Some Thoughts on the Readings for 9/15

1. What are the essential differences between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism?

Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a learning theory based on the assertion that all behavior can be explained and predicted in terms of its environmental antecedents and external stimuli. Early in the 20th century, John B. Watson stated that observations based on the internal processes of the mind are doomed to be subjective. He suggested that any serious inquiry into psychology and learning should be based solely on manifest behavior, as this can be observed by anyone and may therefore be considered objective.

Researchers of the behaviorist tradition assert that every process occurring in the mind manifests itself externally as a behavior, in one way or another. Furthermore, if an internal mental process does not manifest itself externally, it is of no consequence to our inquiry and may therefore be ignored. This brings us to the "Black Box Metaphor" of behaviorism, which requires that behaviorist-type studies be conducted with no regard to the internal workings of the mind.

The behaviorist tradition may be summarized as the systematic strengthening and weakening of responses through the use of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, reinforcement removal, and punishment.

Cognitivism
If behaviorism may be characterized by its voluntary ignorance of the internal workings of the mind. then we may distinguish it from cognitivism. Cognitivism is a learning theory that concerns itself primarily with inquiries into the internal mental (cognitive) processes that lead to learning.

Constructivism
Constructivism is different from behaviorism as it accepts the validity of what occurs in the mind. However, it also differs from cognitivsm, not focusing specifically on internal mental processes, but on the experiences of the individual in their environment, and how these experiences lead to learning. The constructivist theory asserts that the internal state of a learner's mind is constructed from their experiences in reality.
2. Which perspective outlined by Schuh and Barab do you agree with most closely: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Cognitive Constructivism, Sociocultural/Historicism, or Situativity Theory? Why?

I believe that each of the learning theories we discussed in class should be judged by its own merit on an individual basis in the context of a real learning environment. Each of these theories has strengths and weaknesses, which manifest themselves in different ways depending on the learning context.

For example, prior to this weeks readings I had spoken with several couples who have children and asked them about their best practices for disciplining children. While doing this week's readings on behaviorism, I found that many of the techniques these couples had mentioned (timeouts, revocation of privileges, etc.) are firmly grounded in behaviorist principles. Based on the experience of others, I would judge that behaviorist learning principles do indeed have merit in the context of disciplining small children.

However, my wife is a school psychologist, and frequently meets with children who are exhibiting problematic behaviors. While she makes extensive, successful use of behaviorist principles, she occasionally encounters a child who has learned to identify the applications of behaviorist theory and consciously fights against them. Faced with this intellectual combativeness, her behaviorist approaches lack effectiveness. It would thus appear that behaviorist principles and practices are only successful insofar as the learner is willing to go along with them.

All that being said, I find myself attending to the cognitivist tradition when I prepare my Sunday school lessons.