** This section on behaviorism is largely a synopsis of information from Paul Saettler's book,
The History of
American Educational Technology
In Paul Saettler's book , he states that behaviorism did nothave an impact on educational technology until the 1960s, which was the time that behaviorism actually beganto decrease in popularity in American psychology. Saettler identified six areas thatdemonstrate the impact ofbehaviorism on Educational Technology in America: the movement; thephase; the movement; approaches,and the to instruction.
Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction Movement
Although the elder Sophists, Comenius, Herbart and Montessori used the concept of programmed instruction
in their repertoire, B.F. Skinner is the most current and probably best known advocate of teaching machines
and programmed learning. Contributors to this movement include the following:
Pressey - introduced a multiple-choice machine at the 1925 American Psychological Association
Peterson - a former student of Pressey's who developed "chemosheets" in which the learner checked
their answers with a chemical-dipped swab.
W.W.II - devises called "phase checks", constructed in the 1940s and 1950s, taught and tested such
skills and dissassembly-assembly of equipment.
Crowder - designed a branched style of programming for the US Air force in the 1950s to train
troubleshooters to find malfunctions in electronic equipment.
Skinner - based on operant conditioning Skinner's teaching machine required the learner to complete or
answer a question and then receive feedback on the correctness of the response. Skinner demonstrated
his machine in 1954.
Early Use of Programmed Instruction
After experimental use of programmed instruction in the 1920s and 1930s, B. F. Skinner and J.G. Holland first
used programmed instruction in behavioral psychology courses at Harvard in the late 1950s. Use of
programmed instruction appeared in elementary and secondary schools around the same time. Much of the
programmed instruction in American schools was used with individuals or small groups of students and was
more often used in junior high schools than senior or elementary schools (Saettler, 1990).
Early use of programmed instruction tended to concentrate on the development of hardware rather than course
content. Concerned developers moved away from hardware development to programs based on analysis of
learning and instruction based on learning theory. Despite these changes, programmed learning died out in the
later part of the 1960s because it did not appear to live up to its original claims (Saettler, 1990).
Individualized Approaches to Instruction
Similar to programmed learning and teaching machines individualized instruction began in the early 1900s,
and was revived in the 1960s. The Keller Plan, Individually Prescribed Instruction, Program for Learning in
Accordance with Needs, and Individually Guided Education are all examples of individualized instruction in
the U.S. (Saettler, 1990).
Keller Plan (1963)
Developed by F.S. Keller, a colleague of Skinner, the Keller plan was used for university college
Main features of Keller Plan
lectures and demonstrations motivational rather than critical information.
use of proctors which permitted testing, immediate scoring, tutoring, personal-social aspect of
Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) (1964)
Developed by Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pitsburgh.
Lasted into the 1970s when it lost funding and its use dwindled
Main features of IPI:
planned instructional sequences.
used for reading, math and science.
included pretest and posttest for each unit.
materials continually evaluated and upgraded to meet behavioral objectives.
Program for Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN) (1967)
Headed by Jon C. Flanagan, PLAN was developed under sponsorship of American Institutes for
Research (AIR), Westinghouse Learning Corporation and fourteen U.S. School districts.
Abandoned in late 1970s because of upgrading costs
Main features of PLAN
schools selected items from about 6,000 behavioral objectives.
each instructional module took about two weeks instruction and were made up of approximately.
remedial learning plus retesting.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)
Computer-assisted instruction was first used in education and training during the 1950s. Early work was done
by IBM and such people as Gordon Pask, and O.M. Moore, but CAI grew rapidly in the 1960s when federal
funding for research and development in education and industrial laboratories was implemented. The U.S.
government wanted to determine the possible effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction, so they developed
two competing companies, (Control Data Corporation and Mitre Corporation) who came up with the PLATO
and TICCIT projects. Despite money and research, by the mid seventies it was apparent that CAI was not
going to be the success that people had believed. Some of the reasons are:
CAI had been oversold and could not deliver.
lack of support from certain sectors.
technical problems in implementation.
lack of quality software.
Computer-assisted instruction was very much drill-and-practice - controlled by the program developer rather
than the learner. Little branching of instruction was implemented although TICCIT did allow the learner to
determine the sequence of instruction or to skip certain topics.
