Behaviourism

When the Cognitive Revolution overturned Behaviorism as the dominant paradigm of learning, many people believed cognitivism to be radically different than behaviorism as it tried to explain many of the characteristics of learning that behaviorism failed to account for. For example, behaviorism emphasized only the change in outward behavior, which they defined as learning. Behaviorism declares the mechanistic and deterministic views of the law of effect, classical and operant conditioning, and ultimately the explanation of learning due purely to biological factors.

Behaviorism considers factors such as reinforcement history and maturation levels in affecting the ability it learn, and emphasizes maintaining learned behavior through repeated reviews of expectations and schedules of reinforcement. Cognitivism, on the other hand, defines learning more broadly to include a change in thinking, beliefs, attitudes, and values. It emphasizes the role of the mind as a schematic network and recognizes the importance of prior knowledge in making new connections.

Ultimately, learning is compared to a computer model of processing information, which includes many processes that cannot be seen or measured. Cognitivism focuses on the role of memory in storing and retrieving knowledge. Transfer is seen as being the goal of acquiring knowledge so that people can apply that knowledge in new domains. Also, Cognitivism recognizes the influence of motivation on learning in encouraging people to learn things to a greater degree.

Cognitivism accounts for more complex forms of thinking and learning. Although these two theories have many significant differences, they also have some similarities. Although I feel the cognitive psychology went a lot further in explaining the nature of learning, it does not completely escape the criticisms of behaviorism as far as mechanism and determinism. According to Williams, even though the cognitive revolution tried to remedy the mechanistic and deterministic aspects of behaviorism, it did not succeed.

Both behaviorism and cognitivism are mechanistic and deterministic. In both behaviorism and cognitivism, people are seen as mechanical machines that react according to circumstance and behavior can be predicted based on either a Stimulus-Response or according to the information inputted into the computer machine. They are both missing significant factors of learning as far as accounting for learning in social contexts.

They also both have aspects of a “black box” in them that does not completely explain how or why the learning occurs. For behaviorism, the “black box” is the explanation between stimulus and response. In Cognitivism, it is how the central executive works, or what controls the working memory. Williams pointed out that theories just create homunculi that are like little men in our brains controlling what’s going on, but never really explaining anything more for us.

Behaviorism as the third force in psychology have started out as a theoretical proposition of John B. Watson when he came out with “Psychology as The Behaviorist Views It” and have been known as the behaviorist manifesto (Benjamin, 1997). Watson proposed that psychology is the study of behavior and have put forth four major assumptions that form the tenets of behaviorism as a school of thought. The first assumption is that of evolutionary continuity which means that the laws of behavior are applicable to all living organisms. This assumption has substantiated the behaviorist’s use of animals in the study of human behavior.

The second assumption is that of reductionism, this refers to the behaviorist’s belief that all behaviors have a physiological basis and that behavior is the body’s reaction to a stimulus. The third assumption is determinism, behaviorists support the idea that animals respond to external stimuli in specific ways and are inherently programmed into one’s brain from birth. The last assumption is empiricism which is one of the cornerstones of behaviorism and that it is the contention that only overt actions or behavior are measurable and observable and lend itself to the scientific method.

Thus, to the behaviorist, psychology should be the study of overt behavior. B. F. Skinner was a self-confessed convert to behaviorism after reading Watson’s monograph; he was also influenced by the experimental studies of Ivan Pavlov (Bjork, 1997). Skinner developed a theory that was based on the classical conditioning paradigm of Pavlov and integrated it with his own definition of behaviorism. Skinner’s major work is his theory of operant conditioning, wherein he said that behavior can be conditioned through reinforcement and behavior diminishes when it is not reinforced.

He borrowed from Pavlov the basic idea of conditioning, but instead of limiting it to a stimulus-response paradigm, he incorporated the importance of rewards and punishment, which means that behavior is not only exhibited as a response to a stimulus but also as a form of association between the reinforcement given after the behavior. Skinner’s theoretical position made it obvious that he deviated from Watson’s radical behaviorism, because conditioning a she defined it involves cognition which Watson has strongly eradicated from his propositions.

Moreover, the emphasis given to reinforcements and punishments hint at the need to acknowledge mental processes in the study of behavior. Skinner’s work was well received by the academic community much even that Watson’s initial paper was and this have spurned the interest of like minded psychologists who did support the methodological implications of behaviorism but was not receptive of the radical arguments of Watson. Skinner’s ideas made more sense because it did not advocated the idea that men are not thinking beings and were more able to capture how man behaves.

