Running head: FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 1

Final Exam

Kevin Wilnechenko

SFU – EDUC 326

August 14, 2011

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 2

Part 1 - Introduction

The final exam for SFU’s EDUC 326 is a fictitious written assignment where I am

assuming the role of a parent of a grade eight boy who is having difficulty in school. I have just

discovered that the school follows the principles of a behaviorist model and I am outraged. I am

certain that this model is the cause of my son's – and others' – difficulty in this school. I call

together a group of parents and give them a presentation on the inadequacies of the behaviorist

model, as well as the positives for using a constructivist model.

The school my son attends is an inner city middle school with a student body from a low

socio-economic background. As such, the students at this school tend to have issues at home and

are often quite challenging in the classroom. Having taken EDUC 326, I am aware that my son’s

type preference is sensing-perceiving (SP). SP students need relevancy, spontaneity and freedom.

I suspect that his learning style is not being met or even identified under the behaviorist model.

In this final exam, it is important to know that my type preference is sensing-judging

(SJ), which explains why I feel inclined to spend time working on and putting together a

presentation for the other parents. SJ people are driven by a need to serve and guard the system. I

feel that it is my duty to step up advocate for my son and the other students.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 3

The Presentation

I would like to welcome and thank everyone for coming. I suppose I should start by

explaining why I put this presentation together. As some of you may be aware, there are a

number of grade eight students, my son included, who have expressed dissatisfaction with the

education they are receiving at our school. A few of the parents and I discussed this matter and I

decided to a little investigating. Upon looking in to the matter I have discovered that the

education model used at our school is a behaviorist model, and I believe this model is failing

many of our students.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism is a learning theory that originated in the early 1900’s and was developed by

theorists such as Watson, Thorndale, Wolpe, Bandura, Skinner, and Pavlov. It is a learning

theory that is concerned more about the end product than the process. Behaviorism involves the

introduction of environmental stimuli, like rewards and punishments, to bring about a change in

behavioral responses. These are to “occur immediately after a behavior” and are applied

“frequently in the classroom” (Standridge, 2002). The behaviorist model follows the thinking

that if I do A, you’ll do B. It is interested in measureable, standardized, predictable and

observable outcomes in academic performance as well as behavior management. Rote

memorization of data, which happens regularly at our school, requires a low degree of processing

and does not lead to deep thinking or true understanding, only correct responses.

The behaviorist model is outdated; it was used for training during war years and has no

place in our schools today. Using Pavlov’s stimulus response method, W.W.II pilots were

conditioned to react to silhouettes of enemy planes, and their responses became automatic. Do

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 4

we want our children to be treated like soldiers? Our students’ teachers are building their classes

around routine and repetition. As a result, true learning is not taking place.

When it comes to positive and negative reinforcement, I can understand that students will

work for things that bring them positive feelings, and they will generally avoid behaviors they

associate with unpleasantness (Parkay & Hass, 2000). However, students will only change

behaviors to satisfy the desires they have learned to value from people they admire (Standridge,

2002). Do the students admire teachers who use a behaviorist system? I don’t think they do.

The behaviorist model would have us test and assess on a regular basis, but maybe our

children don’t need so much assessment. We need to limit the number of assignments that are

given a letter grade. The notion that students need to be motivated with grades and external

rewards, as the behaviorist model preaches, is simply not true. Kohn (1999) speaks of removing

rewards and using intrinsic motivation to spark learning.

Specific Examples

My son and some of his friends have been complaining that they aren’t learning the way

they should in many of the classes in our school. I will now give you three specific examples that

illustrate the kind of behavioral outlook this school has adopted. These examples are not meant

to point fingers at specific teachers but only to shed light on how the system has failed students.

1. In the English 8 poetry unit students are told what each poem means and then tested, in

the form of essays, on how much they can remember. Those who regurgitate the

information back to the teacher are rewarded with good grades and high praises. From

what I understand, the students are not asked to interpret the meaning themselves. They

should be reflecting on their own experiences and writing poetry of their own.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 5

2. In Math 8, my son is often accused of acting out and given consequences. However, the

reality is that he is bored because the material is simply too easy for him. On the other

hand, his friend receives the same form of punishment for similar behavior, but it is for

the opposite reason - the material is way over his head. Shouldn’t the teacher try to find

ways to meet these students where they need it most?

