Emily Talmage lives in Maine, where she blogs about the latest fads to “reform” American education. In this post, she shows the relationship between the theories of B.F. Skinner, a psychologist who was renowned in his time for his belief in behaviorism, and today’s big new idea: competency based education. In President Obama’s recent “Testing Action Plan,” he endorsed the strategy of competency based education, where every student moves at his or her own pace through programmed instruction on computers. The plan sets aside $25 million to encourage states to try new forms of assessment, including competency-based models. Although this approach is often referred to as individualized, customized, and personalized instruction, it is a direct descendant of B.F. Skinner’s teaching machines. In a previous post, she noted that:
A shift to competency-based education has been in the works a least a decade, with the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Gates Foundation, and the Foundation for Excellence in Education (among others) at the helm of this shift.
Here, she sets the ideas of B.F. Skinner, enunciated in the 1950s, alongside those currently on the website of testing company Questar, whose assessments have been adopted by New York State:
Here’s Skinner:
As soon as the student has written his response, he operates the machine, and learns immediately whether he is right or wrong. This is a great improvement over the system in which papers are corrected by a teacher, where the student must wait perhaps until another day, to learn whether or not what he is written is right.
Such immediate knowledge has two principle effects: it leads most rapidly to the formation of correct behavior. The student quickly learns to be right…
Now compare the Skinner quote with this description that comes from the website of Questar – the testing company recently adopted by New York State:
With tablets and the right software, this approach is possible on an individualized basis: after every five minutes of individualized tablet-based instruction, students would be presented with a brief series of questions that adapt to their skill level, much as computer-adaptive tests operate today. After that assessment, the next set of instructional material would be customized according to these results.
Here’s Skinner again:
Another important advantage is that the student is free to move at his own pace. With techniques in which a whole class is forced to move together, the bright student wastes time, waiting for others to catch up, and the slow student, who may not be inferior in any other respect, is forced to go too fast. …A student who is learning by machine learns at the rate, which is most effective for him. The fast student covers the course in a short time, but the slow student, by giving more time to the subject, can cover the same ground. Both learn the material thoroughly.
Now, compare this with Questar:
Because students progress through subject material at their own pace, they can be grouped by ability instead of grade level, similar to competency-based learning approaches currently being tried in various schools and districts.
Questar and Skinner…pretty much indistinguishable, aren’t they?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So can we assume that behaviorist theory shall be applied to those in “common schools,” while those in elite schools use a different approach?
Also with CCSS, Gates wants it for our schools, but not for his children’s private schools. How do we summarize that aspect? Double standard? Or where everyone is welcome a certain common thread must prevail that is set down on paper and spelled out by those in authority via power by wealth?
I’m so confused about the rationale for CCSS. If it’s not good enough for private schools, why is it so wonderful for public schools?
Anyone?
Shut up and obey your Master Bill!!
(turn off obnoxious sarcasm now)
Having worked on mastery-based education back in the 1970’s in college, I came to the conclusion the “self-paced means slow.” Unless there are structural aspects in the curriculum to keep people working and on track, large numbers of students work at glacial paces.
Having to “keep up” with a class has social roots that are not evil. It tells people that if they are not doing as well as they would like, they need to work harder or smarter or both. If they cannot keep[ up at all, they are in the wrong classes or too many classes. It is the foundation of group work, it is foundation of social group interactions and teaching and learning are not usually solitary activities, rather they are social activities, Even the iconic scientists working alone for decades that act as our model for individualized learning had correspondence galore with other scientists in which ideas were discussed and discarded and altered.
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease” is an aphorism indicating that attention flows according to need. Students who excel always look back favorably upon teachers who were demanding because they gave their best for those teachers and, hence, benefited the most by learning more. What exactly is “self-paced” instruction supposed to add, except opportunities to take one’s foot off of the accelerator?
Steve,
I agree completely. For example, at the previous school I worked for I taught four periods of Algebra 2, one Calculus, and one Precalc. 50% of my Algebra 2 students struggled. My principal approached me and asked what the issues were. She asked me, “What aren’t YOU doing to help them be successful?”