Skinner’s kind of behaviorism somehow married the opposing views of mind and behavior and also gave importance to how environmental experiences and influences shape human behavior. Moreover, operant conditioning was applicable in a number of areas most notably education, child rearing and animal training (Skinner, 1966). Skinner’s behaviorism has also influenced other psychologists to study and conceptualize psychological phenomena using the principles of operant conditioning and indeed was the kind of behaviorism that has flourished for the last century or so in the field of psychology.

Contemporary behaviorism have been identified as the study of social learning, wherein a behavior is learned through socialization and socialization is the process by which behavior is rewarded or punished by society (Smith & Woodward, 1996). The evolution of behaviorism from Watson to Skinner and to the present has been made possible by the vast research and theoretical models developed by psychologists who adhere to contemporary behaviorism. One of the hallmarks of behaviorism is the use of animals to study human behavior.

Animal research has proven to be useful in understanding how man learns or can be trained to exhibit a certain type of behavior (Benjamin, 1997). Although animal behavior is limited, it nonetheless becomes necessary for behavioral scientists because ethical considerations in using a human subject in risky experiments are not permitted. For example, doing a research on the effect of light illumination to sleep deprivation is probably unethical to do on humans.

Although animals are not exactly anatomically similar to humans, animal physiology and anatomy have been well studied and documented that tracing the reactions of mice to light will be easier and scientifically sound. The generalizations made based on this study is however limited but is an acceptable margin of error. Moreover, animals can be easily manipulated and subjected to experiments than humans because they operate on an instinctual level and do not have to process the information given to them.

The knowledge gained in studying animals is numerous but especially have been concentrated on learning and behavior and to some extent how drugs affect the brain or the body. Animal research can help us understand human behavior better because to some degree we share with them basic drives that are necessary for our existence and hence, learning how animals react to stress or hunger can give us the information needed to adequately explain behavior. Animals exhibit simple behaviors which humans share and have grown in complexity over the years but if analyzed is based still on simple behaviors.

References Benjamin, L. (1997) A History of Psychology: Original Sources and Contemporary Research 2nd ed. New York: McGraw –Hill. Bjork, D. (1997) B. F. Skinner: A Life. Washington: American Psychological Association. Skinner, B. F. (1966). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. 7th printing. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Smith, L. & Woodward, W. (1996). B. F Skinner and Behaviorism in American Culture. London: Lehigh University Press

Making everyday decisions is an inevitable course of our daily existence. The choices we do concerning our diet, outfits, daily hygiene, companions and others seem as a normal daily routine. Thus, most of the time we seldom contemplate on the process by which we have accomplished our daily decision-making tasks. Meanwhile, different psychological theories supported the notion that every human behavior is shaped and propelled by motives and rewards such as food, money, status, and prestige (Howard and Hollander 43).

Humans behave in ways for the attainment of their goals and avoidance of negative events and consequences that bring pain and suffering (Howard and Hollander 43). In this connection, humans shape their personalities in parallel with societal expectations so as to gain social acceptance (Howard and Hollander 43). In this way, the attainment of goal and avoidance of negative experiences are much assured. Hence, the development or acquisition of gender, a societal sexual perspective, is greatly influenced by psycho-sociological factors (Howard and Hollander 43).

In the early historical period of psychological disciplines, behaviorism became the backbone of psychological studies on human behavior (Howard and Hollander 43). Although contemporary theories have gone beyond the postulates of behaviorists like Skinner and Pavlov, their psychological principles served as the bases for intensive and advanced studies in the field of psychology (Howard and Hollander 43). Through studies on animal behaviors, behavioral psychologists made assumptions on perception, motivation, and learning of every individual (Howard and Hollander 43).

They scrutinized every factor that affects behavioral attributes of the subject animal then applied it on their observational studies on humans (Howard and Hollander 43). Classical Conditioning Ivan Pavlov’s notion about “conditioned reflex” is a result of his studies on animal digestion (Elliot et al. 203). In his experiments, he observed that dog produces saliva in anticipation of food. The flow of saliva in dog’s mouth was observed in response not only on the sight of food dish but also upon hearing the attendant’s sound during feeding.