3. Experimentation and exploration is not happening in Science 8, a place where one would

expect it the most. Similar to the English class, students are caught up in a routine of note

taking, memorization, and test writing. Where is the sense of wonder? What is a hands-on

student like my son to do? He and so many other students need to see the relevance of

what is being taught. How is the behaviorist model meeting their needs?

The Sensing-Perceiving Student

To put some of this into context, I should let you that my son and many of his friends

have a type personality that is sensing-perceiving (SP). SP students have a need for relevancy

and appreciate practical applications. They love spontaneity and resist against schedules, rules,

and fixed systems. I do not suggest that my son’s learning style is more important than that of

other students. There are just so many SP students in our school that perhaps we need to look at

better ways to educate them. SP learners are more likely to drop out of school than any other

personality type (Mamchur, 1996). They love activity and if a SP child is extroverted he/she will

be a constant fidgiter. We need a strategy that gets these students moving. When tested, SP

students love one word answer tests as well as matching and ABC multiple choice tests. To only

rely on essays puts these students at a disadvantage. We need a model that recognizes different

learning styles and tests with variety.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 6

Constructivism

In response to the behaviorist method, which seems to be failing so many of our students,

we need to consider other approaches to teaching. Constructivism is a theory developed by

Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky and came after behaviorism. It states that learning occurs through

experimentation and exploration. With constructivism, "knowledge is constructed by learners as

they attempt to make sense of their experiences" (Driscoll, 2005). The learner is not a passive

recipient but an active participant in the learning process.

Constructivism wants to know how an individual derives meaning. Unlike behaviorism,

its tasks demand high levels of processing and problem solving. Because interpretation depends

on one’s background, there can be different interpretations of the same thing. Constructivism

celebrates this diversity. The poems in English 8 should be looked at through many lenses,

including those of the students. Students need to be allowed to draw on their own experiences as

they think about meaning, and then given the freedom to explore with their own writing.

There is a branch of constructivism called social constructivism, which was pioneered by

the works of Vygotsky. Vygotsky believed that children do not learn in a vacuum, separated

from the world, but that learning occurs through another person – a teacher, an adult, or a

knowledgeable peer (Vygotsky, 1978). He coined the term zone of proximal development, which

represents a range of knowledge that an individual is comfortable with. The roll of an educator is

to scaffold learning and keep the student in the zone of proximal development, which may be

different for each student.  To do this there must be adjustments to the support, depending on

what is required by the student (Miller, 2002).  Modeling is an effective way to support learning

as it is through observation that knowledge, skills, and beliefs are acquired (Schunk, 2004).

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 7

Suggestion

I suggest that our school subscribe to a constructivist system. The teachers should be

teaching with the students in mind. Students need to explore their feelings as well as discuss their

interpretations of what they are studying. I would like to see the science teacher assign more

hands-on activities and allow the students to collaborate in small groups instead of just taking

notes. A practical way that the students could be given more freedom to create their own

meaning is to give the students choices. Do they have choices under the current model? I don’t

think they do. Glasser’s choice theory gives students enough power and freedom to make

educational decisions about their own learning and do quality work. Once a teacher creates

conditions that produce quality work, “most of the problems associated with managing a

classroom disappear (Mamchur, 2010). The issues in my son’s math class would be resolved

because he would be challenged with the curriculum and his friend would find the help he needs.

Conclusion

I have just described two very different learning theories. Behaviorism, currently used by

our school, is concerned with results and is about rewards and punishments. Constructivism,

rather, is concerned with the learner and how he/she might interpret what is being taught. It

allows for expression and finds ways to acknowledge growth and recognize accomplishment,

thus improving self-efficacy. The strength of a constructivist model is that learners are able to

interpret information and problem solve on their own, which will better prepare them for real life

situations. I suggest that the school abandons their behaviorist strategies and replace them with

ones of a constructivist nature. I believe that all students will benefit, especially those with SP

personality types like that of my son.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 8

Part 2 - Introduction

When I got home, I wondered whether I did the right thing by presenting the way I did. Why did

I really choose the constructivist model over the behaviorist model? I examined each of the two

models again and had a talk with myself about why they did or did not appeal to me. However,

this time instead of considering my son’s personality type of sensing-perceiving (SP), I based my

observations on my own personality type of sensing-judging (SJ).

My Inner Struggle

I felt that the presentation went well but I could not understand why there was a group of

parents that didn’t fully agree with what I said. They did not share the same opinion that the

school needed to change. Instead, they gave counter examples of how their son or daughter was

successful and enjoyed the classes. I suppose I shouldn’t have expected that everyone would see

things the same way that I did. Perhaps I didn’t look at this issue from all angles. One argument

against me was that our school’s standardized test scores remain above average among other

schools, so the need for drastic change is not necessary. I had not considered that.

