Assignment: Op-Ed, A Second Look at Behaviorism

Team Name: Team 1

Recorder: Maricel Manglicmot
Coordinator: Lisa Lark
Researcher: Mark Angel

A Second Look at Behaviorism? We Think Not.

An Op-Ed for Training Magazine

As instructional designers, we have a plethora of theories to reference as we design a

course for our learners. One theory, behaviorism, is coming back into the spotlight. However, we

at Training Magazine feel like its time to shine is long gone.

Behaviorism as a learning theory has had lasting effects on instructional design.

Behaviorism brought us many foundational concepts such as reinforcement, feedback, behavioral

objectives, and practice (Reiser et al., 2018, p. 52). However, modern instructional designers

more often rely on other learning theories such as cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism

to influence their work. But does behaviorism deserve a second look? Should we revisit old ideas

that have been left behind by newer trends? In this article, we make the case that a second look at

behaviorism is not necessary.

Consider the Model-T Ford shown in Figure 1. It had all the features necessary for it to

function as a progressive and accessible means of transportation. It sold over 15 million units in

20-years (Ford Motor Company, 2020), making it one of the most successful automobiles ever

produced. Today, the Ford Fusion, for example, retains most of the types of equipment the

Model-T had, but is more refined and better in so many ways. And yet, no one is asking us to go

back to the Model-T design. This in no way belittles how important it was in the development

and evolution of the mass produced car.

Figure 1

Ford Model-T vs. Fusion

Likewise, behaviorism took the world of psychology and education by storm, becoming

the most prominent learning theory of the 20th century. Nevertheless, it is no longer widely used

by instructional designers. Like modern cars built upon the Model-T that came before, newer

learning theories did not replace or undo, but instead built upon the foundation that behaviorism

provided. Table 1 below shows how the newer versions piggy-backed on their older

counterparts.
Table 1

Car Analogy Learning Theories

Model-T Ford Ford Fusion Behaviorism Cognitivism and Beyond

● 4 Wheels ● 4 Wheels (Updated) ● Reinforcement ● Reinforcement

● Drive Train ● Drive Train ● Feedback (Updated)
● Engine (Updated) ● Behavioral ● Feedback
● Cab/body ● Engine (Updated) Objectives (Updated)
● Brakes ● Body (Updated) ● Practice ● Behavioral
● Brakes (updated) Objectives
● Seatbelts (Updated)
● Sensors ● Practice (Updated)
● Computer ● Cognitive
● Cruise Control Processes
● Automated Safety ● Metacognition
Measures ● Real-World
● Navigation Context
● Communication ● Cultural Relevance
● SCT Modeling

What is Behaviorism?

A key feature of behaviorist design is behavioral objectives. While some objectives can

be abstract and therefore subjective, behavioral objectives look for a measurable demonstration

of learning. When evaluating progress on these behavioral objectives, behaviorist theory

introduces other key features; feedback and reinforcement. At regular checks throughout the

learning sequence, learners are asked to actually demonstrate their learning and are provided

with immediate feedback. Feedback either reinforces correct behavior, or redirects the learner

from incorrect behavior.

There are many pros and cons to using a strictly behaviorist approach for designing

instruction. Reinforcement and the strategic use of feedback are valuable tools used by all

instructors. We can appreciate the value of understanding how rewards can incentivise and
engage learners, and how the wrong kinds of reinforcement, even subtle, can have lasting

negative effects on learners, especially young students.

Behaviorism is weakest where it does not explain how learning takes place. While we can

manipulate the environment to acquire desired results, we don’t know why these results have

occurred. This can be particularly problematic when dealing with human minds. Different

learners learn best in different ways, and while some struggle, others may excel. Behaviorism

lacks flexibility in this way. This style of teaching may get results, but these results may not

represent the more authentic learning that newer methods engender.

Cognitivism and Beyond

Behaviorism is restrictive, and while it is useful in some contexts, there are other methods

and theories that use behaviorism to cover more ground. Behaviorism approaches reinforcement

through immediate feedback in order to shape specific behaviors. Cognitivism and other modern

theories, on the other hand, create more meaningful feedback that develop metacognition and

critical thinking skills. These skills allow learners to understand how and why they learn so they

can be successful applying their learning in different contexts.

While behaviorism emphasizes recall, cognitivism takes it a step further and focuses on

“relating the new knowledge with existing knowledge.” (Silber, 1998, pg. 71) Prior knowledge

and experiences become the foundation for instructional design, moving away from the one-size-

fits-all approach seen in behaviorism. As instructional designers, we implement this through

authentic assignments that harness skills applicable in the real world.

According to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), there are other personal factors that affect

the learning process, not just behaviors. This includes culture, beliefs, attitudes, and
environmental learning. (Bandura, 1986.) SCT and other theories address these important factors

that Behaviorism ignored.

Instead of revisiting behaviorism, we should move forward with other advancements.

Even though behaviorism was key to the evolution of learning theory and instructional design,

that doesn’t mean we have to go back to it. Newer theories and methods encompass all that is

still useful in behaviorism, and take instruction to the next level. Table 1 illustrates that the ideas

most valued from behaviorism are carried over to newer theories and practices just like the

things most valued from the Model-T are still part of the new Fusion.

Conclusion

We submit that it is no more useful to go back to behaviorism than it would be to go back

to the Model-T. They are both obsolete; not useless or unappreciated, but no longer the best

option out there. Both the Model-T and behaviorism were revised and updated throughout the

century. This is reflected in learning theory with reference to cognitivism, constructivism, and

other modern theories.

Looking to the future, global climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels are

forcing advancement in alternative energy vehicles. This makes it even more unlikely we will

need to take “a second look” at the Model-T or even current internal combustion engines for

mass transportation. Likewise, COVID-19 has forced a quantum leap in internet based learning

signified by the new distance learning models prominent in 2020. As mainstream education

undergoes its own paradigm shift, it becomes even less compelling to take “a second look” at

behaviorism.
 References

Evanick, Sarah. Social Cognitive Theory. Cognitive Perspectives. [Powerpoint Presentation],

slides 7,8.

Ford Motor Company. (2020). The Model-T. Ford Corporate.

https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html

Reiser, Robert A, et al. (2018). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.

Silber, Kenneth H. (1998). The Cognitive Approach to Training Development: A Practitioner's

Assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58-71.