The dog was conditioned that seeing the attendant or hearing a bell is a signal of giving food (Elliot et al. 203). Thus, the dog salivated either in the sight of the attendant or upon hearing the bell. Pavlov called each signal as “conditioned stimulus”. He explained that the food is the “unconditioned stimulus” that elicited salivation as a response (Elliot et al. 203). At first, salivation was induced upon the sight of food. Then, the food was given simultaneously with metronome. After sometime, the metronome alone caused dog’s salivation (Elliot et al. 203). Classical Conditioning and Gender

In child rearing practices, at very young age children are conditioned on the choice of garments and toys appropriate to their sexes. This conditioning as absorb by the child can possibly be applied on different settings. For instance, the choice of toys based on sexes such as Barbie doll for a girl and plastic gun for a boy, would lead to the child’s discretion on the type of game or playmates he or she will involved into. This is called “stimulus generalization” wherein the conditioned behavior, the choice of toys, affected the preference for games or playmates.

On the other hand, if the initial conditioning did not affect other preferences, the child then learned the process of discrimination. Through discrimination, the child has limited his or her behavior only on the “conditioned stimulus” which is the toy selection in this case. Also, the extinction of loss of conditioned stimulus’ effect on one’s behavior is possible. In Pavlov’s experiments, after several trials of presenting food to the dog without the metronome, the metronome alone did not elicit salivation when presented (Elliot et al. 203).

Hence, a child as days pass-by may lose the conditioned stimulus toy selection on his or her mind. Operant Conditioning B. F. Skinner made refinements on the principles of classical conditioning and applied his psychological ideas on different human endeavors (Elliot et al. 208). He proposed the importance of reinforcement in eliciting a desired behavior and that environment has great influence in one’s behavior. In his operant conditioning, he emphasized that environment reinforces or terminates one’s behavior, thus, has the key role in understanding behavior (Elliot et al. 208).

According to Skinner, behavior is a product of a three-connective processes; operation performed by the organism, inner condition, and behavioral response (Elliot et al. 208). Skinner elicited desired behaviors among his subject animals such as rats and pigeons through his operant chamber (Mayers). Later on, researchers tested the different reinforcers and scheduling of such to facilitate the shaping of desired behavior. They found that the acquisition of desired behavior although less through partial reinforcement schedules as compared with continuous reinforcement, but produced more extinction resistance (Mayers).

Moreover, punishment applied to achieve the desired behavior or to terminate a particular behavior, even though has negative consequences, but effective when immediately and consistently given (Mayers). Operant Conditioning and Gender Behavioral theorists suggested that every creature regardless of race, societal status, sex and profession is governed by the same behavioral principles (Howard and Hollander 44). In terms of behaviorism, the development of gender could be possibly explained by making a notion that gender differences and similarities are behavioral consequences (Howard and Hollander 44).

Experiments can be designed to elicit gender behavioral patterns of both males and females through different reinforcement pattern. In behavioral perspectives, men and women could be either aggressive or nurturing if they are awarded or punished in such behavior (Howard and Hollander 44). Then, through field studies, behaviorists can assess environmental factors influencing men or women and yield plausible explanation for the behavioral effects of these factors (Howard and Hollander 44). Through conditioning process, the gender can be imparted into the child’s mind either unconsciously or purposively.

The type of garments or toys given to the child may embark into his or her mind some restrictions on the things he or she can be used. In addition, some parents either directly or indirectly, inculcate a male child to imitate his father’s behavior, action, and style while a female child to be like her mother. By conforming to these parental expectations, the child gains positive reinforcements from his or her parents that strengthen his or her behavior. With these, the child may form his or her early conceptions of gender role and stereotypes. Criticisms on Conditioning Theory

Even though many studies have been conducted to support the conditioning theory of gender development, these are mostly conducted with animals (Naik). In 1984, K. Boulding contended the Skinner’s generalization about the applicability of the principles drawn from animal studies into complex behavior of humans (Naik). He suggested that more studies with human participants must be conducted in order to prove the validity of Skinner’s postulates. While Skinner’s operant conditioning has been recognized in neurosis and phobia therapy, but still insufficient to explain complex human attributes such as language and memory (Naik).

In line with this, M. E. P. Seligman proposed that aside from classical and operational conditioning, genetic preparedness has a crucial role in the development of behavioral characteristics (Naik). This third factor associates a particular reinforcer or stimulus to a certain response. He further argued that most behaviorist have utilized unprepared sets of stimulus like shock and light, provided less input for the association process, then created generalization of unprepared behavioral output applicable to general cases (Naik).

Therefore, even if the behaviorist’s principles are valid with respect to their sets of unprepared stimulus in laboratory experiments, but still insufficient to provide plausible explanations for prepared behaviors (Naik). Nonetheless, Seligman cited the work of Rozin and Garcia (1971) wherein rats were given with sweetened water as flash of lights and noise were applied simultaneously (Naik). Then, the subjects were treated with X-rays to induce illness and nausea. After several hours, rats became ill and develop aversion with sweetened water but not with noise or light (Naik).

