to the early 1900s, it is the older of the conventional approaches to learning. Secondly, its principles and implications are perhaps more easily compartmentalized and understood. The approach, in parallel with the later development of constructivism, emerged from simultaneous though unconnected work in the Western world and Russia. Within these regions a number of founding theorists, working independently, were committed to a core philosophy, one most famously expressed by the American theorist John Watson:

Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science…. [I]ntrospection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent upon the readiness with which they lend themselves to interpretation…. [T]he behaviorist, in his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal response, recognizes no dividing line between man and brute. (Watson, 1914)

Central to the behavioural approach, then, is the assertion that we should seek to understand learning in the same terms of reference as a scientist might – most importantly, through seeking direct, observable (or empirical) evidence. In turn, this commitment suggests that learning – indeed all activity – should be understood in a way which avoids the guesswork involved in hypothesizing about what goes on inside people’s heads (what Watson refers to in the above quote as ‘introspection’), a process commonly associated with popular representations of psychology. Instead, we should focus only on those phenomena that we can observe : individuals’ external interactions with the environment – their ‘behaviours’.

This basic principle, then, sets out the remit of behavioural psychology: the notion that the ‘behaviour’ is the basic unit of analysis and, thus, that learning should be considered to comprise an array of acquired behaviours. Understanding how any of these behaviours arises and stabilizes necessitates an interrogation of the external conditions which surround it: the things that happened in the run-up to its occurring (its antecedents) and those that happened afterwards (its consequences). This framework of analysis, according to behaviourists, can be applied universally to all behaviours, in humans and animals alike. As such, a common feature of behavioural research is the study of animals in order to extrapolate understandings about human learning.

Classical conditioning: Learning and instinct

One of the most famous studies in this mode of enquiry – and one of the most important early contributions to the behavioural perspective – is to be found in the work of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1927). Originally examining digestion, Pavlov had been collecting dogs’ saliva (normally produced instinctively by an animal in order to aid the breakdown of food) to examine its function. Pavlov noted, however, that the dogs he was studying had begun to salivate in response to other incidental stimuli, such as a light being switched on. Pavlov hypothesized that the dogs he had been studying had begun to associate the stimuli which had presented with the food with the food itself; thus, a seemingly random stimulus now elicited a previously instinctive response. To test this hypothesis, Pavlov repeatedly presented food to the dogs while at the same time ringing a bell. Eventually, the animals began to salivate without any food being presented.

The experiment supported Pavlov’s hypothesis; he consequently developed the notion of classical conditioning to explain the phenomenon. He argued that if a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus, the two become associated. The result of this is that the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus, able to invoke the previously instinctive (and now conditioned) response. Pavlov argued that, ultimately, even the most complicated behaviour can be explained as complex webs and chains of classical conditioning.

The problem facing these conclusions is, of course, the questionable applicability of applying findings from the study of animals – which are incapable of higher-level cognitive processes – to humans. However, in a now infamous experimental case study, John Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920) demonstrated that these processes are indeed applicable to human subjects. The study itself is subject to extensive misrepresentation and misinterpretation (see Harris, 1979, for a fuller critique). The essence of the study, however, holds that the researchers applied the principles of classical conditioning to a young child, named Little Albert, in order to produce a phobia in the child. In order to do so, they repeatedly presented Albert with a pet white rat, accompanied by a loud noise generated by banging a hammer on a metal bar behind the child’s head. Eventually, the researchers found that they could produce the fear response simply by presenting the child with the rat, without the accompanying bang. This fear began to fade as time went on; however, the association could be renewed by repeating the original procedure a few times. Watson and Rayner also found that Albert developed phobias of objects, such as white cotton wool, which shared characteristics with the rat.

Watson and Rayner’s study supports the view that classical conditioning is a genuine feature of human as well as animal learning. It also demonstrates two additional concepts originally outlined by Pavlov. First, that while a conditioned association can be incredibly strong, it begins to fade, if not reinforced, until it disappears completely (a process called extinction ). Second, the study suggests that associations can broaden beyond a specific stimulus (called generalization ); so, for instance, a child bullied in class can rapidly develop a more generalized phobia of school.

