Behaviorism: Practical Applications

Climb into any circle of educators and you will see that the term behaviorism is not in vogue.   However, as I have discussed in my post “Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?” the term may not be popular, but the learning theory itself is very much a part of our every day classrooms.  I would now like to expand on that epiphany by looking into two “techniques” that we can use in our classes that take advantage of the piles of data that people like Watson and Skinner became so fond of.  I will be discussing each from the approach of technology integration (the point of the whole blog)!

The first, titled “Reinforcing Effort” by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007), aims to enhance: “Students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement by addressing their attitudes and beliefs about learning” (p. 155).  According to Pitler et al. (2007), this strategy for learning assumes that effort is not important to every student but they can be taught that effort pays off.  The idea is to show students how effort affects them by having them collect and compare how their effort and its associated achievement compare.  Before looking any further into this strategy we can see the backbone of behaviorism appear.  In it, we are going to ask students to chart their effort and compare it to their results (stimulus) in order to solicit a change in their effort (response).  In other words, we hope to reinforce the behavior of applying effort to what they are doing in our classes.

 Pitler et al. (2007) offer two technology methods to achieve this.  The first is by means of a classic spreadsheet analysis.  Students would essentially score themselves each week based on criteria predetermined in a rubric.  They would score themselves in categories such as participation, attention, homework, studying, and grade (Pitler et al., 2007, pp. 158-159).  The advantage of using a digital spreadsheet (for example: Excel) is that it is very easy to add, average, and graph data.  It always amazes students when they stop looking at numbers and start looking at graphs.  Having students input their data digitally also allows teachers to compile all of the students data together.  As Pitler et al. (2007) put it: “When students see that others have faced many of the same difficulties they face and have overcome these obstacles and achieved goals with strong effort and good attitude, they too can see the connection between effort achievement” (p. 161).  Though it may not look like it, this is a practical application of classic operant conditioning.  Reinforce the good behavior by showing students the positive effects of their effort. 

In some ways, the teaching of effort seems like it fits more into the realms of elementary education.  However, I can see the practical applications at the secondary level as well.  I have worked with several students on behavioral contracts much like those described by Standridge (2002).  However, these contracts are taken one step further as they not only use the data as a motivator but also have rewards for certain scores.  These types of data are submitted by the teachers rather than the students, but the idea still stands.  At the secondary levels there is much more room for understanding and growth, even if the curriculum itself does not lend itself towards teaching effort outright.

The second learning strategy we will look at is aptly titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as “Homework and Practice.”  As you can probably guess, this strategy deals largely with homework and other ways of practicing and applying the concepts learned in class.  The benefits of homework are not new knowledge.  The question is how behaviorism plays a role in its successful completion (note that this is different than simple “completion”).  Too often in our classrooms, homework is seen as “busy work.”  It often goes ungraded by the teacher, or at least not in a timely manner.  However, Pitler and his colleagues caution us about homework stating that: “Because it is easy for errors to slip in when students are practicing, teachers should give feedback as quickly as possible – ideally, early in the practice sessions, before students internalize erroneous processes” (p. 188).  As students practice with the content we have taught them, they are reinforcing skill sets.  If they continue to do something wrong, the theory of behaviorism says that they will continue doing it until there is no longer reinforcement or there is a negative response (ex: wrong answer, or no answer).  The key word for educators has to be “Feedback.”  It is through feedback, be it positive or negative, that we are able to adjust the track of behavior.  The earlier we can provide this feedback, the more likely students will attain the correct responses and patterns in the future.

Technology is giving teachers (and peers) more and more opportunities to provide feedback to students early and quickly.  The most obvious pieces of tech is a word processor.  The new versions of these, such as Microsoft Word, allow educators or peers to insert comments and make changes.  In this way we can direct the behavior of a student by providing reinforcements (both positive and negative).  Online tutorials are also becoming more and more popular.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, these tutorials provide instant feedback to guide behavior.  The best of these tutorials provide instant remediation for incorrect answers.  Pitler et al. (2007) discuss how students, or teachers, can provide similar experiences by creating PowerPoint games using action buttons and hyperlinks.  Even better are the ever advancing abilities to work collaboratively online through programs like Wikis.  Through these, students can instantly modify and provide feedback to a peer.  Teachers can monitor changes and redirect (reinforce) groups who need guidance.  There are many more ways technology can be used to support homework and practice, and this list is only going to continue to grow.  I also hope you have seen several examples of how behaviorism plays a key part in modern education.

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author. 

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?

As much as we try to deny it, modern education is built around behaviorist learning theory.  If you go into any lunchroom, teachers are most likely not talking about the learning of the students, but rather the behavior.  According to Standridge (2002) behavior is must be directly observed to be counted.  She also asserts that behaviorism is based upon: “Changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner.”  If you are one who does not believe that behaviorism is not alive and well in a classroom, take a bag of candy into a middle school classroom and see what you can get them to do.