My response: the kids learned less than three chapters worth of Algebra 1 over the entire year, with a curriculum focused on prepping for the EXPLORE test (to prep them for taking ACT), they just don’t know enough math to be in this course, students with “D” and “F” grades (at least 30% of the kids) were placed in this course, many of the students don’t complete their homework, skip school, are failing/doing poorly in most of their classes, and are spending their time on social media, etc.
i followed by telling her what I did, which was: modify the curriculum to support learning vital Algebra 1 concepts necessary for Algebra 2, serious scaffolding, online discussion boards for students and myself to discuss homework problems/test reviews, create online videos of every lesson for my students who missed class or for students to use as a supplement (literally recording the same lesson that was taught in class), and quiz retakes (if the student had a checklist of items signed off on by me), and even allowed students with a 90% assessment average to be exempt from the final exam (or students with 87%+ assessment average and every homework assignment turned in). There were many other incentives and instructional supoorts in place (group work, differentiation, etc). Her response to me was, “you’re expecting too much, either water your curriculum down or curve, or both”.
Really? I said to her, “Why don’t we put kids in classes they are prepared for? Why don’t we hold our kids accountable? Our school is setting our kids up for failure and has low expectations for them! Why don’t we adjust our curriculum to support our kids and the levels they enter our school at, and provide a good quality education that prepares the kids for whatever they want to do in the future? Why are we tracking their data and teaching to “the test” when it’s not helping them? I can’t go home with my students and ensure they’re doing their part as students. How can we, as a school, build these habits without compromising school quality, like you’re asking me to do? Answer these questions for me and I’ll consider “curving” and “watering down our curriculum””.
I may have been out of line, but I was just beyond confused by my principal’s request. Your response reminded me of this story and I had to share it here.
Sounds like adminimalistration at its finest. I applaud you for having given an example of an excellent adminimal at work!
I think it is important not to conflate mastery learning and computer-based learning. As has been reported by Diane, computer-only programs have a terrible record. This may be because of the flexibility and insight of a teacher is so much better, or it may be because of social and emotional factors, as Steve Ruis says.
But mastery learning is really a sound idea, and is one critical ingredient in an excellent school. Many years ago I visited the Johnson City Schools, a district where the late Al Mamary was able to get a poor district to perform as well as suburban NYC schools, and not by threat and punish, but with benign discipline—from William Glasser—and most of all mastery learning. I wrote about it here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1993/03/24/26berk.h12.html?qs=Berkson
This research paints a very different picture of what happened in Johnson City. http://integraonline.com/~bonville/Education/johnson.htm
Emily, that is a totally biassed and irresponsible hit job by a right winger, who explains that he started out by hating what he said he viewed as John Dewey’s progressive education, and set out to prove it, by hook or by crook. He was especially livid about Mamary using some of Glasser’s ideas on discipline, which, in Mamary’s hands, actually worked. —I saw myself the beautiful relaxed atmosphere in the high school, where students were performing very well. Was that screed even ever published in a peer-reviewed journal?
The fact is that the success of Johnson City as measured by the Regents exam results is objective and undeniable. It was also validated, twice by the U.S. Department of Education back in those days.
You can read a responsible assessment here: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar94/vol51/num06/Research-on-OBE@-What-We-Know-and-Don't-Know.aspx
It is essential to note, as the ASCD article does, that mastery learning was only one ingredient, if an essential one, in Mamary’s system. Mamary (pronounced May – Mary) emphasized to me that success was dependent having all of the policies *aligned* toward student learning, in what he called the “gentle bulldozer”—not Dewey!—getting all children. I believe that this importance of school leadership and culture—more even than individual teachers—has been confirmed since, again and again.
I think it is extremely unfortunate that right wing hit jobs like Bernardo’s were able to hurt the adoption of programs of proven effectiveness.
Do you know what became of this program in Johnson City?
Also, given that the ASCD has also been heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, I’m not willing to assume that the article you cite above is itself unbiased. I’ll do some more digging, but the jury is still out for me on this one.
Emily, the ASCD in 1994, the date of this article, was certainly not funded by Gates. As to what happened to the Johnson City program, that’s a good question. My impression is that after Mamary, who was superintendent, retired, they were less committed to the program he built. And as he himself emphasized, coordinating the whole system is critical to success.
But I don’t know the story. I’d like to hear if someone knows. My impression is that overall the right-wing hit job, took its toll, but I don’t know. The attack I believe was mainly based on those who believed in a larger role for punishment, and that that Glasser’s ideas of teaching children responsible choice was soft-headed liberalism. Personally, I think that punishments as a last resort are needed—and I believe Mamary did too. But teaching responsibility seem to me like an essential piece of the puzzle also.
