The Great Pedagogical Debate: Behaviorism vs.

Constructivism
Posted on May 20, 2011 by bakeramitchell

Background
A recent paper (1) published by The John William Pope Center for Higher Education
Policy discusses the conflict between the educational objectives desired by the
general public and the different objectives implemented by the states schools of
education which are training our teachers. (See: UNC Education Schools: Helping or
Hindering Potential Teachers by Dr. G. K. Cunningham)
Dr. Cunningham, the author of three textbooks on educational assessments and
goals, thoroughly surveys the conceptual frameworks of the states nine major
schools of education. In every case, he finds explicit adherence to a framework called
progressive/constructivist, the principles of which diverge greatly from the publics
perception of what education should be all about. He finds that the states higher
education establishment for teachers is totally dominated by adherents to this
constructivist ideology. There is almost no inclusion or acknowledgement of the
alternative set of principles known as behaviorism that inform state law.
Purpose of this Paper
Most of us are familiar with the foundations that lead to competing ideologies in
various institutions: in economics (Adam Smiths capitalism vs. Karl Marxs
communism) and religion ( Christianity vs. Islam) for example. Few lay persons are
aware, however, of the foundations that drive the competing ideologies in education.
This brief paper attempts to summarize the origins and salient features of these two
contrasting approaches to educationbehaviorism and constructivism. In so doing,
it is hoped that the lay reader can gain a greater understanding of the reasoning
behind each approach and be better able to judge the motives and goals of the
adherents of each belief.
Ideology in Education: The twenty-first century dawns with a struggle that began
taking place on the pedagogical turf of education in the mid-1900s. (Pedagogy: from
pedo + agogy, literally child + leader)
The ideological struggle between two teaching methods that is taking place cannot be
understood without referencing the work of the founding fathers of the two opposing
practices:
for constructivism there is the early work of John Dewey but mainly of Swiss
psychologist Jean Piaget (Pee-uh-zhay) and his book, Language and Thought of the
Child written in 1923 and revised in 1932 and again in 1959. One may trace the

origins of constructivism further back to Rousseaus Emil and then Deweys My

Pedagogic Creed.
for behaviorism there is the empirical research of Watson and Harvard
psychologist B. F. Skinner, The Behavior of Organisms (1938) and Science and
Human Behavior (1953) along with Robert Mager, and others.
Skinners 1953 book Science and Human Behavior lent solid experimental backing
to the more traditional methods of education that had been practiced for thousands
of years until their overthrow by Dewey. But Deweys die had been firmly cast and
constructivism continued to gain momentum until it now completely dominates
education in the United States. Like the failed Soviet economy, however, the evident
failings of constructivist ideology are prompting traditionalists, buttressed by the
proven findings of behaviorism, to begin striving for more control in the decisionmaking and policy setting of our educational institutions.
From schools of education to legal requirements, from curriculum publishers to
departments of instruction and their government-run schools, constructivism has
evolved since the 1940s to become the dominant ideology pervading education. A
feature of constructivism that makes it popular in some circles is that constructivism
places the responsibility for learning with the learner and not with the teacher. In
sharp contrast, behaviorism, supporting traditional methods places the responsibility
for learning squarely on the shoulders of the teacher.

Constructivism is based on a set of assumptions about what goes on inside the

learners head. Piagets constructivism assumes that genetically controlled brain

development governs an assumed time-table of when a child is capable of learning.

This idea asserts that our brain constructs its own meanings from the social
environment when it is ready according to our genetic abilities and that teachers can
have only a minimal effect on learning. Fortunately or unfortunately for
constructivists none of these assumptions can be, or have been, proven. They can
only be inferred to be correct. We cannot pry a subjects skull open to see whats
going on inside. The same can be said for the psycho-analytical psychologists and
their theories about the effects of our past as being abused as children, spoiled as
children, ignored as children, or whatever, on the motives governing our present or
future actions (and thoughts).
Behaviorism eschews all discussion about what goes on inside the head because we
cannot directly measure or observe it. Likewise, the genetic issue is immaterial to the
behaviorist. The behaviorist focuses on:
-the present environment of a subject (antecedent conditions = A) and
-what behavior is exhibited (behavior = B) in that environment and
-what consequences follow (consequences =
C).