Operant conditioning: Learning and intentional action

The early work of Pavlov and Watson shares a focus on impulsive and instinctive behaviour and on the ways in which these knee-jerk responses can be learned through association. Such an approach is useful when examining how organisms react to stimuli, but it is, however, much less effective when considering more complex intentional (or operant) behaviour – when, that is, an organism voluntarily interacts with its environment. It is to this focus that behaviourist thinkers of the second wave turned their attention.

Early explanations of the learning of operant behaviour can be found in the work of the American psychologist Edward Thorndike (1911), which aimed to understand complex voluntary behaviour in animals by placing cats in mazes and recording the learning curve which led to their escape. On the basis of these controlled observations, Thorndike concluded that all learning occurs through trial and error but that particular conditions (or ‘laws’) guide this experimentation so that it is not entirely haphazard.

• Law of Readiness : learning occurs best when it taps into the organism’s particular goals or needs. Thus, it can only ever be counterproductive to attempt to encourage behaviour when it does not suit the needs of the organism.
• Law of Exercise : learning occurs through repetition and practice, and forgetting occurs when this is not present.
• Law of Recency : organisms tend to fall back on more recent experiences to reach goals rather than older ones.
• Law of Effect : the outcome of a behaviour impacts on the likelihood of its being repeated. Thus, behaviours which are rewarded are more likely to reoccur than those which are punished.

In this early work, Thorndike therefore begins to explain some of the processes by which more complex operant behaviours are learned and shaped. It is, however, the work of B. F. Skinner, extending on these foundations, which most famously established these learning principles. In particular, Skinner (1938; 1953; 1988) extends Thorndike’s Law of Effect by exploring the variety of different consequences that might follow behaviour and the dynamics involved in its repetition. As a result, Skinner identifies four different forms of outcome (the Operant Quadrant ):

• Positive Reinforcement : a direct pleasant outcome following a behaviour. In a classroom, this might be praise or a treat.
• Positive Punishment : a direct unpleasant outcome following a particular behaviour. A teacher might, for instance, shout at a student.
• Negative Reinforcement : the removal of an unpleasant situation when a particular behaviour is performed, thus producing a sense of relief. In a school context, a teacher might make a certain student feel under pressure until she gives an answer or admission.
• Negative Punishment : involves taking away a reward or removing a pleasant situation. An illustration might be the common use of detention in schools.

It is worth clarifying here the use of the terms positive and negative in Skinner’s typology. They are used in the mathematical sense rather than to indicate ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Thus, positive outcomes are where something (be it a reward or a punishment) is given to the individual, while negative outcomes involve taking something away. In addition, Skinner distinguished between primary and generalized outcomes. Primary outcomes work because they appeal to instincts or drives (such as pleasure and pain), while generalized outcomes work because the individual has learned to associate them with primary outcomes (e.g. verbal praise) through a process of classical conditioning.

Skinner (1947) devised an apparatus to test the impacts of these outcomes in carefully controlled ways. It consisted of a pigeon cage which was capable of delivering reinforcements and punishments in the form of food pellets and electric shocks. Through the use of this apparatus, Skinner was able to demonstrate how complex behaviours can be gradually shaped through a process of successive approximation by shifting the criteria on which rewards are delivered (the reinforcement contingencies ) until the desired behaviour is achieved. Skinner (1957) argues that it is exactly through this form of shaping that we learn a complex skill such as language, in which informal reinforcements from parents (such as fuss and attention) shape babbling and cooing into verbalizations akin to everyday language.

