If you can’t see something, it doesn’t exist.

This statement, though a little reductive, gives a good idea of the essence of behaviourism.

Behaviourists focus on objectively observable, quantifiable events and behaviour; they reject any method — such as introspection — that they deem too subjective and unquantifiable to be of any use. A behaviourist running an experiment would only care about their subjects’ responses to different stimuli; they would never consider asking the subject why they did what they did.

While this approach may seem a little extreme, it’s worth noting that behaviourism developed as a reaction to the methods of psychology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which relied heavily on first person reports of sensations and other introspective methods.

J.B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, two of the ealiest psychologists to develop behaviourism, wrote in the 70s that:

“Since it is not possible to observe objectively or to quantify what occurs in the mind, scientific theories should take into account only observable indicators such as stimulus-response sequences.”

Naturally, behaviorists treat motivation as extrinsic: learners who receive rewards for desirable behaviours will repeat those behaviours more often (positive reinforcement), whereas those who are punished for their behaviour (negative reinforcement) are less likely to carry on.

So, how relevant is behaviourism to digital learning?

Well, quite relevant actually!

To begin with, much of what we do — especially in the case of traditional e-learning modules — still aims for definite, externally measurable behaviour.  Learners’ responses can therefore be definitively judged right or wrong, without reference to internal thought processes.

Say I’m designing a course on fire safety, and have written a scenario question in which an employee has found a fire. The correct response (in most cases, sound the alarm and inform your manager/fire warden) will be dictated by the business’s procedures, outlined in thier documentation.

As long as the learners have had adequate opportunities to absorb the content of this documentation — either prior to or during the e-learning module — I can be confident that the resource I have provided does what it needs to do.

Things become a little trickier when the outcomes are not so well defined. If I’m writing about unconscious bias, for instance, or leadership skills, some of my desired outcomes may be a little less definite, a little more open to interpretation.

Certainly, some of the outcomes involved in these areas may be measurable; but it may also be wise to consider additional elements in a blended learning solution, perhaps featuring instructor-led training.

Behaviourism’s focus purely on reward and punishment — on extrinsic motivation — is of course too simplistic. We know that people aren’t only motivated by external reward, but also by intrinsic factors such as satisfaction at having done a good job, the social status confered by recognition of expertise, and by opportunities for flow.

However, in many digital learning modules, the feedback we provide learners is extrinsic. When the learner gets a question incorrect, they generally receive a tick or cross, and an explanation of why their answer is wrong.

The motivators we reference in the written content of digital learning modules will also often be extrinsic.

If I’m writing, for example, about the dangers of a business committing fraud, most of the consequences I talk about will be external — fines, reputational damage, loss of business, individual disciplinary procedures and dismissal.

I may reference feelings of satisfaction or status that their behaviour has engendered, but I will have to be careful to do this in a way that does not patronise the learner and thus reduce their engagement.

And mostly, businesses commission digital learning resources to increase tangible, measurable factors, rather than these harder to define elements.

It’s worth noting that in recent years, the application of gamification has facilitated new levels of refinement to positive and negative feedback.

For example, in a scenario-based module I wrote a couple of years ago, we integrated a ‘risk-meter’ into the course design. As learners completed exercises throughout the scenario, the risk-meter told them how much risk they had taken as a result of their choices.

This provided powerful feedback, especially as it was supplemented by written feedback which explained the implication of the learner’s decisions.

Behaviourism: the good and the bad

So; behaviourism is still relevant to modern e-learning design where a right or wrong paradigm is appropriate, and where we are focused on extrinsic sources of motivation.

It is less useful where learning outcomes are less well defined, or when we want to motivate learners more intrisically.

Cognitive constructivism, which developed partly in response to behaviourism, eschewed a focus on external phenomena and extrinsic motivation, and tried to draw psychological research inwards once more.

I’ll be taking a look at cognitive constructivism — the first of the two types of constructivism — next week!