Exploring Behaviourism to Understand How People Learn
From Pavlovian Classical Conditioning, to Skinnerian Operant Conditioning
Introduction
The day started as routinely as always — the lulling of the unwelcome alarm clock, the gushing of heartless cold water, the tinging of the burnt bread, the wheezing of the old motor, the relentless lady in the lift telling people which level they are, and ultimately, the buzzing of the heatsink fan of the mic console, that echoed throughout every inch of the lecture theatre.
Standing in front of the class, from behind a lectern, I could see pairs of eyes, blinking, staring. Some to me, some to some screens, and others 404.
A scene of a contemporary classroom. The frontliners are seldom filled — if it is filled, it is either by the ultra-eager students or the latecomers who have mistaken the front door for the secluded back door entrance. The back-benchers are often filled with the troubled souls — those who were not sure whether there are any assignments or tasks that were due today, or of those who worried that their names might be called to engage in a few rounds of mind-boggling Q&As, something that they assume manoeuvrable if they avoid being seated at the front row.
As if I will only engage with students who are seated at arm’s length.
As if their absence in the front row will render their presence to be irrelevant to today’s topic of discussion.
Heh.
It can be relatively said that those seated on the front rows are ever ready to engage in discussions. The farther the students are from the front rows, the lesser their readiness is. This is not a definitive guide, but this is the trend in almost all of the classes I’ve conducted.
In the example above, we can clearly see that their mind is translated into a behavioural condition. Behaviour has been the oldest construct that educators latch on to understand and observe the evidence of learning in students. Through behaviour, we can ‘see’ if the intervention (a.k.a. knowledge) has any effect on the students. It is imperative for us academics to understand these nuances, to be able to interpret it, to better ‘read’ the situation, and respond to it.
Among the many different learning theories, there is one that stands out, relevant, no matter which condition the students and we are in. Still observable in theory and in practice — Behaviourism. We will uncover and understand how people see (and justify) learning, in its most primitive form of operative understanding — through behavioural change.
Outline
Before we dive any deeper, let me explain to you what we are discussing here.
This is an attempt to outline and understand how theories of learning came to be. There are many learning theories out there (this diagram might give a hit of how vast learning theories are), and in this article, we are focusing on a theory called ‘Behaviourism’.
This article will look at the two most famous progressions of Behaviourism learning theory, i.e. the Pavlovian and the Skinnerian.
Mind you, there is no one ‘best’ theory to describe learning, as each theory explains the knowledge origins and the process of learning differently. Think of it like slices of cake. Each theory slices the same cake differently, and as a result, the resulting piece of cake will look different as per the way it is sliced. The most important fact to remember is that the cake has been sliced.
Why is it important for us to understand learning theories?
I once had a naive perception of how theories are not helpful when we are at the frontline — in the classrooms. I assumed that theories are mere speculations, and there is no practical application in my classroom. As a result, I was disengaged and had no idea why some actions and activities I did with my students worked and others didn’t. Teaching became a guessing game of finding that sweet spot for students’ interactivity and participative nature. It was exhaustive. Akin to the first time I rode a bicycle — involving a lot of crashes, bumps, scratches, with the underlying fear of falling.
In any educational settings (any settings can be educational, if you are aware of the underlying educating elements — for learning can happen anywhere at any time. Apart from the formal, in-class learning, there are also informal learning, and non-formal learning), there is usually a teacher, and at least a student. In a conventional educational setting, a teacher is always the human who possess knowledge and wisdom exceeding others. A role model. A beacon of exemplar intelligence. This is how it has been from the times of Socrates to today’s everchanging digital classrooms.
But,
A teacher does not always have to be a person or a human. A non-living thing such as a website or an automated pedagogical bot can be a teaching element in an educational setting. This is what I meant earlier when I say that learning can happen anywhere, at any time, irrespective of location, and medium. Although the opportunity for an educational experience in our daily lives exists, it does not ensure that learning WILL occur. Most often, we can say that an educational process has been carried out. But has learning happened?
Learning can be triggered by many factors. Learning happens when there is the knowledge that students perceived as ‘meaningful’ to them. Thus, making the intended knowledge and skills meaningful to the students is part and parcel of our job as educators. This can be achieved in many ways, using a plethora of pedagogical strategies tailored to suit the contexts and contents relevant to particular setup and students. It is also part of our job to gauge whether the students have acquired the knowledge and skills we purposely plan for them.
So that brings us back to the question, “how can we determine that learning has happen?”
Many educational theorists and social psychologists have pondered this very question for a long time. This simple query birthed numerous theories and concepts surrounding the notion of ‘learning’ based on empirical evidence and educated assumptions. For each of the theories proposed, there is a distinctive assumption of how learning can be understood, and most importantly, how it can be measured.
With the understanding of learning theories, you understand how people (and their brains) actually work when interacting with knowledge. This piece of information is vital, as it can be a lens to help you in your quest to understand what’s happening in your own classroom, and a tool to tinker with those finite situations, to get your students to understand and practice the newfound (or even reconsiliation of previously found) knowledge.
The Pavlovian Behaviourism Paradigm
For the many, when we hear ‘Pavlov’, we immediately remember the classic experiment of the salivating dog with a bell, but in actuality, Pavlov did a lot more than just that famous experiment.
