I find behaviorism as originally described overall easy to understand as a theory: Stimuli leads to Response. I also find it interesting that the No Child Left Behind mandate is based on this theory—a rather simplistic approach to improving the education system, to my mind. While education theories based on understanding of human psychology and motivations have moved beyond and become more sophisticated and effective, our government (at the prodding of big business) is stuck in a method that depends on numbers and statistics and reward and punishment.
In contrast, Finland whose children consistently perform better than most other countries in scholastics has a more human, sophisticated approach. For one thing, they have high regard for the teachers who are well paid and have to compete with the best and brightest for limited openings. There are no standardized tests to determine where they go to college. Rather, the teachers and school administrators determine the advancement of the students through their grades and performance in school. Also students don't begin school until first grade.
You can read about it in this Atlantic Monthly article and see what their education is like in this BBC news report which follows one family.
Of course, there are other considerations for their success such as a less diversity than in the U.S. in the student population and the country is much smaller. But, I believe that there is a lot to learn from their model. I imagine that they even use some behaviorist principles in some of their teaching practices. There is a time and place for it, I believe. However, as a theory behaviorism should be just one tool among a variety of options to be applied when educating adults who for the most part need nuance and sophistication in their learning.
Thanks for posting this (I am a big proponent of standardized tests). I can't see doubling classroom staff no matter how beneficial that is.
ReplyDeleteWhat do they score high on? An international test?
This is what they score well on (from the Atlantic Monthly):
ReplyDelete"the PISA survey, conducted every three years by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The survey compares 15-year-olds in different countries in reading, math, and science. Finland has ranked at or near the top in all three competencies on every survey since 2000, neck and neck with superachievers such as South Korea and Singapore."
As far as I know, this is the study that is always referred to when someone says that we are behind other nations in academic achievement.
I am not opposed to standardized tests. I think they are of value but I am opposed to that being the primary means of advancement or the primary method for judging academic achievement. As an anecdotal example, I was always very good at taking these kind of tests. I didn't need to study very hard and had a good intuition when I didn't know outright the answer. My sister, on the other hand, did poorly on most testing. It would stress her out and she couldn't process well in this setting. I never considered myself smarter than her but it set us up for me to be confident academically while she always considered herself inferior. It has all evened out as she gained confidence at work and recognized her own skills and talents but it took many years to get to that point.
I know that's oversimplified but I could spend a long time explaining why I believe that the kind of education that Finland offers is attractive unlike ours where there's so much emphasis on passing/failing even as a school in the NCLB movement.
Hi Carol: Nice article. I have a similar experience to you and your sister. I cringe at standardized tests. I even remember the first line of my college application: "The bane of my application are my tests scores, however..."
ReplyDeleteIt's an all-too common phenomenon that some people like puzzles, math games, word problems, and others don't.
I will add this observation: repetition and practice, practice, practice does help overcome some test anxiety.
Debra