All day every day, we run our classes based on Skinner’s idea of operant conditioning.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, we use: “Reinforcement of desirable behaviors . . . [and] punishment of undesirable behaviors.”  This is generally done in the manner of “holding carrots.”  Some examples may be: getting music, sitting by your friend, no homework, a good grade, piece of candy, etc.  We bargain with students every day to come up with things that will reinforce the behaviors and answers we want to see. 

Even though: “Reinforcement is the cardinal motivator” (Smith, 1999) in most classes, punishment is also alive and well.  As a current substitute, this unfortunately seems to be the one I reach for when a class gets rowdy.  Holding the class after, detention, picking up trash; each teacher has their own favorite deterrent for behavior they deem undesirable.

So far, all I have talked about is the typical “behavior” associated with lunchroom chatter.  However, in a science class, I find behaviorism as a must.  No matter how hard I have tried, constructivist learning theories just do not help with reinforcing how to hold a microscope.  First, you threaten financial consequences for dropping a microscope.  You may reinforce proper technique by allowing students access to the best specimens, while simultaneously making students who use improper technique start over and try again.  Getting more into learning strategies, if you want students to use the specified steps of the scientific method (even if you initially taught it using other learning theories and strategies), there are few things more effective than drill and practice.

Let me also discuss grades as a whole.  Contrary to popular belief, grades have two purposes.  The first, more widely acknowledged purpose is to tell the student (and others) how well they are learning the content.  However, at the daily level, these are the primary rewards and punishments we have as teachers.  Why else would students stay after school for several hours the day before grades are due to get a good grade?  They are either afraid of the consequences or motivated by the rewards.

In terms of technology, Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) makes a good case that programmed instruction, as defined by Skinner: “Is ubiquitous with online learning.”  Technology has not done away with behaviorist learning theory, but revitalized it.  In this very program, we have taken quizzes where you choose between answers and get immediate reinforcement or remediation for our answers.  When working with any piece of technology there is a certain series of steps involved for everything we do.  Do them right, and the task will be completed as desired.  Do them out of order (or have no idea what to do) and you will wind up frustrated (and cursing at Bill Gates . . . we have all been there).  Despite our belief that behaviorism is outdated and long gone, it is actually alive and well.  In fact, the technology that we so praise and rely on may actually be bringing back behaviorism rather than move us away from it.

One final note after pondering Pavlov’s experiments (in Standridge, 2002); do our students not salivate at the sound of the lunch bell?

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Smith, K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Can We Reach Them All?

As I listened to Wolfe (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) discuss how learning and memory are all about connections the thing that came to mind was social networking.  Perhaps this is because I had Facebook up on another tab, but also because of how it fits with the concept.  The brilliance behind such mainstays as Facebook, Twitter, and the likes is how thoroughly they are becoming integrated into our lives.  They pull together every group and everything we do from business to pleasure.  As teachers we must start thinking in a more web-like manner, connecting what we want student to know with what they already do know.  No longer can we rely on a linear path we like to call curriculum which starts with Chapter 1 in September and ends with chapter 38 in June.  One of the best ways to do this in the classroom may just be to start thinking more like the tools we use daily.

Along those lines, I tend to agree with Wolfe (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) that there is no such thing as a Homogenous group.  Look at your own children who have been raised in the same home, with the same gene pool, with the same values and you will see how you can get kids on each end of every spectrum.  Orey (2001) expounds the conundrum by discussing the eight accepted types of intelligences students may learn best by. Mix in the various learning styles, and shuffle up socioeconomic, racial, and cultural backgrounds and you will realize what a grab-bag our classrooms really are. How then can we teach them all the way they learn best?

The answer is that there is no simple answer.  However, as Orey (2001 & Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) discusses, one key piece of the puzzle is technology.  Technology is evolving quickly.  Though this may scare many educators, it is also our biggest ally.  Advances in technology are allowing us to aid student learning by building connections and strengthening the ones that are already there.  For example, Wolfe (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c) stresses the importance of emotional connections for retention of content.  In science there is nothing more powerful than watching raw footage and interviews of a tsunami that happened that morning when we are studying tsunamis in class!  As Orey (2001) describes various aspects of intelligences and learning styles, he constantly offers ideas for application involving technology.   From collaboration to journaling, graphics to music, technology gives educators more and more ways to reach kids the way they learn best.  I know there are hurdles to get over and hoops to jump through in order for technology to work its wonders, but I believe it is our best bet for reaching our students and keeping them motivated to learn.   

 Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Understanding the brain [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Instructional theory vs. learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Brain research and learning [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Multiple intelligences and learning styles. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

Technological Reflections

The Perfect Online Teacher I Strive to Become

As I come to the close of another course for my master’s degree at Walden University, I wanted to share some thoughts about what I have learned and where I will take my classroom from here.  To start I would like to begin by looking at the technology I have been made much more aware of in terms of its use in a classroom. 

Blogs – Though they were not new to me, I did not realize how much potential they have for student learning.  Between the coursework and my own findings, I have thought of dozens of applications for them.  To name a few we have scientific journaling, a lab notebook that cannot be lost, and a discussion forum that will work not only between classes, but also between schools and even countries.  It was nice to discover how much administrative power we can still have in terms of access as well.  Blogs will definitely be a part of my new classroom.

Wikis – These were a technology that I had not spent time with outside of Wikipedia.  I now see them as an incredible tool to foster collaboration among students.  Again, I really liked the administrative options available, especially the power to see who posted what and when.  I have big plans for using Wikis in the immediate future with my classes.

Podcasts – This was another area I have very little experience with.  It was great to find useable freeware for editing and recording as well as posting. This is another one of those resources that would be a great outlet for students who may otherwise opt out of written assignments.  Podcasts also got me excited about looking into video editing for a classroom activity as well. 

Beyond the actual technology I have been introduced to, I have deepened my knowledge of teaching in several ways.  The most important of these has to be the realization that there are many more things that go into teaching than just covering content.  In order to be an effective, and current, educator, we need to be able to teach skills relevant to the 21^st century (see my post on the Partnership for 21^st Century Skills).  We must also prepare our students for a future filled with ever-advancing technology by holding them accountable to the National Education Standards for Technology (NETS) as defined by ISTE (see ISTE.org).  These are not just more to-do lists to throw up on a classroom wall, as implementation of these will require a complete metamorphosis of the class and the way it is taught.  As difficult as that will be, I have also realized that it is a necessity on a system-wide scale if education is to become relevant again.

One of the things that this change entails is a realization that a classic teacher-centered classroom, with the teacher up front constantly guiding the students, is not the best way any longer (if ever).  Instead, we need to shift to a way of teaching that is based around the students guiding the learning, rather than following a teacher.  Technology and implementation of 21^st century skills can foster this transition naturally.  However, it will be something that will take a lot of time and trials to truly master.  It must also be noted that this does not mean a teacher kicks back and relaxes.  On the contrary, our roll shifts into one where we actively guide students through the learning instead of preach from a pulpit.  In some ways this can actually be harder than the standard model as we need to be much more aware of where students are at and what they need help with (as opposed to teaching them all the same).

Most of the knowledge I have acquired in this class has been only skin-deep; a quick glance into what and how I should be teaching.  I am not knocking the class, just realizing that there is only so much they can show us in eight weeks.  Instead, a door has been opened that I must walk through on my own in order to affect student achievement.  The first step to this will be gathering more resources and knowledge.  Already, I have found several great blogs and websites that offer many great ideas.  Perhaps more effective than independent research would be the building of a community of colleagues who share a passion for technology integration and 21^st century skills.  However, both of these steps will be irrelevant if I do not immediately vow to practice and implement things into my classroom.  I have a belief that technology begets technology in the same way that knowledge begets knowledge.  In other words, the more I practice, the more I will learn, and the more I will use them more.  Additionally, I need to vow to freshen things up each year.  I cannot be content with doing the same activity the same way each year.  After dusting off each one, I need to look at where new technology and skills can be applied.

I believe the biggest stumbling block to the integration of many of the things I have discussed is the lack of technology and internet access in my district.  In order to overcome this, I have set two goals for the next couple of years.  The first is to convince my district to begin using, and invest in, wireless technologies.  As of now, there are no wireless networks in the district.  Most teachers have a laptop computer, but it must be plugged into an Ethernet port in order to get internet access.  In thinking about student use, and the rapid pace technology is moving, I believe wireless technology is imperative for my district.  This will mean compiling data to convince them that wireless networks are viable, safe, and cost effective, especially with N-wireless now readily available.  The second goal I am setting is to find a grant in order to get more computer access for my students.  Two (and a half) computer labs for 600 students does not cut it in today’s technological world.  The best option would be access to a Computer On Wheels (COW) cart, which is essentially a wireless hub with laptops that locks.  This way the school would have greater access and they would be much more user friendly for science classes where we can use laptops in a lab setting.