“The fact is that the success of Johnson City as measured by the Regents exam results is objective and undeniable.”
That right there is enough to show just how ingrained the monetization/quantification meme is in public education discourse.
NOTHING WAS MEASURED. (BIG PERIOD AT THAT)!
Mental masturbation at its finest.
Look, I didn’t say that the Regent’s test was the only measure. But it’s pretty striking that he was able to get a poor school to perform on that level in academic tests, while creating a very warm and nurturing environment. If measuring education were up to me, I would be looking at how well the system did at 18 in helping students find and prepare themselves for diverse stations in life—and check again 5 and 10 years later. Then we’d have a real measure. See here the interview I did with Robert E. Simon on the goals of education: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/22/issues-over-the-last-decade-have-me-really-steamed-a-history-making-centenarians-views-on-school-reform/
Trying not to Chiletize this thread.
Those exams and the whole standards and standardized test malpractice are neither objective nor valid in any fashion. Perhaps you aren’t acquainted with Noel Wilson’s work showing all the epistemological and ontological errors and falsehoods, and all the psychometric fudging that inherent in the educational standards and standardized testing malpractice that render any conclusions, as he says: “vain and illusory”, in other words COMPLETELY INVALID. To understand why he is correct read and comprehend his never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
I actually think that *exit* standards have a place, but that is not the issue I raised, and is another whole discussion. My point was the the *formative* testing involved in mastery learning, which is not high-stakes, are valuable in helping students master skills. And that they were able to do the Regents exams well was an *indicator* of success in this.
Reformers tend to twist every idea intro a perversion of learning. Technology to help teachers analyze and manage the classroom is useful. But competency based learning will more likely morph into a backroom where struggling students, students with disabilities, poor students, and Other People’s Kids are sequestered.
The most important thing to know about Skinner and his theories is that children – the human variety – are not pigeons. However, people looking for easy answers to early childhood education often are pigeons for simplistic theories.
That statement misrepresents much of science. A vial of blood is not a person -but it’s used in medical examinations.
We have learned about human cells, metabolism etc from other organisms – but behavior is magical?
What about the great success that applied behavior analysis has had with children with difficult behaviors – are those children qualitatively different than other children?
One of the problems with “programmed instruction” as developed by Skinner is that you have to make assumptions about the sequencing of concepts. When thinking is linear–and you must master concept “a” before tackling “b,” “c,” “d,” such feedback can be valuable. But the system breaks down when thinking becomes divergent, analogous, metaphorical, and complex. Often there are no right answers but shades of gray. And, most importantly of all, competency involves generating and sharing original thought. We’re a long way from programmed instruction that can analyze that!
Well said. I often see kids learn in a non-linear fashion. For example, they may struggle with systems of equation but the light goes off when they master matrices and loop back to systems and with more understanding. Psychologists probably understand this more than I. But I never assume strict modus tolling thinking in humans. Computers, yes. Machines teach like machines. Humans teach like humans.
*tollens (spell check)
True for my area of physics. We try to get kids to be more Newtonian in their thinking but it is small steps coming from a lot of directions that move them along. It is not a matter of teaching mass, the acceleration and then forces to arrive at F=ma. Teaching and learning are messy. It requires responsive humans to give students what they need when they need it on a large number of time scales. I give feedback and design instruction minute by minute, day by day week by week, etc.
Skinner:
“Such immediate knowledge has two principle effects: it leads most rapidly to the formation of correct behavior. The student quickly learns to be right…”
Learn to be right or to learn?
Correct behavior?
…makes you wonder.
In a number of publications in the ’60s, Noam Chomsky exposed Skinner’s ignorance of how language works and how it is learned.
No, he didn’t. He misunderstood and misrepresented Skinner.
MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(1), 83–99. http://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83
It turns out Skinner was right – the behavioral, probabilistic approach to language was more accurate – hence recent breakthroughs in AI e.g., behavioral robotics with Bayesian modeling has supplanted GOFAI (e.g. Brooks, 1996)
Brooks, R. A. (1996). Behavior-based humanoid robotics. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems ’96, IROS 96 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8 vol.1). http://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1996.570613
I highly recommend that you actually familiarize yourselves with behaviorism. Behaviorism is poorly taught among non-behaviorists at universities (Todd & Morris, 1983).
