Has COVID19 enhanced the status of behaviourism as a learning theory?

Robert Morgan

The transformation of children’s learning during the three lockdowns has led educators to reflect on the efficacy of online learning when learning theory is considered. Teachers have had little option but to use remote learning, via technology platforms, for example, TEAMs or Zoom, but what does it mean from a pedagogical perspective? In this article, I shall attempt to argue that behaviourism, as a learning theory is as valid as any other but for the lockdown period it has equal merit and demerit as the only option available (for most children who could not attend as vulnerable learners or children of key workers). First though a summary of the three main learning theories that most teachers will be familiar with.

Behaviourism

Behaviourism is the pedagogical theory that learning is ‘acquired from a stimulus-response relationship’ (Grigg, 2010) which translates into the teachers being the transmitters of learning. It is characterised by learners sitting in rows facing the teacher because the learner is ‘cast in a passive role’ (Pollard et al., 2019). This didactic role gives power to the teacher who can control the teaching and assessing of learning (Pollard et al., 2019). The difficulty is in assessing the learners’ progress, but its strength lies in the efficiency of transmission of knowledge and subject expertise (Pollard et al., 2019). Such a theory of teaching is known as ‘traditional teaching methods’ (Pollard et al., 2019; Eaude, 2011). Prominent behaviourist theorists, notably Skinner (1953), believe that learning involves learning by association. Curtis and Pettigrew (2010) write that such learning does not motivate learners and inhibits curiosity and favours an approach that prioritises the transmission of knowledge. This has the effect of learners being conditioned by qualities namely passivity and studying for external rewards rather than for the sake of learning.

Constructivism

Constructivism opposes the dominance of the teacher by allowing learners the possibility to ‘explore their understanding’ and make sense of their learning (Grigg, 2010) by assimilating it into a new experience. It does, according to Pollard et al., (2019), allow the learner to be active and independent, with a learningcentred approach to their interests and abilities culminating in a focus on skills and concepts. The criticism it receives is that much energy and teacher focus are directed at organisation and classroom management (Pollard et al., 2019) rather than time spent directly receiving instruction. Children are exploring rather than acquiring knowledge. The prominent theorist of

constructivism was Piaget (2001) who developed his theory that children developed cognitively in distinct stages according to their ages of maturation (Walkup, 2011). In the classroom this means that teachers design learning activities for children that are suitable for their ability so that they can construct meaning actively (Walkup, 2011). This theory was highlighted in the Plowden Report (Central Advisory Council for Education, 1967).

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism, as the term implies, uses the interaction of others, whether that be a teacher or a child. It is this theory that has ‘influenced the development of the curriculum’ (Grigg, 2010) and its most influential theorist was Lev Vygotsky .Vygotsky (1978) described how ‘adult guidance’ would further children’s development and although he did not specify any adult other than the teacher. He did write how learning would happen when a learning environment takes language development and problem solving into account: ‘Using imitation [internalised learning], children are capable of doing much more in collective activity or under the guidance of adults’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p.88). Walkup (2011) summarises Vygotsky’s thoughts as teachers needing to scaffold learning opportunities in task setting according to the children’s current ability but the quotation calls for collective activity, in other words children learning together and with adult support. It is social constructivism which requires a teacher to design and develop a ‘learning-oriented classroom climate’ (Pollard et al., 2019). Therefore, it calls on teachers to draw more widely on pedagogical knowledge and repertoire and, in order to be successful in teaching requires a good level of skill and judgement.

Behaviourism in lockdown

Therefore, from the three brief descriptions of the considered learning theories behaviourism is the only option that can take place without direct collaboration with a teacher during lockdown teaching and learning. The interaction a teacher has with her children is through the technology platform in directing them. Talk opportunities are limited which negates social constructivism, and content needs to be delivered which cannot allow for the children to be involved primarily with investigative or exploratory activities. The advantage of behaviourism is that it enables one teacher to teach (or even to use a behaviourist phrase ‘deliver’) one taught session to as many children as the platform will accommodate in one set period. The curriculum is still being taught

in the existing timeframe available to it. The children need to engage otherwise they will miss content and miss the opportunity to use that content in summative assessments at the end of the learning. Therefore, children are bound to the technology and the teacher and therein lies the draw of this pedagogy. Children are also required to set up the learning conditions at home, equip themselves with resources which frees the school from various costs.

