Principles Of Behaviorism 4e1u3q

Principles of Behaviorism Nanette Wiesner Michigan State University Spring 2006 Introduction Questions and theories related to behaviorism appear to have grown from the very roots that demonstrate human engagement in learning. This desire and drive for mankind to seek knowledge rather than just take someone’s word for it has laid foundation from which history has progressed; beginning with philosophies credited to Plato and John Locke. This timeline of individuals taking risks through initializing ideas and posing possibilities might not have not willingly embraced by others but undoubtedly represent the power of engaging the mind in self-directed inquiry to further all knowledge. This is active learning, not ive; and in my estimation, a dynamic working example of how a theorist such as John Watson can claim that behavior research must begin by making an assumption despite opposition in route to further answer questions (Phillips and Soltis p. 22). The forthcoming philosophers and theorists have often endured struggles and influences of history and culture; an irable quality they all share and worthwhile of recognition here. Philosophers, Theorists, and Theories Happenstance created opportunity for at least a few psychologists to discover key processes in behavior theory. As outlined in Perspectives on Learning (2004), the endeavors of Ivan Pavlov and Watson unlocked what classical conditioning meant in of combining biological factors with conditioned reflexes to create a behavior. In

essence, a stimulus can initiate a positive or negative response in a human or animal. Using a reality based example, a child who faces being yelled by a parent daily when returning home from school may find it unpleasant enough to avoid coming in. On the flipside, the same child may feel quite the opposite if the parent welcomes her with a subdued hug and a smile. The outcome s the child either feeling an innermost motivation to come home or lack of motivation and distaste for stepping n the front door. In this example, and from a positive standpoint, the extrinsic motivation of the child is affirmation through a parental hug and smile, and yet the intrinsic motivation may be the self-worth in coming home to that environment. The work of E.L. Thorndike, as summarized in Perspectives on Learning (2004), centers on the theory of operant conditioning and system of rewards. The theory seems to add fuel to the pre-existing belief that humans and animals will react to a given stimulus with a response. What Thorndike further accentuates though, is the value of frequency and reinforcement for a behavior; that a reward for repeating a behavior creates a higher rate of probability based on a learned conditioned response. Using the previous example of a child coming home from school, the continuous reinforcement f a hug and smile creates a higher chance that returning home will continue. In keeping with Thorndike’s theory, the child will respond through a repeated activated “law of effect” (reward of pleasant greetings) (Phillips and Soltis, p 26). B. F. Skinner found that behavior doesn’t require repeated, predictable rewards (or reinforcement) in order to continue (Phillips and Soltis, p 27) however consistency of learning necessitates the need for reinforcement (Skinner, p 161). This concept is slightly different than that of Thorndike. As detailed in Behaviorism (Standridge) Skinner,

acclaimed for his theory of operant conditioning, maintained that positive (and negative) reinforcement holds the key for humans and animals to continue the progression of learning. The bottom line of learning behavior functions both as a process and as an end result. Again, repetition (such as through means of drill and practice) assures a behavioral pattern of learning. Lack of positive reinforcement would invite less optimum consequences such as “punishment” and eventual “extinction” of the behavior (Standridge). Once again, could it be surmised that extrinsic motivation of receiving positive reinforcement through a system of rewards can possibly transfer into intrinsic motivation. As charted in web-based The Teaching Guide, extrinsic leading to intrinsic possibilities is not considered a part of behaviorist theory; difficult to measure as behaviorists are inclined to do. Despite any question that behaviorism is largely simple in nature, a closer look might suggest otherwise. In other words, behaviorism may be far more complex than given credit for. In agreement with points made by Phillip and Soltis (2004), theorists such as Skinner, may have overlooked the deeper implications and impact of behaviorism, even with the assumption that all organisms are born as “blank slates.” It may be easy to view behaviorism on the surface, but perhaps theorists should scrape below the surface to identify the existence of an internal “mental map” that also drives learning.

References Berkeley Graduate Student Teaching Resource Center. Teaching guide: theories of learning. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/learning/index.html Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on learning (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books Standridge, Melissa (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (Electronic version). Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epitt/Behaviorism.htm