Applied behavior analysis has marked, empirically noted success with children with autism. Do children with autism require “simplistic theories” ?
If one cannot articulate establishing & motivating operation, discuss equivalence classes or relational frame theory – then one shouldn’t comment on behaviorism.
Behaviorism has much to offer education with regards to social justice (See Moore).
Before anyone further disparages behaviorism, without proper grounding to do so, I recommend reading 1.) Moore and 2) Todd & Morris.
Moore, J. (2003). Behavior analysis, mentalism, and the path to social justice. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 181–193.
Todd, J. T., & Morris, E. K. (1983). Misconception and miseducation: Presentations of radical behaviorism in psychology textbooks. The Behavior Analyst, 6(2), 153.
“If one cannot articulate establishing & motivating operation, discuss equivalence classes or relational frame theory – then one shouldn’t comment on behaviorism.”
Help us out DD, what are those concepts? Please give us at least a quick definition.
TIA!
The notion of MO and EO is conceptually fundamental to behaviorism — but not necessarily this conversation. I just wanted to dissuade the typical strawman – behaviorism is “pigeons & stimulus response.” Behaviorism is much more than that.
Most germane to this conversation and almost every misguided conversation about behaviorism is an ignorance of schedules of reinforcement. The star sticker or positive token for every correct response is at odds with the behavioral impetus for thinning schedules of reinforcement. Reinforcers should be given on a thick schedule in the beginning — but must be thinned in order to strengthen and generalize behavior.
Consider, the most common example I hear is “kids today get a ribbon for everything. There’s no intrinsic motivation.” Both of these statements highlight problems with schedules of reinforcement — trophies, ribbons for every race is a good think. We’re surrounded by obesity and inactivity – increased ribbons, t-shirts, etc. have made 5Ks / 10Ks, halfs/ marathons accessible to a greater number of people – which is good for those people and society. The intrinsic motivation is a misnomer – it simply refers to schedules of reinforcement so thin that they aren’t directly observable. To contest this is really problematic – otherwise one is arguing that the “will” to succeed is entirely rooted in the individual — i.e., indicating that some individuals are genetically predestined to success. I suggest reading the Moore article that was cited to see why this is a problem.
Basically, I mention Sidman’s equivalence classes and Barnes-Holmes RFT in relation to Jack Michael’s discussion of control – because many people have an overly simplistic view of behaviorism and indicate that behaviorism cannot explain complex, abstract, or nuanced behaviors.
In a longer discussion about verbal behavior and derived relational responding, Barnes-Holmes et al. building on the work of Sidman explain how derived relational responding and arbitrary applicable, which are complex problem solving behaviors – arise from the core elements of behaviorism.
I mention Michael et al’s EO and MO in relation to sources of control – the notion that behavior can be influenced by a myriad of factors to varying extents depending on context and other environmental factors.
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2002). Relational frame theory: A post-skinnerian account of human language and cognition. In Hayne W. Reese and Robert Kail (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. Volume 28, pp. 101–138). JAI. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240702800635
Michael, J. (1993a). Establishing operations. Behavior Analyst, 16, 191–206.
Michael, J. (1993b). Explanatory fictions. JL Michael, Concepts and Principles of Behavior Analysis, 53–56.
Michael, J., Palmer, D. C., & Sundberg, M. L. (2011). The multiple control of verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 3–22.
Is this the Massive Customized Learning that I have bee hearing about? Although doesn’t it sound like an oxymoron?
Yes, MCL is based on CBE.
There’s nothing wrong with quick, immediate feedback for learning certain sorts of things. For example, it makes total sense for language learning, for checking the results of calculations in mathematics, for fact-based history tests, etc.
The issue isn’t whether this is a reasonable approach for specific areas of learning, but how much of learning should be of this sort. And that’s where the testing maniacs, programmed learning geeks, and corporate deformers get everything wrong when it comes to education. They think all learning can be REDUCED to what can be taught and checked by a machine. Which makes them, in the end, morons.
HAL might disagree!