The emphasis on rewards in shaping behaviour is intentional. Skinner’s research suggests that such an outcome is much more effective than punishment. Where reinforcement encourages a very definite behaviour, punishment only discourages unwanted ones without a clear pattern to displace them. Haphazard use of punishments, then, can lead to a sense of bewilderment and confusion – a process known as the formation of learned helplessness (Seligman and Maier, 1967). Further, punishment can be a blunt instrument, discouraging desirable behaviours as well as unwanted ones. Admonishing an incorrect answer in class, for instance, discourages not only the answer itself but also the act of volunteering an answer.

A final facet of Skinner’s work concerns the quantity and rhythm (rather than the quality) of particular outcomes. As such, a strand of his research and writing concerns schedules of reinforcement (1957; 1969) and explores the impacts made when the frequency of rewards is varied. He explores three distinct forms of schedule:

• Continuous reinforcement, which occurs every time a particular behaviour occurs.
• Interval reinforcement, which is given after fixed occurrences of the behaviour but not every time.
• Variable reinforcement, which is given randomly, though always after the desired behaviour.

In exploring these schedules, Skinner examined their impact on both acquisition and extinction of the desired behaviour. He found that under continuous reinforcement, the behaviour would be learned quickly but would also fade quickly once rewards were withheld. Under variable reinforcement, in contrast, behaviours took much longer to form but were then much more stable once the rewards were removed. Interval reinforcement produced acquisition and extinction rates somewhere in between.

Observational learning

Each of the behavioural approaches so far places emphasis on the primacy of individual experience, in that persons themselves must exhibit a behaviour and receive an outcome in order for learning processes to occur. A final (and later) branch of behavioural psychology, broadly known as social learning theory, stands at odds with this assertion. Instead, this approach notes that an important source of learning occurs through the observation of others. We should note that, in taking this approach, social learning theory begins to deviate from the strict precepts of behavioural psychology as established by Watson, in that it hypothesizes about internal mental processes, which are not empirically observable. This said, however, the approach does still set out to understand observational learning in as scientific a framework as possible.

Perhaps the most famous proponent of social learning theory is Albert Bandura (1977) – though his arguments owe much to an already established tradition (Miller and Dollard, 1941; Rotter, 1945). Bandura’s key argument is that particular behavioural patterns can be acquired by an individual simply through watching other people perform them; he calls these demonstrations models. Equally, the processes of reward and punishment observed in others (vicarious outcomes ) can impact on the likelihood that particular behaviours will be imitated and repeated by the observer. Most famously, Bandura (1973) has used this as the framework for the explanation of aggressive behaviour, though there is also a range of more mundane applications. Teachers might, for instance, punish particular behaviours in order to set an example or make a fuss over good work in order to raise aspirations in a group as a whole.

Stop, Think, Do

Think about the ways in which each of the principles of conditioning explored so far might be applied to a classroom setting. Reflect on the reasons why some people might see the use of behaviourist tactics on classroom practice as limited in effectiveness – or even unethical.

Influence, legacies and controversies

The behavioural perspective on learning has had (and continues to have) a wide-ranging and subtle influence on classroom practice. Most notably, the approach has become closely associated with strategies of classroom management, wherein systems of rewards and punishments are seen to be crucial tools in shaping and moulding behaviour into acceptable patterns. Often these principles are used informally and instinctively; in actual day-to-day practice, teachers rarely make recourse to underlying theory. This fact reflects the extent to which the approaches have been successful in gaining status as ‘common sense’. One common manifestation is the use of sticker charts, on which children can record rewards and reinforcements – a strategy technically referred to as a token economy.

While the application of behavioural techniques to classroom management is pervasive – and many teachers would cite the usefulness of their application – it is important to recognize that there are a number of important problems with them. Indeed, the extent to which the techniques are perceived as commonsensical increases the necessity to view them through a critical lens. A number of criticisms stem from the theoretical basis of behaviourism itself: from the view that individuals can be programmed to behave in particular ways through the application of rewards and punishments. Most fundamentally, humanist theorists take exception to the motivation of this stance, arguing that its appeal to the ‘power motive’ – the impulse to con...