Behaviorism AND Constructivism

As part of my Masters program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I took a class in Percussion Pedagogy with my professor, Anthony DiSanza.  One of the topics we covered at the very beginning was the concept of Behaviorism VERSUS Constructivism.  These philosophies were first presented as being opposite and contradictory, but over time I came to understand them as complimentary, each having its place and time.

In my teaching, I employ a blended approach, emphasizing one method or another at any moment.  My goal is to pair methods of thought and experience with measurable action in performance.  What follows is a basic breakdown of how I think about and use the ideas of Behaviorism and Constructivism.

Behaviorism:  Sequencing, sequencing, sequencing.

Behaviorism basically says, “Everything is measurable by behavior”.  If you know it, you can do it, if you can’t do it, there must be something missing.  On a moment-by-moment basis, this plays out as follows:

• Teacher: “Do this” <demonstrates something>
• Student: <attempts to duplicate>
• Teacher: “Not quite, adjust this” <demonstrates again>
• Student: <attempts to duplicate>
• Teacher: “Correct, let’s move on.  Do this.” <demonstrates the next thing>
• Etc.

There is no need for a student to fully understand anything to be successful, the only thing required is to correctly copy the behavior.  The obvious advantage is that a successful student can copy lots of things in a very short time.  The disadvantage is that they may not connect the behaviors into something more meaningful.

To teach this way requires the instructor to be very deliberate about the sequence of information.  Things must progress in the right order or it all gets very confusing and there is no clear relationship between skills.

Constructivism: Questions and Experiences

Constructivism is focused more on how thinking effects outcome.  The researchers Kolb & Fry developed the “Experiential Learning Model” (pg. 4) to describe this method.

• Concrete Experience
• Observation and Reflection
• Formation of Abstract Concepts
• Testing in New Situations

This cycle of events can start at any of the four points.  Continually moving through the cycle should result in gradual refinements in thinking and results.  This is basically the Scientific Method.  Mastery proceeds in three stages:

1. Students learn to observe the results and process of their work.
2. Students learn to accurately predict the outcome of their work in situations they are comfortable with.
3. Students identify general principles behind their outcomes, allowing them to make predictions in unfamiliar situations where the same general principles are evident.

The advantage here is student self-direction and the ability to tackle increasingly complex material without instruction.  The disadvantage is the unpredictable amount of time it takes to make improvements.  It is possible to run out of time before the learning cycle generates an acceptable result.

To teach this method requires the instructor to ask VERY good questions which encourage creative thinking and generate ideas, as well as the patience to allow students to experience their own outcomes.

Teaching with a Blended Approach:  The right idea at the right time.

Considering the above, it is easy to make broad statements about one method being superior to the other in a given situation.  The point of blended teaching is to identify moments when goals, challenges, and time constraints come together, and choose a method that will be most successful.  When trying this, the most important thing for an instructor is to be flexible in planning and adaptable with methods.  The same challenge might need a different solution from one week to the next as the student’s development reveals new aspects of the challenge itself.

For sustained periods of intense work, it is also nice to vary the level of focus by alternating between an aggressive, directive, behaviorist approach and a more relaxed, open-ended constructivist approach.  The shared responsibility for directing instruction helps students to sustain their overall attention longer.

Example:

• Teacher: “What would you like to work on?”
• Student: <plays, there is a general style problem and a few details are off>
• Teacher: “Look at this spot, play like this.” <demonstration>
• Student: <copies correctly>
• Teacher: “Yes, what did you do before?”
• Student: <demonstration>
• Teacher: “Which breaks which rule?”
• Student: <answers correctly>
• Teacher: “Now look here, play that part and adjust it based on what we just did.”
• Student: <plays as intended>
• Teacher: “Now tell me about the style of this whole section”
• Student: <answers incompletely>
• Teacher:  “Tell me more about <something specific>”
• Student: <answers more completely>
• Teacher: “How is that affected by the two spots we looked at?”
• Student: <answers correctly>
• Teacher: “What effect will that have on this passage as a whole?
• Student: <describes the change in style with specific details>
• Teacher: “Exactly, now play the passage again, and notice how the style affects the <specific details>.”
• Student: <plays, adjusting to the style and correcting previous mistakes>

The lengthiness of the example shows how much time constructivist work can add to a learning process. When compared to “do this” instructions, it can seem wasteful, but the investment being made in self-awareness, self-diagnosis, and self-correction pays back for the student later by empowering them to develop on their own. Conversely, keeping a schedule and mastering isolated information is much more efficient in the behaviorist model, particularly with students who lack a large body of previous experience to draw from.

There is much more to my teaching method than just this, but it forms a basic framework for the rest of my instructional choices.  The adaptability allows me the freedom to shift immediately to match a student’s needs or level of energy, and generally makes things run smoothly.