“Fitting the Problem to the solution”
When problem fits solution
Instead of other way
The problem is delusion
Reality at bay
Pretty soon we are going to push teachers out of the classroom. My county works with a computer program that aids in “filling in the gaps” for students. And that’s essentially where it should stop. It should be a resource, not the sole method of instruction. My students waste over 3 hours per week of valuable instructional time, on a computer. Sometimes the computer freezes, starts lessons over, has typos, can’t go back to revisit whatever a child missed. Mind you, filling in the gaps means reviewing old content. We also have to teach the NEW content. There are also some more serious “glitches” with that. First and foremost, students all learn differently. That’s something a robot (computer) can’t figure out. Secondly, you have children who lose focus…something else a computer can’t aid with. Thirdly, studies show how sitting in front of a computer all day poses MANY health risks…mind you, these are developing children. Anyone know what it feels like to sit uncomfortably in front of a computer for 6 hours? Ask any adult in the 21st century. This is precisely why I started The Angela Morales Foundation and Teacher Teacher Diaries. A massive amount of teachers sit in silence while ridiculous policies are made every day. Again, let’s ask the hospital administrators what’s best for cancer patients, instead of the doctors themselves. It simply DOES NOT make sense! Are these new policies implemented with good intention? Some, sure! Let’s start asking the EDUCATORS who work with students day in and day out, instead of allowing policy makers (aka the hospital administrators who tell the doctor how to diagnose and treat patients), instead of teachers? Oh…last but not least…we haven’t even addressed socioeconomic issues and cultural boundaries. Do we really think a computer is the best option for students who come in hungry, needing someone to talk to because they possibly come from a rough home life, or simply don’t work well with a robot? Wake up America! There is a serious human disconnect here! Technology is taking over! And then we also wonder why so many kids are diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, and social/communication disorders. These are the future people of tomorrow. There is a serious problem in our entire society. Please, speak up! Find my foundation on Facebook, and visit my blog site at http://www.teacherteacherdiaries.blogspot.com where teachers are coming together (mostly in private meetings due to fear) to brainstorm solutions to these very issues in education. If more educators get involved, we can STOP this nonsense! My foundation is working on a way to be HEARD by legislators. Stop the madness in a positive way!
Excellent points.
Skinner is misunderstood & misrepresented.
He was opposed to sticker charts & token economies — because the schedules of reinforcement are too thick and the “rewards” don’t really function as such.
In reality, the way Skinner & any well trained behavior analysts would use technology are in many instances at odds with what is being done in schools. (See Skinner, 1968).
Consider, Skinner didn’t put his students in operant chambers to teach behavior. He had them build operant chambers. This is more in keeping with the current maker movement (See Halverson). Similarly, and also endorsed by constructivists & constructionists – (authentic) games based approaches to learning are more in line with an understanding of refined schedules of reinforcement (what some refer to as “internal motivation”). These are not atrocious little bunny flash card games – but immersive virtual reality simulations (cf. Squire & Barab).
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (n.d.). The Maker Movement in education. Harvard Educational Review.
Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: Engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Acton, Massachussets: Copley Publishing Group.
Please read my original post and watch the YouTube video embedded within of Skinner describing and demonstrating his teaching machines. The students are certainly not building their own operant chambers.
I would also add that I agree that behaviorism and its theories have merit and can be applied in certain settings (as with autistic children, as you mentioned) but there is no doubt that in the case of CBE, particularly in its current iteration, Skinner’s theories are being exploited for monetary gain.
Emily, I don’t disagree. But frankly, what ISN’T being exploited for monetary gain in education these days?
We all have to make a living, increasingly so thanks to the ill-effects of vulture capitalism in general and the corporate invasion of public education in particular. I don’t mind someone who has a truly great idea trying to make a decent living from sharing the idea and helping others benefit therefrom. But the more I look at conversations about education in general (and mathematics education, my field, in particular) I see increasing attempts to shill products and services that smell to the heavens of gimmickry, doctrine, and sometimes cult-like fanaticism. As one contemporary case in point, take the work of Howard Gardner. I’ve seen more absurd professional development offered on “multiple intelligences” and weaker, more woo-filled off-shoots of it over the past 25 years than I care to remember. Flavors of the month being passed out like (expensive) sugar pills tend to get me riled up.
I suppose the most reasonable thing I can say about all this neo-Skinnerian business, regardless of what one might think of Skinner’s actual ideas, is caveat emptor.
The teaching machines video is very well known and shown to almost every education grad student as to highlight the silliness of behaviorism.
However, it’s a misrepresentation, it was a good faith attempt with the technology of the time to provide differentiated instruction – much like the games based learning approaches today (as in Squire and Steinkuehler – not as in megacorp).