All factors are observable and subject to experimental verification or refutation. The
A-B-C sequences can be experimentally observed with differing antecedent
conditions, A, and differing consequences, C, that are under control of the
experimenter. Thus, one may answer a question such as, In a given situation, A,
what types of consequences, C, are more effective for producing a desired behavior,
B?

Implications
The implications for developing teaching methodologies based on the two diverging
ideas of constructivism or behaviorism are immense.
Constructivists: Constructivists champion practices that emphasize learning
through natural peer group social interactions. These practices include such concepts
as brain-based learning, multi-sensory learning styles, discovery learning, inquiry
methods, whole language reading, balanced literacy, authentic learning
environments, and many more.
Constructivists may also argue that external rewards such as smiley faces on
homework or praises such as Good work, Johnny! are damaging to the goal of
having the student become intrinsically motivated to learn for the sheer rewards
inherent in the learning, itself. (See Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn.)
Behaviorists: Behaviorists point to decades of data from highly controlled studies
of matched class rooms that show superior performance when rewards positive
reinforcers are liberally given for good work. (Behaviorists also like to ask Mr.
Kohn if he would have written his book for free without accepting any payment or
royalties and why he commands such a high speaking fee.)
Behaviorists point to the proven successes of direct instructional methods and
positive reinforcement for motivation that occur with properly trained instructional
personnel using carefully sequenced curricula.
Whose fault is failure?
From his childhood, Piaget admitted his disdain for teachers and so tried to undercut
their role in the learning process. In so doing, he offered them the perfect excuse for
the students failure. Unionists and other educational apologists can cling to Piaget
and, with the possible exception of falsely blaming societal ills such as poverty and
family breakdown, maintain that everyone is blameless in this genetically determined
process of the learner having to construct his own learning at a developmentally
appropriate rate.
Former Secretary of Education Rod Paiges book The War Against Hope: How
Teachers Unions Hurt Children, Hinder Teachers, and Endanger Public Education
rails against these apologists but does not identify the theoretical basis for their
argued positions.
Constructivists were greatly reinforced by the availability in 1962 of an English
translation of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotskys 1934 book Thought and
Language. As summarized in Susan Paths recent book Parallel Paths to

Constructivism, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, 2004, Path seems to buttress the
argument that Vygotsky offers confirming evidence of Piagets constructivism.
Even a casual perusal of Thought and Language finds, however, a careful attempt
to bring order to the divisive field of psychology. Vygotsky tries to first create a
taxonomy for the field and includes citations of Piaget (which many may have been
mistaken as his confirmation) but he then directly refutes these ideas by saying that
we have developed our own theoretical position in exactly an opposite direction.
Vygotsky goes on to summarize by saying, Piagets view [that the child is impervious
to experience teaching] may hold for the particular group of children he studied,
but it is not of universal significance.
Thus while many seek to use Vygotsky as verification of Piaget, they should heed
Vygotskys own observation that, Studying child thought apart from the influence of
instruction, as Piaget did, excludes a very important source of change and bars the
researcher from posing the question of the interaction of development and
instruction to each age level.
In spite of Vygotskys own denial, we now find schools of education citing Dewey,
Piaget, and Vygotsky as the unassailable and infallible founding fathers of their new
constructivist pedagogy, with the data-driven empirical findings of Skinner being
dismissed as mere rat science.
North Carolinas children are woefully deficient in reading comprehension according
to numerous testsboth state normed and nationally normed. Small wonder since
their education school professors display a similar deficiency by continuing to
misread hard data from the research.
The Roger Bacon Academy is a highly successful North Carolina based educational
management organization that focuses on behavioral methods in the K-8 classroom.
It manages two rural Title I charter schools which are the highest scoring schools in
their counties: Columbus Charter School and Charter Day School. Applications for
employment are always welcome.