This week we have been exploring the differing facets of learning and development for primary school children, specifically the three main schools of thought of behaviourism, constructivism and social constructivism.
The behaviourists, such as BF Skinner, argue that learning is achieved through the use of rewards and punishments as motivators, and that the ideal classroom setting would be the children passively listening to the teacher who transmits knowledge to the children. Key features of this theory include the children as passive learners, learning individually and being extrinsically motivated by the use of external factors such as rewards. I think it is evident that there is widespread use of at least some of these features in the primary classroom today, for example the rewards of stickers or marbles for “good” behaviour, and the sanctions of missed playtimes for “bad”. It is also not uncommon to see thirty-two primary school children sitting on the carpet, listening to their teacher explain some piece of information, casting them into the role of passive receptacle of knowledge. However, detractors from this theory such as Vygotsky argue that all learning is “essentially social in nature” (Moore, A. Teaching and Learning), so this behaviourist view of the individual learner is intrinsically flawed. So what then are the alternatives?
One of the more famous child psychologists of the last century is Jean Piaget, and his work on the development of the child led him to promote the theory of constructivism. In his idea, although the child is still an individual learner and at least at first not able to work with others for long, their learning is far more active and uses direct experiences to make meaning from their world. Therefore in contrast to Skinner, the child is intrinsically motivated by their own desire to learn, and the teacher is more of a facilitator to learning than the font of all knowledge. Children assimilate knowledge from experiencing different situations, and accommodate this into their existing framework of knowledge and understanding. However, where Piaget has been criticised is in his belief in set stages of development that each child must pass through, and his inflexibility of timeframes for this. Anyone who has had contact with children of different ages and backgrounds can testify that children all mature at different rates, in terms of both physical or motor skills, their cognition or ability to think, and their emotional responses. Thus although Piaget’s stages of development have been widely accepted (even so far as to have informed England’s national Key Stages) there is an argument that they are not universally applicable and leave no room for children that do not fit this mould, potentially causing them to be branded as low ability and leaving them behind the others.
Which leads us to our third choice, the Vygotskian school of thought of social constructivism. This advocates that as learning is a social activity, children learn best through collaborating and discussing with their peers and adults. In fact, for the best learning, children just need to be working with anyone who is more able than them in that task, creating what he refers to as “the zone of proximal development” (Pollard, Reflective Teaching) through which the expert can lead the novice to create understand. This “scaffolding” can take place either through class, group or one-to-one discussion, and always places the learner in an active role, being socially motivated.
With its emphasis on language and discussion, and promoting deep and meaningful learning built on prior understanding, you might ask why all teaching and learning in the primary classroom today is not based on social constructivism. However, as I (and I’m sure many other student teachers) have noticed through my time in schools, this is not the case. There are scores of examples of behaviourist and constructivist approaches in place (like the reward schemes mentioned above), and I’m sure we have all seen especially younger children who appear to be working together on a task, who on closer inspection are merely working on the same task side-by-side or in parallel, with little or no interaction (echoing Piaget’s theory of the ego-centric learner. So what then does this mean for our future practice, and how we approach our role as the teacher? Well I think there is a lot to be said for adopting a more combination-based approach. I think there is definitely a place for some aspects of behaviourism in the classroom (and we all know how mad children go for stickers), however rather than relying wholly on external factors to motivate children’s learning, this can be combined with working in a socially-constructive way as well, building deeper understanding and creating meaningful thinking. And while perhaps too much emphasis on Piaget’s stages of development can be restrictive, I think bearing in mind the stages children go through can help us as teachers assess their progress and development, and plan for their future learning needs.
Imogen Marx
sie55 
It is clearly evident that schools tend to adopt a behaviourist approach to education. The idea of rewards and punishments have been strongly emphasised in the schools I have visited. The use of ‘Golden time’ has been evident in every school I have been in. The children have to behave appropriately in order to achieve their ‘free’ allocated time on a Friday. However, I sometimes have questioned whether these schemes are appropriate for young children, especially children in reception. For example, a child in reception may have behaved inappropriately on Monday and consequently lost some or all of their ‘Golden time’. However, it may be hard for a young child to put together that their actions on Monday were the reason for them to lose their free time on the Friday.
As discussed in the blog post the Vygotskian school of thought of social constructivism strongly highlights that social activity strongly influences children’s development. Again it is clear that schools adopt this school of thought by promoting group conversations. In one school I have worked in the children had designated ‘learning buddies’. The teacher would ask the children to sit with their ‘learning buddy’ and discuss the topic that the previous lesson was around.
The above discussions that took place in the blog post and this comment have emphasised that the way schools go about their day-to-day routines are strongly influenced by important theorists. I strongly agree with the comment above that identified that schools should adopt a combination-based approach.
Can I firstly say that I really like how you have laid out this blog post Imogen and I’ve found it really hard to add anything that you haven’t already covered! But here goes…
I think for me personally, the only school of thought that I do not totally have faith in, is Piaget and his Constructivism theory. I only say this because as stated above it mentions that children are intrinsically motivated to want to learn, obviously this will certainly be the case for some children, but from what I have seen from my time in schools this is certainly not the case for a high percentage of children. I have found that a large amount of children are much more extrinsically motivated and want that gold star or are sticker mad as mentioned at the start, I think this shows and proves a behaviourist approach by the work put forward by Skinner, there really is a strong place for rewards and sanctions. As a lot more children at a young age really are extrinsically motivated and wants rewards in the form of a sticker or certificate something that shows how hard they have worked and that their efforts are appreciated.
Having said all that, in the dynamic and ever changing environment that is the classroom I agree with you both that there is place for all 3 schools of thought in child development and learning. I don’t really think there is a right or wrong way as every child is different and every class you teach is always going to be different to the last, so how is it possible to pigeon whole which approach to use, I think you have to be constantly adapting yourself and your teaching style and approaches dependent on your class and what your teaching. Would be interesting to see if our opinions change once we start taking more responsibility in the classroom!