With the technology of today, this would look very different – e.g., Papert, Wilensky, participatory simulations, etc.
Whereas, Skinner’s grad students regularly build operant chambers to learn behaviorism – the teaching machines weren’t released (in any scale).
Similarly, Skinner articulated schedules of reinforcement after having tinkered them into fruition (See Skinner 1979, 1983, 1985). Skinner was more “maker” than sticker chart or token economies (he actually opposed token economies, which are commonly presented as flagship behavioral interventions).
The video is a decontextualized snippet that misrepresents the entire impetus of behaviorism — into a comfortable “common wisdom” interpretation of behaviorism.
Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist: Part two of an autobiography. New York, NY: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1983). A matter of consequences: Part three of an autobiography. New York, NY: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1985). Particulars of my life. New York, NY: Knopf.
Have you seen some of the programs that students are currently using in our schools? I have, as I teach fourth grade. (I also have an MA in developmental psych from Teachers College where I studied Skinner in depth.) You might be surprised to see how very similar some of these programs are to the one shown in this video. Better graphics, certainly… but same concept .
I agree with you. My only contention is that these program’s aren’t in keeping with Skinner’s vision. These are not the product of rigorous behavior analytic research – but scams to con money at students’ expense.
These products are atrocious and marketed as research based — but they diverge from real behaviorism in fundamental ways.
Online credit recovery in high school is a farce.
Are there computerized interventions that work? Sure. But most administrators, with the checkbooks, can’t distinguish. They get a sparkly tour and checks are signed.
I will note this misrepresentation isn’t unique to behaviorism. Constructionism, especially with PBL, is frequently misrepresented.
At the end of the day, it’s not the fault of epistemology – but rather businesses doing what sells at the greatest profit with the lowest (possible) investment.
Bad learning systems are easy – good ones are hard. It’s easier just to wine & dine school board and super-intendents.
Computers can be a useful tool, but they rarely work when they are used to replace face to face instruction. Poor students and young students get better results through connecting with another human through trust, respect, and relationships. The research has found that only older, motivated, middle class students appear to get satisfactory results from computer instruction. My son took both face to face and cyber courses in his undergraduate program. His conclusion was that he learned and retained more content from his traditional courses. While this is hardly any type of study, it would be a valid topic to investigate in a dissertation or academic research.
One thing I’ve seen first hand in schools is AR – Accelerated Reading – the idea is that kids read books then take a quiz on the computer – pass the quiz, get points and prizes, etc. I watched 2 kids at computers taking the quizzes. The books were good Children’s Literature. The kids were clicking though the quiz – wrong answer, pick another, etc. “Hey, did you guys read these books?” I asked. “Naw, we candor the quiz without reading the book.”
This same thing happened in the school I worked at! Unfortunately, our lowest performing group of students were placed in this “21st Century Literature” course. The kids didn’t read 21st century books, didn’t do book reports, didn’t analyze and discuss themes, characters, etc. They sat on the computers “reading” and taking quizzes. At least the courses on their transcript sounded nice! Unfortunately, many students from our graduating class couldn’t read (or read well) or do basic math.
I thought this was tracking? Are we coming back to this now after we said this wasn’t good for the students?
We aren’t supposed to call it tracking, but yes, it is. Our school called it “ability tiering”.
Really? Even more amazing is how our school did this!
If you had three “tiers” of geometry, each “tier” learned different material, based on standardized tests. It was common for the lowest tier geometry class to not learn geometry. Same thing with our algebra 1 courses. The lowest tier learned basic skills and a chapter of Algebra. The highest tier may have learned 3 chapters of Algebra with a focus on test prep. It was the most amazing thing I ever saw. I just didn’t understand, and still don’t. And quite honestly, don’t want to.
For me, this crap is back to the future, but with computers. In the mid 70s I was at a workshop where I heard about an individualized instruction program for teaching physical science. I was enthused; the teacher who innovated this provided me with the cassette tapes, worksheets, etc., etc., that I needed and with the support of my principal I enthusiastically implemented it in my junior high classroom. Part of my pre implementation training was a visit to the school that was all individualized instruction, where I was given a tour by a 9th grader who was wise beyond her years. I asked her how it was working; she told me that it was great…if you were motivated, not so good if you weren’t. I really didnt hear what she told me until I had to scrap the program…because she was right. I just couldnt supervise closely enough in a class of 28 to push along the kids who needed it. Now the program I tried had the students doing expeiments; answering high level questions…it was very hands on. Replace this with computers and no one learns anything. The motivated kids blow through it at breakneck pace; the unmotivated dawdle. It is a recipe for turning our kids into dopes.
