See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338149249

BEHAVIOURISM: ITS IMPLICATION TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Presentation · December 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 9,997

1 author:

Junn Ree Montilla

Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thesis Proposal View project

BEHAVIOURISM: ITS IMPLICATION TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Junn Ree Montilla on 01 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BEHAVIOURISM: ITS IMPLICATION TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
1
Junn Ree B Montilla
1junnree.montilla@g.msuiit.edu.ph

The theory of behaviourism holds that the act of learning is based around a series of
stimulus-response mechanisms; as such, education can be considered as the process of training
a learner to respond in particular ways to a set of recognized prompts. Viewing learning in this
way allows psychologists to pose and test questions about learning in an empirical way, and
does not require the researcher to posit the existence of any hypothetical mental state.
The behaviourist psychologist Edward Thorndike describes a mechanistic approach to
teaching and learning mathematics in his books The Psychology of Arithmetic on 1992 and The
Psychology of Algebra on 1923. He puts forward a law of exercise in these books which says
that connections between the stimulus and response are strengthened as they are used, and a
law of effect, which says that responses that lead to positive outcomes and feedback are also
strengthened. This view of mathematical learning has been influential in the widespread use of
rote and practice methods. Some learners have also been seen to develop an automated response
to more advanced mathematical topics: for example, upon seeing a trigonometry question,
many learners have been trained to label the sides of the triangle, then to select the appropriate
ratio, and follow a standard learned set of procedures to arrive with the answer.
Transfer in behaviourism, as a phenomenon that can occur when situations possess a
sufficient degree of commonality in their stimuli; if we set a learner two problems that look
sufficiently similar, then they will recognise the similarities and respond appropriately. While
there is some disagreement about the interpretation of experimental evidence regarding
transfer, studies do seem to support this idea in a broad sense. D. Detterman suggests in his
research that transfer is both uncommon and difficult, but when it does happen it occurs
between situations which are very similar. One immediate implication of cross-curricular
practice is that teachers should strive for consistency in the way different subjects present
similar tasks and actively direct pupils’ attention to instances where transfer is being called for.
The difficulty of even near transfer can be perceived in mathematics lessons, when pupils are
able to answer questions on a topic if they are worded in a certain way, but are unable to tackle
questions that are differently phrased or structured. Catrambone and Holyoak (1990)
investigated pupils’ ability to solve probability problems and found little evidence of transfer
when pupils had previously been trained on questions centred on a specific subgoal. They
suggested that teachers should therefore give pupils practice on questions phrased in a variety
of ways. Reed et al. (1985) also found limited evidence of transfer when investigating how
pupils fared solving algebra word problems. Surprisingly, when pupils had a solution to a
problem in front of them their ability to solve equivalent problems improved, but their ability
to solve problems that were only similar did not improve. Bassok and Holyoak (1993) found
evidence of different degrees of transfer between different combinations of subjects, and also
an asymmetry in the direction of transfer. In one experiment they investigated pupils’
performances in problems in algebra and physics that were structurally isomorphic; for
example, a question on arithmetic progressions could be mapped to a question about the motion
of a vehicle travelling with constant acceleration in a straight line. They found that it was more
common for pupils to transfer skills from algebra to physics than vice versa. In another
experiment they constructed similar problems in algebra and finance, and observed a greater
degree of transfer than had been the case between algebra and physics. Although the results
discussed above can be understood in terms of situations with different levels of similarity in
their stimuli, another possibility is that the pupils had built up their understandings in a way
that made transfer to algebra a qualitatively different task for learners who had studied finance
compared to those who had studied physics. This shift of focus from the situation to the learners
themselves requires a different theory of learning.
Thorndike's connectionism paved its way for this movement. Connectionism describes
the link between stimuli and responses that can be initiated and fortified through
reinforcements or repeated use of the stimuli. It led B. F. Skinner's belief that only a small
portion of learned behaviors were due to classical conditioning. Skinner proposed that operant
conditioning played a significant role in learned behaviors. Operant conditioning is learning in
which behavior is altered by events that precede and follow the behavior. Reinforcement is an
example of operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement is used to strengthen a behavior by
presenting a desired stimulus after an action. Rewarding a student for effort is an example of
positive reinforcement. If a student will not stop distracting a neighboring student, the teacher
can change the student's seat assignment. This is an example of negative reinforcement. The
teacher is weakening the behavior by removing the adverse stimulus.
Thorndike's investigations, which looked at learning in terms of selected associations
to related actions, strongly influenced the development of behaviorism. An American
psychology by John B. Watson (Driscoll, 1994) was introduced to this philosophical concept.
Skinner became the major advocate of behaviorism, believed that a person's behavior is a
function of environmental actions and results. Behaviorism centers on a direct approach and
has been the dominant strategy for teaching mathematics for many years. The behaviorist
approach essentially treats mathematics as a collection of skills. Learn all the skills and learn
mathematics.
Robert Gagné used the idea that a sequence of tasks could be established for a desired
learning outcome. If the student practiced each required task as it was learned and developed,
then that learner would then be able to move on to the next step in the continuum. Let’s consider
this situation and ask this questions.