I now realize that though my son, and other SP students, may not be doing so well in a

behaviorist model, other personality types may be thriving. Who am I to say to the parents of

these children that we need to push for change, lest I be guilty of holding too tight to my own

preferred learning theory? Although the school should look at other models, I need to make sure

that I don’t get tunnel vision myself. Mamchur (1983) says it best when she says "to ever accept

a 'method' as 'the' method is to destroy it." There is no perfect formula for a district, school, or

classroom; each situation needs to be looked at uniquely.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 9

My Reasons

Why did I push so hard for change? I love my son and I became motivated when I

learned of his struggles. However, I think my motivation also came from somewhere else. In my

EDUC 326 course I learned that my personality type is SJ. SJ people are “driven by the need to

serve, to do one’s duty, and to guard the system” (Mamchur, 1996). I was just trying to advocate

for my son and be a supportive parent. When he told me about his problems, the SJ in me felt

obligated to take action. SJ people also do not know when to give up and tend to bite off more

than they can chew, which is exactly what I think I did.

In addition my learning style is ISFJ (introversion, sensing, feeling, judging). ISFJ

people value positive interaction and collaboration, and these line up well with the constructivist

model. I just wanted our teachers to understand that the students they teach are all different, and

that doing things one way will not work. Understanding individual learning styles would happen

more under a constructivist model.

However, the ISFJ learning style likes order and organization, which the behaviorist

model does provide. It believes “there are rules to classroom life and expects the teacher to

enforce them” (Mamchur,2010). Ironically, the behaviorist model also agrees with SJ thinking in

that SJ people prefer classrooms that are formally structured and learning environments that are

predictable and fair, with clear-cut assignments. I suppose the teachers at our school try to run

their classes with these qualities. Maybe I just felt that things weren’t fair for my son and I

exaggerated how bad the situation was.

Modified View

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 10

Perhaps behaviorism is not as bad as I made it out to be. Our school is known for being

difficult, with a student body that is largely undisciplined. The behavioral model may be of some

use in our school after all. Mamchur (2010) says that “when children have had no opportunity to

develop self-control, have low self-esteem, and could be in danger to themselves, the behavioral

model is still often perceived as most effective.” This describes many of our students as it is

often the case that their home life has little support and a lack of roll models.

In addition, it is not as if constructivism has no weaknesses. If there are situations where

conformity is essential, “divergent thinking and action may cause problems” (Mergel, 1998).

What about fire drills where the entire school must fall in line and obey predetermined policies,

or final exam procedures where students must conform to rules that apply to each student? In

these instances, we do not want free thinkers. We would choose a behaviorist approach over a

constructivist one. It seems that there is a place for each theory within the practice of

instructional design, depending upon the situation and environment (Mergel, 1998).

Conclusion

I now see that there is no one best method. We need to consider all learning models

because the students we teach are so diverse. I do not regret doing the presentation since our

school, like each of us, is a work in progress. I plan to do another presentation again but next

time I will have a more balanced approach. I will need to look at even more learning theories like

activity theory, situated & distributed cognition, cognitive information processing, and Ausubel’s

assimilation theory. This may turn out to be quite an undertaking, but the ISFJ in me welcomes

the opportunity to serve my community.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 11

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. (3rd ed.). NY: Pearson.  

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. In Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 6(4), 50-70.

Kohn, K. (1999). Hooked on learning: The roots of motivation in the classroom. In Punished by

rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes (pp.

198-226). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Mamchur, C. (1983, January). Heartbeat. Educational Leadership, 40(4), 14-20.

Mamchur, C. (1996). A teacher’s guide to cognitive type theory & learning style. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mamchur, C. (2010). Classroom Management & Discipline. Study guide. Copyright 2010 Simon

Fraser University.

McEwan, B. (2000). Democratic consequences. In D. A. Stollenwerk (Ed.), The art of classroom

management: Effective practices for building equitable learning communities (pp. 97-

118). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

FINAL EXAM FOR EDUC 326 12

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory. Retrieved online 4 Aug 2011 from:

http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Miller, P. H. (2002). Theories of Developmental Psychology, (4th ed.). New York: Worth.

Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative

tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parkay, F.W. & Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum Planning (7th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn

& Bacon.

Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology. Retrieved 4 August 2011 from:

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Behaviorism

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.