Ralph, your point about 28 students highlights what Mamary said. In his school, the students would always know if they were not mastering the material, and, critically, the teacher always had back up, where the student could put in extra time with guidance, either in after school, or during vacations. Also the whole school was giving them the message, in a hundred ways, that they could master the material if they took advantage of the resources. Nowadays you would say that the whole school was designed to give the students a ‘growth mindset’.
Oops – computer thinks it’s smarter than I am and changed “can do” to “candor”
Also – during the 80s we did “individualized learning” which my teammate translated into a different stack of ditto sheets for each kid. She spent a ridiculous amount of time “correcting” these – most kids never looked at the corrections and the sheets littered the playground.
“Reform Skinner”
A Skinner Box is what we need
For Duncan and his friends
Whenever they do a dirty deed
They get some punishments
In the early and mid-1970’s the fairly large high school at which I taught tried something called “continuous progress” in their college-prep algebra 1 classes without computers but with teachers doing all the evaluation, teaching, assessment, etc. It worked quite well … for a while. Students felt less stress (but teachers felt more stress having to do all that individualization and one on one lessons), but students were able to progress through the algebra 1 curriculum at their own rate. We had files cabinets filled with pre-assessments, assignments, post-assessments in varying forms and formats to accommodate even the student who took the longest to master the content. All worked well until it came the end of the year when “credit” needed to be assigned to students for algebra 1. Some of the students had completed what we could consider the entire course; some had managed somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of the content, and others had not progressed at all for a variety of reasons. What could we say at the end of the year? Those who had completed the course got their math credit; those who completed somewhere around one-half the course got a half-credit, but what of the others? It’s been long enough that I no longer recall what we did. The next hurdle we came to was the following year when those who had completed algebra 1 went on to algebra 2, but what of the others? We created a “half-course” for those who had to complete algebra 1. By the third year, we had created such a scheduling nightmare that the entire idea was dropped and we had to recognize (faculty and administration both) that the idea was a colossal failure and that we had failed to serve a good population of our students. They had been shortchanged in a major way and there was nothing any one could do about it without making the situation even worse.
I see the same thing here with the difference only being computers…does anyone really think that students will sit at computers day after day after day working to “competency” in mathematics without the intervention of a highly trained and experienced teacher? Who will provide the opportunities for students to make connections between the mathematics they are learning and the world outside the schoolroom? Who will provide the opportunities for students to see and begin to understand that much of mathematics we study in high school (and now with Common Core in middle school) was created by real people and did not “magically appear”? I’m thinking of Newton and Leibnitz with the Calculus and Euclid and his Geometry along with Euler and network theory. These and other things apparently don’t mean anything to the “reformers”, but they make a huge difference to students and help to bring mathematics to life for many.
There is an actual video on YouTube of “Skinner’s Teaching Machine” and him talking about the wonders of it. I use it to illustrate to my college Education students how bizarre, unfair, and ineffective such things were/are……”Everything old is new again” HELP OUR CHILDREN AND TEACHERS ESCAPE THIS TRAP!!!
Rather than having your students watch that video – what doesn’t seem bizarre when completely decontextualized? – they’d be better served reading Jay Moore’s essay on social justice.
Moore, J. (2003). Behavior analysis, mentalism, and the path to social justice. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 181–193.
Or perhaps Skinner’s own discussion of the moral and ethical obligations of the educator?
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Education. In Science and human behavior (pp. 402–414). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). The question of control. In About behaviorism (pp. 208–227). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
This thread amusingly (and, I’m pretty sure, unintentionally) illustrates many of the problems with educational research/philosophy and its worthwhile application in a classroom:
1. either-or mindset (“phonics or whole language?”), resulting in pendulum swings
2. throwing out the old in favor of the new
3. failure to learn from cycles of the past
4. relying on academic “experts” who are either zealots or con artists
5. misapplying theory in real-life situations
6. oversimplification of teaching and learning
7. over-complication of teaching and learning
Didn’t the learning at the Skinner Boxes get all “gummed up” literally? I thought that in practice they proved to be dismal failures? But bring on more of the same!
