I tend to think of a Pavlovian response as a sign of a baser nature: who but beasts salivate at the ringing of a bell? I’m uncomfortable with the simple, tidy antecedent-behavior-consequence model of applied behavior analysis (ABA) for which B.F. Skinner laid the groundwork. Even as he argues for the use of mechanical reinforcement devices, he writes “The cry will be raised that the child is being treated as a mere animal…” and yet he does little to assuage this concern (Skinner, 1954, pg. 96). I want to guide my students to an intrinsic love of learning by introducing them to the entrancing mysteries of the natural world. “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire,” goes the quote that is often attributed (probably apocryphally) to Yeats. This quote, perhaps more than anything, has guided my decisions as a teacher. And yet.
I haven’t learned the bell schedule where we are student teaching, but I know when to expect the bell by watching the behavior of the students in the classroom. They don’t salivate, but they do, almost as one being, start shuffling papers and zipping pencil pouches about a minute before the bell rings. Are students and pigeons more alike than I’d like to admit? Are they bird-brained? Of course not. And yet.
The evidence for the efficacy of ABA in the classroom is vast (Martin & Pear, 2015). ABA techniques are widely used to help students with disabilities make educational progress. In everyday life, operant conditioning abounds: parents giving screentime in exchange for a child cleaning their room, police giving a driver a speeding ticket, or a boss giving an employee a spot bonus for excellent work are just a few examples. Principles of behaviorism and operant conditioning are widely used because they can be systematized, easily implemented, and their effects quantified. Behaviorism applies a scientific method to the process of education—much like the “recipe” that Dewey writes about (Dewey, 1929, pg. 15). Principles of behaviorism remove some of the art of education and efficiently effect change in behavior and learning—but at what cost?
John Dewey, the father of the progressive education movement, views education as an art, as a science, and as a social and community endeavor. Dewey puts his trust not in the whip or the sugar cube and not in the direct application of scientific procedures to education, but rather in the training and instincts of the teacher:
“We must distinguish between the sources of educational science and scientific content. We are in constant danger of confusing the two. We tend to suppose that certain results because they are scientific are already educational science. Enlightenment, clarity, and progress can come about only as we remember that such results are sources to be used, through the medium of the minds of educators, to make educational functions more intelligent.” (Dewey, 1929, pgs. 22-23).
He believes that the application of scientific principles helps to make a gifted teacher’s individual successes durable and transmittable (Dewey, 1929, pgs. 10-11). While writing about how to leverage this application of scientific principles, Dewey highlights the importance of “connecting principles” and the linking up of “various findings” which presages the NRC’s notion of “crosscutting concepts” by more than 80 years (Dewey, 1929, pgs. 20-22); (NRC, 2012, pg. 30).
The Framework also discusses how young children initially learn about science “through everyday activities, such as talking with their families, pursuing hobbies, watching television, and playing with friends,” which echoes Dewey’s belief in the community nature of education (NRC, 2012, pg. 24). NRC further highlights the social nature of science education, writing that “science is fundamentally a social enterprise,” (NRC, 2012, pg. 27). The NRC’s prioritization of science process alongside and perhaps above science knowledge also feels like an intellectual descendant of Dewey’s work (NRC, 2012, pgs. 27-28), while I’d argue that standardized testing is the intellectual descendant of Skinner. Finally, I can only imagine that Dewey would see the NRC’s commitment to equity (NRC, 2012, pg. 28) as the fruition of his contemporary, Jane Addams, work at Hull House and throughout Chicago.
References:
Dewey, J. (1929). The Sources of a Science of Education. New York, NY: Liveright.
Martin, G. & Pear, J. (2015). Behavior modification: what it is and how to do it (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (Ch. 2).
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glasser (Eds.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: The Science of Learning (pp. 99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children.
I really appreciate how you have expressed your desire to “guide [your] students to an intrinsic love of learning by introducing them to the entrancing mysteries of the natural world.” As a former science teacher, I share this desire and spend lots of time thinking about how best to “teach.”
I have found, over the years, that approaches somewhere between what Dewey and Skinner advocate seem to be needed. Because science (and really each discipline within “science”) has a foundational language that needs to be learned in order to have access to the larger breadth of discourse on that field, approaches like Skinner’s box and other memorization techniques can be useful for familiarizing students with new terms and concrete ideas from the paradigm being taught.
I have also found that just learning facts does not engage students nor does it actually expose students to the processes for each scientific discipline. Facts alone also leave understanding at a surface level. Dewey’s thoughts on engaging students and teaching to the child definitely help teachers find ways to spark interest and capitalize on engagement. They also allow the broader process to be experienced. I have found that these processes can be learned/experienced without the accompanying language, but access to the greater field would be hindered or non-existent without the language piece. (I am re-reading Kuhn’s work on paradigms right now, so this is framed within that context).
Over the years, I have seen the pendulum swing between these two methods of instruction, and I was wondering if you had noticed similar shifts? NGSS, to me, was a theoretical return to hands on, process oriented learning after decades of fact centered accountability movement instruction.
Rachael,
After writing this post, I went in search of more answers to exactly the question you are asking. I found this to be interesting and helpful:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135095.pdf
I’m interested to hear more about how you interpreted Dewey because it seems like maybe we came out of the same reading with slightly different opinions. I agree that he does talk a lot about how understand scientific principles makes a “gifted” teacher better and he claims that it will make their understanding teachable to others, but never elaborates on that second point. It seems to me that his entire paper is targeted towards these already “gifted” teachers and how to make their teaching better, but doesn’t really elaborate on how his ideas make their knowledge transmittable nor any methods or starting points for “mediocre” teachers to learn.
This is a sticking point for me because I see this exact lack of knowledge play out in our schools today. Everyone gets those one or two amazing teachers over the course of their K-12 education who are naturally gifted and connect with their students, but at the same time receives upwards of 20 other just “mediocre” or occasionally downright terrible teachers too. Translating that knowledge from the really special ones to others seems important to me!