The shift of instructional design from behaviorism to cognitivism was not as dramatic as the move into
constructivism appears to be, since behaviorism and cognitivism are both objective in nature. Behaviorism and
cognitivism both support the practice of analyzing a task and breaking it down into manageable chunks,
establishing objectives, and measuring performance based on those objectives. Constructivism, on the other
hand, promotes a more open-ended learning experience where the methods and results of learning are not
easily measured and may not be the same for each learner.
While behaviorism and constructivism are very different theoretical perspectives, cognitivism shares some
similarities with constructivism. An example of their compatibility is the fact that they share the analogy of
comparing the processes of the mind to that of a computer. Consider the following statement by Perkins:
"...information processing models have spawned the computer model of the mind as an information
processor. Constructivism has added that this information processor must be seen as not just shuffling
data, but wielding it flexibly during learning -- making hypotheses, testing tentative interpretations, and
so on." (Perkins, 1991, p.21 in Schwier, 1998 ).
Other examples of the link between cognitive theory and constructivism are:
schema theory (Spiro, et al, 1991, in Schwier, 1998)
connectionism (Bereiter, 1991, in Schwier, 1998)
hypermedia (Tolhurst, 1992, in Schwier, 1998)
multimedia (Dede, 1992, in Schwier, 1998)
Despite these similarities between cognitivism and constructivism, the objective side of cognitivism supported
the use of models to be used in the systems approach of instructional design. Constructivism is not compatible
with the present systems approach to instructional design, as Jonassen points out :
"The conundrum that constructivism poses for instructional designers, however, is that if each individual
is responsible for knowledge construction, how can we as designers determine and insure a common set
of outcomes for leaning, as we have been taught to do?" (Jonasson, [On-line])
In the same article, Jonassen (Jonasson, [On-line]) lists the following implications of constructivism for
"...purposeful knowledge construction may be facilitated by learning environments which:
Provide multiple representations of reality - avoid oversimplification of instruction by by representing
the natural complexity of the world
Present authentic tasks - contextualize
Provide real-world, case-based learning environments, rather than pre-determined instructional
Foster reflective practice
Enable context- and content-dependent knowledge construction
Support collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation, not competition among
learners for recognition
"Although we believe that constructivism is not a prescriptive theory of instruction, it should be possible
to provide more explicit guidelines on how to design learning environments that foster constructivist
Jonassen points out that the difference between constructivist and objectivist, (behavioral and cognitive),
instructional design is that objective design has a predetermined outcome and intervenes in the learning process
to map a pre-determined concept of reality into the learner's mind, while constructivism maintains that because
learning outcomes are not always predictable, instruction should foster, not control, learning. With this in mind,
Jonassen looks at the commonalties among constructivist approaches to learning to suggest a "model" for
designing constructivist learning environments.
"...a constructivist design process should be concerned with designing environments which support the
construction of knowledge, which ..."
Is Based on Internal Negotiation
a process of articulating mental models, using those models to explain, predict, and infer, and
reflecting on their utility (Piaget's accommodation, Norman and Rumelhart's tuning and
Is Based on Social Negotiation
a process of sharing a reality with others using the same or similar processes to those used in
Is Facilitated by Exploration of Real World Environments and Intervention of New Environments
processes that are regulated by each individual's intentions, needs, and/or expectations
Results in Mental Models and provides Meaningful, Authentic Contexts for Learning and Using the
should be supported by case-based problems which have been derived from and situated in the
real world with all of its uncertainty and complexity and based on authentic realife practice
Requires an Understanding of its Own Thinking Process and Problem Solving Methods
problems in one context are different from problems in other contexts
Modeled for Learners by Skilled Performers but Not Necessarily Expert Performers
Requires Collaboration Among Learners and With the Teacher
the teacher is more of a coach or mentor than a purveyor of knowledge
Provides an Intellectual Toolkit to Facilitate an Internal Negotiation Necessary for Building Mental
The technological advances of the 1980s and 1990s have enabled designers to move toward a more
constructivist approach to design of instruction. One of the most useful tools for the constructivist designer is
hypertext and hypermedia because it allows for a branched design rather than a linear format of instruction.