The problem with programmed learning was that it was boring. Remember the SRA reading program?you read the passage, answered the questions, and looked up the correct answers. The passages were lame, the questions were stupid, and I could care less if I got them right or wrong. What good us instant feedback for a learning process which doesn’t capture the child’s interest.
Machines can’t replace teachers. Otherwise who would need to attend school – you could just turn on the computer and go at it. How us that becoming career or college ready?
“Pearsonalized Learning Aids”
When teachers are all gone
The bots will teach the children
Shock them when they’re wrong
Like Dr. Stanley Milgram
Deja vu:
Outcome Based Education uses students as guinea pigs in a vast social experiment. OBE advocates are not able to produce any replicable research or pilot studies to show that it works. OBE is being forced on entire state school systems without any evidence that it has been tried anywhere and found effective.
The best test of an OBE-type system was Chicago’s experiment in the 1970s with Professor Benjamin Bloom’s Mastery Learning (ML), which is essentially the same as OBE. ML was a colossal failure and was abandoned in disgrace in 1982. The test scores proved to be appallingly low and the illiteracy rate became a national scandal. Bloom, the father of ML, is well known for his statement that “the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” (All Our Children Learning, page 180.)
The major OBE/ML experiment, which took place in Utah in 1984-86, shows how federal funding enabled OBE to spread nationwide. A letter applying for the federal grant, written by Utah State Superintendent of Public Instruction G. Leland Burningham to then U.S. Secretary of Education T. H. Bell (July 27, 1984), stated:
“This [project] will make it possible to put Outcome-Based Education in place, not only in Utah but in all schools of the nation.”
Spady’s Far West Regional Laboratory received the federal grant and he was made director of this pilot project, which is now implementing OBE/ML nationwide.
OBE offers no method of accountability to students, parents, teachers, or taxpayers. Since OBE includes no objective standards of achievement that are measurable, it will be years and millions of tax dollars into the future before we know whether schoolchildren are learning anything important or are wasting their time. Educators admit that OBE is very expensive since each student works at his own pace at mastering every outcome/skill/behaviour until he succeeds. Perhaps this is what they mean by “lifelong learning.”
For as long as most of us can remember, secondary schools have been structured on a measurable grid called the “Carnegie units.” The traditional high school curriculum includes four units of English; three units each of mathematics, science and social studies; two units each of arts and humanities; a unit of health and physical education; and several electives. After you complete enough units (usually 21), you receive a high school diploma and colleges will admit you.
Outcome-Based Education tosses these traditional units out the window and replaces them with vague and subjective “learning outcomes” that cannot be measured objectively by standardized tests and for which there is no accountability to parents and taxpayers.
Jason Zimba admitted, when pressed, that the Common Core Standards, actually prepare students for non-selective community colleges, not universities.
Dawn, you are referring to other efforts than Johnson city under Mamary, and Mamary’s was critically different. Mammy’s effort was validated as successful, twice by the Department of Education, as well as by many other measures, including the Regents exams in New York. Again, let me emphasize that mastery learning was only one ingredient in that success. Mamary’s key advance was to put together an institutional structure and policies that made mastery learning work, when it failed in other settings because teachers didn’t have enough support and time to, in turn, give adequate instructional support to the slower students.
I think it is hard to argue against mastering simpler skills before moving on to more complex ones, in such subjects as mathematics and languages. I always though that Mortimer Adler had a good point that learning skills, information, and critical thinking, call for different modes of instruction. Mastery learning is mainly about skill acquisition.
Also I definitely don’t agree with “one size fits all”, as I have written in several places, including here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/11/35berkson.h28.html?qs=berkson and here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/22/issues-over-the-last-decade-have-me-really-steamed-a-history-making-centenarians-views-on-school-reform/
However, there are core academic skills that everyone needs to hold a career-track job in our economy, and schools should at least give all students who are not disabled these skills. And mastery learning can help them acquire these stills.
We’ve used OBE based on common standards for decades in one area that requires students to demonstrate mastery with both academic and performance assessments… This brief history of driver’s ed, a paradigmatic OBE program, might shed some light on the direction public education could be headed.
I wonder how a “machine” can have an intelligent back-and-forth conversation with a student about a piece of writing. Education is not simply about right and wrong. You think?