Behaviourist' view of learning (Pavlov, Watson, etc) believed that behaviour can be conditioned, reinforced, etc. which put the teacher in a demi-god position. Also, social learning theorist like Bandura believed that children modelled their behaviour from their social environment. This put the teacher and any other people in the environment of the child to be a role-model for the child which put the role of the teacher more critical.
But, we now know better through Vygotsky, Chomsky, Piaget, that learning is not one-sided and the child is the centre of learning and that the teacher is not a demi-god or a role-model.
One thing we now know for certain is that the child constructs to learn and not just acquire, model or get reinforced as believed earlier. However, it gets very complex when we look at the various factors involved in the process of construction of knowledge.
Construction of knowledge, as we know is a process, and that process begins with perception. The child, in the process of constructing his/her learning, utilizes
his/her innate abilities as can be seen in language acquisition
- Reinforcement of cultural norms and values
- Conditioning of certain practice through social institutions
- Modelling of his or her behaviour through certain role model
- Construction through previous knowledge
Behaviourism, per se, is not a bad theory, nor is it irrelevant. It is just that it is too limited to explain the learning behaviours.
Personally, my stand-point is that constructivism and behaviourism go hand in hand, especially in the context of India. For example, cultural norms and values got shoved down our throat –if we want it or not, in various forms and at the end, we have to conform. This is, in brief, reinforcement and condition at work! On the other hand, the simple fact that children came to the same, unchanged class-room without getting bored and still find excitement and continue to discover new things to learn is proof that individual constructivism is very much at work!
No comments:
Post a Comment