The disadvantage of behaviourism, during lockdown, is that it supposes equality on two fronts. Behaviourism assumes that children will have the means to access the technology (in terms of having a decent computer or waiting to share one with siblings), which for some children has not been the case, despite government promising laptops to all children. Behaviourism has assumed that there is an equality of support at home; this could be from parents who are able to be physically present to assist with learning (key stage 2 algebra anyone?), or have access to surrounding resources within the home, for example books or art materials. This opportunity of equality can also be viewed from the routine that parents have created at home where learning is deemed to be important and children have that ‘learning behaviour’ or the motivation to attend and engage beyond the mere signing in and hiding behind a circle of their initials. This is what Bourdieu (1984) meant by ‘capital’ – some parents have more capital than others and have already invested it in their children’s education. Behaviourism has exposed this. From the teachers’ perspective behaviourism may be efficient in resource, cost, time and money but pedagogically, and arguably from a true vocational perspective, it is poor in terms of formative assessment. Owing to the speed of online learning formative assessment is slow and cumbersome – it takes time to assess children’s learning especially where break out rooms are difficult, children may not feel comfortable speaking in front of others, or that they may not type quick enough in the commentary/chat function. Assessment may rely on those confident children to decide they understand and are ready to proceed with the remaining content. This makes it difficult for differentiation, provision for children who otherwise would have support from a teaching assistant or specialised resources and for those who feel unwell and miss a session. It is likely that a post-covid return to the classroom may open up a vast difference in those who coped with behaviourist provision and those who did not or could not.

What will this mean for teachers on their return to face-to-face teaching, in the Spring term? It will mean many things. For this article, I would be referring to the gaps in children’s learning, but in reality, it is likely to be a consideration of mental health issues, deepening poverty, clothing and food, and how to reintegrate children with socialisation strategies. Perhaps the learning will take a close second in priority. Whether teachers dispense with behaviourist induced teaching or evaluate their pre-covid teaching and associated learning theory is down to that teacher and school. Of course, behaviourism is not to blame, it is merely a pedagogical approach that works well when selected appropriately. Yet behaviourism may have reminded the teaching profession to the reality of social and learning divisions, which will need schools to reach out for assistance. Behaviourism has its place, it had to occur when schools were mostly closed to children but there are other alternatives available that can make use of heavy human input and warm interaction.

It is likely that a post-covid return to the classroom may open up a vast difference in those who coped with behaviourist provision and those who did not or could not.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction. Abingdon: Routledge. Central Advisory Council for Education (CACE) (1967) Children and their primary schools (Volume 1: Report) Available at: http://www. educationengland.org.uk/documents/plowden/plowden1967-1.html Curtis, W. and Pettigrew, A. (2010) Education studies. Exeter: Learning Matters. Eaude, T. (2011) Thinking through pedagogy for primary and early years. Exeter: Learning Matters. Grigg, R. (2010) Becoming an outstanding primary school teacher. London: Routledge. Piaget, J. (2001) The Language and thought of the child. London: Routledge. Pollard, A., Black-Hawkins, K., Hodges, G., Dudley, P., Cliff Hodges, G., Higgins, S., James, M., Linklater, H., Swaffield, S., Swann, M., Winterbottom, M. and Wolpert, M. (2019) Reflective Teaching in Schools (5th edn.) London: Bloomsbury. Skinner, B. (1953) Science and human behavior. Collier Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society. London: Harvard. Walkup, V. (2011) ‘The psychology of learning and education’, in Walkup, V. (2011) Exploring education studies. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 101131.