Hyperlinks allow for learner control which is crucial to constructivist learning; however, there is some concerns
over the novice learner becoming "lost" in a sea of hypermedia. To address this concern, Jonassen and
McAlleese (Jonnassen & McAlleese, [On-line]) note that each phase of knowledge acquisition requires
different types of learning and that initial knowledge acquisition is perhaps best served by classical instruction
with predetermined learning outcomes, sequenced instructional interaction and criterion-referenced evaluation
while the more advanced second phase of knowledge acquisition is more suited to a constructivist
If a novice learner is unable to establish an "anchor" in a hypermedia environment they may wander aimlessly
through hypermedia becoming completely disoriented. Reigeluth and Chung suggest a prescriptive system
which advocates increased learner control. In this method, students have some background knowledge and
have been given some instruction in developing their own metacognitive strategies and have some way to
return along the path they have taken, should they become "lost". (Davidson, 1998)
Most literature on constructivist design suggests that learners should not simply be let loose in a hypermedia or
hypertext environment, but that a mix of old and new (objective and constructive) instruction/learning design
be implemented. Davidson's (1998) article, suggesting a criteria for hypermedia learning based on an
"exploration of relevant learning theories", is an example of this method.
Having noted the eclectic nature of instructional design, it is only fair to point out that not all theorists advocate
a "mix and match" strategy for instructional design. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry wrote an article
that challenges the eclectic nature if instructional systems design by pointing out that "...abstracting concepts
and strategies from the theoretical position that spawned then strips them of their meaning." They question
objectivist epistemology completely and have adopted what they consider a constructivist approach to
instructional design. In the article they compare the traditional approaches of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
to that of a constructivist approach. (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry, 1995
Although cognitive psychology emerged in the late 1950s and began to take over as the dominant theory of
learning, it wasn't until the late 1970s that cognitive science began to have its influence on instructional design.
Cognitive science began a shift from behavioristic practices which emphasised external behavior, to a concern
with the internal mental processes of the mind and how they could be utilized in promoting effective learning.
The design models that had been developed in the behaviorist tradition were not simply tossed out, but instead
the "task analysis" and "learner analysis" parts of the models were embellished. The new models addressed
component processes of learning such as knowledge coding and representation, information storage and
retrieval as well as the incorporation and integration of new knowledge with previous information (Saettler,
1990). Because Cognitivism and Behaviorism are both governed by an objective view of the nature of
knowledge and what it means to know something, the transition from behavioral instructional design principles
to those of a cognitive style was not entirely difficult. The goal of instruction remained the communication or
transfer of knowledge to learners in the most efficient, effective manner possible (Bednar et al., in Anglin,
1995). For example, the breaking down of a task into small steps works for a behaviorist who is trying to find
the most efficient and fail proof method of shaping a learner's behavior. The cognitive scientist would analyze
a task, break it down into smaller steps or chunks and use that information to develop instruction that moves
from simple to complex building on prior schema.
The influence of cognitive science in instructional design is evidenced by the use of advance organizers,
mnemonic devices, metaphors, chunking into meaningful parts and the careful organization of instructional
materials from simple to complex.
Cognitivism and Computer-Based Instruction
Computers process information in a similar fashion to how cognitive scientists believe humans process
information: receive, store and retrieve. This analogy makes the possibility of programming a computer to
"think" like a person conceivable, i.e.. artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence involve the computer working to supply appropriate responses to student input from the
computer's data base. A trouble-shooting programs is one example of these programs. Below is a list of some
programs and their intended use:
SCHOLAR - teaches facts about South American geography in a Socratic method
PUFF - diagnoses medical patients for possible pulmonary disorders
MYCIN - diagnoses blood infections and prescribes possible treatment
DENDRAL - enables a chemist to make an accurate guess about the molecular structure of an unknown
META-DENDRAL - makes up its own molecular fragmentation rules in an attempt to explain sets of
GUIDION - a derivative of the MYCIN program that gave a student information about a case and
compared their diagnosis with what MYCIN would suggest
SOPIE - helps engineers troubleshoot electronic equipment problems
BUGGY - allows teachers to diagnose causes for student mathematical errors
LOGO - designed to help children learn to program a computer
Davis' math programs for the PLATO system - to encourage mathematical development through