1. When discussing addition of fractions, can a continuum for addition of fractions be

established?
2. Can a similar list be built for each concept in mathematics?
3. Do you have adequate time and background to build a list for each concept you teach?
Are you willing to trust someone else to build the list for you?
4. What happens if you do not agree with the established list?
5. It appears that the emphasis has shifted from how learners learn mathematics to what
mathematics should be learned. Is this what we are after?
6. Within a department, suppose not everyone accepts the behaviorist approach to
teaching. What is the impact on text selection?
7. If departmental examinations are used, how are the different concepts tested?
8. What impact will this have on students who move from a behaviorist-based class to a
non-behaviorist-based class?
9. What is the impact on learners learning a procedure without conceptually grasping the
reason for it?
10. The discussion about the learning theories becomes focused on whether it is wisest to
provide an efficient learning environment that results primarily in the acquisition of
academic knowledge, or to take an approach that provides a more in-depth, indirect
process encompassing the whole learner. If a basic concept is not fully comprehended,
should the student move on?
11. If the learner is taught how to mechanically do a problem but does not understand the
process or application, is the knowledge useful to the learner?
 There is a need to consider the amount of time learners are actively taught or supervised.
In a direct instruction classroom, the teacher presents information and develops concepts
through lecture and demonstration. As learners question, respond to teacher queries, react to
assignments, and do practice exercises, elaborations are given that are designed to clarify and
strengthen understanding.
Mastery Learning. Mastery learning permits the teacher to go on as long as a learners’
learning pace is not hurried just to keep up with the rest of the class. This is based on the
realization that we all learn at different rates. Mastery learning implies that each learner will
master a subordinate skill before proceeding to the next skill level. When using mastery
learning with direct instruction, the teacher begins a unit of study by using techniques involving
lecture, demonstrations, and review, along with drill and practice. At an appropriate interval,
more often about 3 – 5 days, the teacher deviates from the normal routine to administer some
form of evaluation to assess learner understanding.
If only we could dissect each learners’ brain and somehow tell what has been learned,
the processes that are most likely to succeed, and the propensities for learning. If that could be
done, perhaps a better connection between theory and practice could be established. Then,
learning theories could be more solid and identifiable.
We cannot dissect a learners’ brain. We are reduced to studying tendencies and creating
theories. We heard many times, “Is there a difference between theory and practice?” Many
theories will “sound good” or “make sense” on paper. Often, theories are created out of
observation, knowledge of learner learning, thought, and discussion. The background is often
built in a specific, sometimes controlled, setting or with a limited number of cases. The real
world of the classroom often does not resemble the theory environment. Putting theory into
practice is not that simple. Implementation of a learning theory also assumes the teacher is well
versed in the related ideas. That assumption is often unrealistic from the standpoint of a teacher
who was exposed to the theory or strategy in a class or in-service session but is swamped with
all the details related to classroom production.
We think back to our own learning environments, searching for clues about how we
learned different skills and concepts. The assumption is that if we are “normal” and if we can
figure out how we learned to perform a given task, we might gain some insight into what can
be done to help students learn as they advance through the world of mathematics. Considering
time and memory, the likelihood of our remembering minute details from our learning is not
great. Besides, most of us who are involved in the teaching and learning of mathematics are
not “typical” representatives of students found in secondary mathematics classes. Students and
how they perceive or learn mathematics change from year to year.

References

Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K.J. (1993). Pragmatic knowledge and conceptual structure:
determinants of transfer between quantitative domains. In: D. K. Detterman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds) Transfer on Trial intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 68–98).
(Norwood: Ablex).

Brumbaugh, D. K. and Rock, D. (2013). Teaching Secondary Mathematics (Fourth Edition).

Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017: Taylor & Francis Group

Catrambone, Richard & Holyoak, Keith. (1990). Learning subgoals and methods for solving
probability problems. Memory & cognition. 18. 593-603. 10.3758/BF03197102.
 Detterman, D. L. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as epiphenomenon. In D. K.
Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and
instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Driscoll J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse. Vol.13 Jan/Feb. 47 -50

Esler, W. K. , & Sciortino, P. (1991). Methods for teaching: An overview of current practices.
Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Co.

Hamilton, E. (1924). The Psychology of Arithmetic. By E. L. Thorndike. Pp. xvi 314. 9s. net.
1922. (The Macmillan Co.) - The Psychology of Algebra. By E. L. Thorndike and
Others. Pp. xi 483. 10s. 6d. net. 1923. (The Macmillan Co.). The Mathematical Gazette,
12(171), 174-176. doi:10.2307/3603015

View publication stats