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, a Russian physiologist and Russian’s first Nobel laureate, known for his discovery of the laws of conditioned reflex, or better known as ‘Classical Conditioning’, started as a skillful surgeon in St. Petersburg [source], investigating cardiac physiology and blood pressure.
His later interest in digestion and secretion in animals led him to discover the laws of conditioned reflex. Using salivary secretion as physiological measures to understand mental phenomena and higher nervous activity.
His discovery led to the conceptualisation of behavioural therapies that have been used across different domains, including education and psychology.
Let’s take a closer look at what he has contributed in the education sphere with the concept of ‘Classical Conditioning’ that has vast applications in various educational settings.
Classical Conditioning
In general terms, Classical Conditioning simply means learning that happened through association. There are three phases to Classical Conditioning. Each stage includes stimuli and responses.
Stage 1 — At this stage, the unconditioned stimulus produces an unconditioned response. This simply means that a stimulus in the environment has resulted in a natural behaviour/response.
Stage 2 — During this stage, an external stimulus is introduced in the situation and associated with the unconditioned stimulus. In this situation, the conditioned stimulus acts as a ‘proxy’ to the original unconditioned stimulus.
Stage 3 — Now, the conditioned stimulus (previously associated with the unconditioned stimulus) is used to initiate a new response. That response is called ‘conditioned response’.
Some of you might still wonder what the fungus is this stimulus… response… conditioned… unconditioned. To better illustrate how these stages work, let me use a situation to break it down.
The Case of Gaming Impuls. — Games and gaming appeal to kids and adults alike. When we play games, feeling good comes naturally, especially when we’ve managed to beat that boss and level up, found the treasures that we’ve been looking for the past few hours, or simply enjoyed the creative storyline the game developers weaved into the cut scenes. In fact, an increasing body of literature backed the positive impact of gaming beyond just entertainment.
Children have fun playing games.
That’s the original premise. Dissecting this will show us that playing game is the unconditioned stimulus, and feeling happy and having fun is the unconditioned response.
WHAT IF we can associate doing homework (conditioned stimulus), with playing games. This can be achieved by gamifying the homework, which can be done using many different strategies. So, suppose we successfully associate homework with gaming. In that case, kids will feel that doing homework will also be fun (conditioned response).
WINNING!
That is just a simple example of many occurrences and opportunities of Classical Conditioning in our daily lives. It gives us the ability to understand small units of behaviour that can be ‘trained’ or ‘programmed’ to suit the intended outcome(s). The only caveat for Pavlovian Classical Conditioning is that it discounts free will. We will later understand that when dealing with humans, there are many more nuances that can throw our conditional coding out of the equation.
The Skinnerian Bahaviourism Paradigm
Burrhus Frederic Skinner saw that Classical Conditioning was far too simplistic to be used as a frame to understand complex human behaviour. But unlike his colleague John B. Watson, he believed it is far more productive to study observable behaviour rather than internal mental events.
Skinner, an American psychologist, developed his Operant Conditioning theory based on Edward Thorndike’s Law of Effect. Thorndike’s Puzzle Box experiment on cats revealed that any behaviour that is followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated. In contrast, any behaviour that is followed by unpleasant consequences is expected to be stopped.
Skinner took Thorndike’s Law of Effect further and introduced another concept called ‘reinforcement’ into the equation. Skinner believed that a reinforced behaviour is likely to be repeated (strengthened). In contrast, behaviour that is not reinforced is diminished (weakened).
Skinner identified three types of operants that can be levied on a behaviour:
Neutral Operants — constitute responses that neither evoke nor destroy the probability of repetitive behaviour.
Reinforcers — constitute responses that increase the probability of repetitive behaviour.
Punishers — constitute responses that diminish the probability of repetitive behaviour.
Skinner also introduced several reinforcements and punishment models to illustrate the concept. They are Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, and Punishment.
Positive Reinforcement — in this model, behaviour is strengthened through the use of reward. For example, a mouse in a cage will repeatedly push a knob when it learned that pushing the knob will make a delicious treat fall down from a tube.
Negative Reinforcement — in this model, a behaviour or a state is removed through reward. A penalty of 50 cent is enforced if you don’t memorise the times tables. So you will try really hard to remember the times table to avoid being penalised (Yes, we all went through that experience).
Punishment — in this model, a behaviour is removed through the use of an unpleasant stimulus. (This is still a problematic construct for me. I find it really hard to understand the differences between punishment and negative reinforcement, and there are several caveats to this model).
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning has helped us understand the many behavioural quirks humans possess, and has been used as the basis to some psychological interventions like behaviour modification and behaviour shaping, plus many other psychological applications to date.
Takeaway
As educators, we have been piggybacking behaviourism approach and understanding to help us with our daily chores from the very beginning. Our curriculum has been developed, taking into account the nature of learning and learning theories. That is why you can find aspects of Behaviourism in different parts of the curriculum. The most apparent behaviouristic part in all of our instructional designs is the “Learning Objectives”. We have always been told that we need to write learning objectives that are observable. That’s Behaviourism 101.
