While the behaviorist theory has been practiced for centuries with students, it wasn’t until John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner identified the approaches to learning. “Watson believed that human behavior resulted from specific stimuli that elicit certain responses.” (Orey, p2., 2001) “Expanding on Watson’s basic stimulus-response model, Skinner developed a more comprehensive view of conditioning, known as operant conditioning. His model was based on the premise that satisfying responses are conditioned, while unsatisfying ones are not.” (Orey, p 2, 2001) In a very recent staff meeting on working with autistic children, it was pointed out that a strategy to handle students that challenge the teacher was to give the student two choices with one having a positive consequence and one negative. Teachers reward and punish students to strive to achieve desired behaviors every day.
Using technology in the classroom can follow the behaviorist theory, depending on the particular program, and way, in which it is utilized. There are many programs that provide enrichment and practice for students that could be said to reward them for positive responses. Programs such as Scootpad, provide teachers the opportunity to allow students to work in a variety of subject areas to show mastery of standards. Students earn coins for each correct answer, which can be used to purchase backgrounds or extra games that can be played. Students get instant feedback and strive to get more correct answers than incorrect ones to earn the positive rewards. These types of programs reinforce behaviorism while doing the same for standards that students have been taught. “Well-made software programs allow teachers to choose which learning objectives students need to practice, offer sophisticated and seamless multimedia to keep the learner engaged, and provide immediate feedback and scaffolding in order to help students understand and practice a concept.” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, p174, 2012) This is just one of the programs that are utilized in my classroom to enhance learning.
Many of the technologies I have already implemented into my daily routines are intended to capitalize on enhancing the learning goals based on the required standards. Students are using Google products to create examples of their learning, such as reports and stories that are written on a Google Doc and even peer edited. The student use of the Ipad is determined by their willingness to complete assignments, use it appropriately, and follow simple rules. Their choices determine whether they receive negative or positive consequences, which is an age old behaviorist practice. Other programs, such as Spellingcity and Edcite, are practice and testing sites that allow students practice time and then the ability to take assessments. Students are given immediate feedback that shares how successful they have been. Recently, I introduced the concept of using blog sites to post student work, to provide them with more incentive to work harder on their writing skills, as their work is for more than just the teacher to read. As I choose technologies, such as these and others, an overall determining factor becomes how they meet the technology standards as outlined in ISTE and my state’s standards.
Those standards are for both the teacher and the student to master with the use of technologies. Sites like Spellingcity and Edcite help teachers assess and collect data on student mastery of content standards. While the immediate feedback is behaviorist in nature, sites such as these do little to meet the ISTE standards for students. Lessons in my class involve student research, collaboration, and the use of technology to create a demonstration of the knowledge they have gained. The new ISTE standards state that students need to be empowered learners, who are good digital citizens that construct using technology evidence of knowledge through innovative design, all while being a global communicator that communicates creatively and develops into a computational thinker. (ISTE for Students, 2016)
As I move into the future, my main concern is to continue to guide my students into critical thinkers that can solve problems and demonstrate their mastery of the expectations they are faced with required content standards. As Laura Moorhead points out in her blog titled, There’s no app for good teaching, when quoting Punya Mishra, “At the start and end of each school day, ask: What’s the pedagogical goal? ‘What we’re doing in schooling and in teaching is trying to convey content knowledge, whether it’s music, art or math.’” (Moorhead, p3, 2014) Whether I incorporate methods of Genius Hour, or Hour of Code, all technology use is determined on good teaching practices that will help my students move towards mastery of the content standards. Technology will not replace the teacher in the classroom. Early research by individuals such as, “Peterson (1931) conducted early research on Pressey’s self-scoring testing devices. His experimental groups were given the chemically treated scoring cards used for self- checking while studying a reading assignment.” (Burton, Moore, Magliaro, p14, 19xx) What they and other have shown, is that immediate feedback improves overall performance of students. Moving into the future, I will use the ideas of behaviorist theories, along with the knowledge of research results, in guiding my thoughts as I plan lessons, while incorporating technology. As always my goal is to help students in helping them become critical thinkers, which will help them move towards mastery of those content standards. Ultimately, this is the task we are asked to perform in our positions.
References
Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (2016, February 18). Behaviorism and Instructional Technology [Scholarly project]. In Edtech. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/01.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). Standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-teachers
Moorhead, L. (2014, September 3). There’s no app for good teaching. Retrieved from http://ideas.ted.com/theres-no-app-for-good-teaching/ . 12 Sept. 2016.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page . p2. 11 Sept. 2016.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.