I can see that this course will certainly change the way I teach my classes.  As I look back at the checklist we completed during the first week of class, I see many areas where I said I “rarely” or “sometimes” do something that I will now do much more frequently.  Tying into the goals I just set above, I will make it a priority to: “Participate in developing a vision for technology integration” (Walden University, 2011), in my school and district.  This is something that I previously never thought of getting involved with, but now see as a requirement for furthering my student’s education.  Another area I see a change is how I: “Collaborate with students to explore and evaluate new and emerging technologies and investigate how these tools can be used to solve problems in real world environments” (2011).  Technology is not always a part of my curriculum, let alone emerging technologies.  However, through programs that this course has shown me and other things I have seen and wish to explore further, I believe I can get students involved in the online community to make real steps in impacting our community and world.

Resources:

Walden University (2011). Assessment checklist for technology integration practices. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Student Technology Profile

This week I took the time to create a technology profile of the students at my old school.  I gave a survey to students to determine their access to technology at home at get their opinion about how the school is preparing them for a technology-centered future.  Check it out on my new PodBean account at:

HiSciTech Podcasts

Let me know how I did on my first Podcast as I would love some feedback!

Digital Natives in our Midst?

                Much like Sasquatch, the “Digital Native,” as coined by Prensky (2001), is a highly debatable subject.  I would love to call myself a digital native, but am I?  At twenty-seven years old, I come from a reasonably affluent family, meaning we had decent technology growing up.  However, that still means I remember playing Pirates on a Commodore 64.  My elementary days had monthly Mac lab days where we got to play one-color Number Munchers.  Even in high school, our Mac lab time was spent creating offline projects in Hyperstudio.  Cell phones were not really user friendly until the Nokia and StarTAC came out in high school.  Did I grow up in a digital world? Kind of.  For those that are older than I am, you would probably say yes.  However, if I think about what digital experiences kids nowadays are having from birth, I may fit more into the category of “digital immigrant.”

 AS we look for a clear definition, Prensky (2001) throws out a list of characteristics stating that:

Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast.  They like to parallel process and multi-task.  They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite.  They prefer random access (like hypertext).  They function best when networked.  They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards.  They prefer games to “serious” work.  (pp 3-4)

I agree with Prensky that this generally describes the students in my classroom today.  However, as a biologist I must disagree on his notion that the brains of digital natives are physically different.  Rather, I tend towards Davidson’s (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) view that while the way they process may be different, it is really just another way an organism is adapting to its environment, as opposed to the evolutionary jump that Prensky seems to be pushing for.  However, according to Dede’s (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) continuum, I must say that I fall into the category that believe that technology, like language, is learned much easier if you have access to it from birth as opposed to learning it later in life.  Even if you can learn it the same later in life, technology moves fast enough that you will never truly be able to catch up with someone who has been learning it since they were one.

As Thornburg (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) then questions, where do we draw the line for calling someone a digital native as opposed to a so-called digital immigrant?  I believe it has more to do with taking on the characteristics described in the quote above by Prensky (2001).  Take digital multi-tasking, the ability, or shall I say necessity, of having ten different programs and windows open while working on a project.  For me, it was not until college that I was able to master this skill, partly because the computers prior to that made having ten windows open nearly impossible.  Now, I have taken on this multi-tasking as part of life, both in and out of the computer world.  However, I do not do this half as well as younger students who have been exposed since birth.  As Prensky describes, I have a “digital accent” that may be faint, but is still noticeable to a younger, more digitally adept clientele.  Accordingly, I am going to draw the line for the earliest true “digital natives” as someone born in the mid to late nineties.  Though this could vary greatly depending on socio-economic group and many other factors, it was at this time that technology in the home truly became digital.  Home computers became fast enough and cheap enough to foster the skills previously described.  This would also put children born at this time at the perfect age for adapting social media once it bloomed earlier in this last decade.

                 

Even if I am a highly integrated digital immigrant, I am still going to deal with an ever-widening gap between my students and me.  I also agree with Dede (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) that we will see a larger variety of students in our classroom than we may have a decade or two ago.  This will not only be due to general technology knowledge but the fact that the technology is getting diverse enough that we may soon see student adept at niches far removed from another student ( ex: Web design vs. video editing).  This diversity is even greater at a low and mixed income school like mine.  There is no perfect answer, but I know it will have to do with a mix of general tech skills mixed with cutting edge.  I believe the shotgun effect may be the best choice, as we will never truly have enough time in the classroom to cover all technology options deep enough in class.  As more and more of our students become what Dede (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c) calls “neo-millennial learners” we will best serve our populations by introducing them to a sampling of what is available and encouraging them to expand what they like outside of the classroom. 

P.S. After living in the Northwest for a few years I have determined that Sasquatch . . . is real!  

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Digital natives vs. digital immigrants [DVD]. Available from Walden University.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Today’s learners [DVD]. Available from Walden University.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Millennial learning styles [DVD]. Available from Walden University.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).