According to Seligman genetic predispositions led to the aversion of rats with anything that may cause illness on their part (Naik). Conditioned Emotional Reactions The Little Albert Study In 1920 John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner tested the following in their experimental study: developing and conditioning an infant to fear an animal through loud and fearing sound; the possibility to develop fear to other animals or objects through the conditioned fear; and the time duration of the conditioned fear (Brain 135). Waston and Reyner selected a healthy and unemotional, around nine-month old child named Albert B.

as subject of their study (Brain 135). At the start, Albert has no fear in dealing with animals and other objects. When a metal bar is struck by a claw hammer behind him, Albert develops fear. After two-month observation with Albert, Watson and Reyner conditioned him to develop fear with a white rat by a loud clanging sound, produce by the metal bar and claw hammer, as he touches the rat (Brain 135). After seven trials of rat and noise pairing, fear was developed with Albert as the rat was presented alone (Brain 135).

Then, after five days, the rat, a rabbit, a sealskin coat, the heads of Watson and his assistants, a shorthaired dog, a Santa Claus mask, a package of white cotton, and wooden blocks were presented to Albert. He showed strong fear with the rat, sealskin coat, dog and rabbit, and a mild fear response with cotton (Brain 136). On the other hand, Albert did not develop fear with the mask, Watson’s hair, and wooden blocks (Brain 135). Five more days later, the rat, dog, and rabbit each paired with a loud noise were again presented to Albert but he has only showed slight reaction for each stimulus (Brain 136).

Finally, after thirty-one days, the rat, dog, rabbit, sealskin coat, and Santa Claus mask were again presented to Albert. Watson and Reyner found out that although Albert still showed fear on these things, he manifested tendency to touch each object (Brain 136). Evaluation and Criticisms The “Little Albert Study” provided an empirical basis for Watson’s theory on the development of emotion and behavior (Brain 137). Watson proved through this experiment that emotional responses can be conditioned and learned.

He concluded that phobias are conditioned responses that probably an original fear with a particular stimulus which has been transferred to another object in the duration of time (Brain 137). Similarly with Sigmund Freud, Watson believed that adult personality is significantly influenced by childhood early experiences (Brain 137). However, his work was criticized on the ground that emotional responses are qualitative attributes that can be hardly measured (Brain 137). In addition, since they only have a single subject in their experiment, principles that are valid for general cases may not plausibly be drawn from the results of their study.

Since, there was no follow-up studies after Albert has leaved the hospital, the effects on conditioning made were not determined, thus, Watson’s notion on early childhood experiences and behavioral development lacked definite proof (Brain 137). Moreover, ethical issues have been imputed with Watson’s works for he manipulated Albert by purposively creating fearing situations (Brain 137). He failed therefore to consider the spontaneous development of behavior through natural settings. Analysis and Conclusion

Behaviorists were criticized for their notion that every organism follows similar norms as dictated by their conditioning principles (Mayers). At present, it is an accepted psychological truth that conditioning principles are governed by cognition and hindered by biological factors (Mayer). In Pavlov’s classical conditioning, the subject animal learned to anticipate for an “unconditioned stimulus” however, animals have biological attributes in learning associations like recognition of poisonous food through smell association (Mayers).

Thus, behavior is not only elicited through external stimulus such as bell (Mayers). Behaviorists found that animal behavior can be shaped through reinforcement or the association of a response behavior with eliciting positive or negative stimulus (Howard and Hollander 44). They suggested that this principle as applied on humans could possibly provide clear behavioral explanations (Howard and Hollander 44). As applied on humans, behavioral theorists proposed that consequences of actions could provide understanding of the behavior of an individual (Howard and Hollander 44).

This could be done by relating an action with the consequences of a similar action done in the past. Further, behaviorists believed that if in the past experiences, actions of an individual created rewards and punishments (Howard and Hollander 44). Actions that were rewarded are tended to be repeated in the present time while actions associated with punishments are avoided (Howard and Hollander 44). However, behavioral theorists have only considered behavior and neglected thoughts and emotions.

According to them, thoughts, emotions or feelings are not behavioral determinants but are just by-products of the environmental effects on one’s behavior (Howard and Hollander 44). Cognitive and constructive psychologists criticized Skinner for he has given value on the external control of behavior and underestimated the cognitive and biological precepts (Mayers). For instance, contemporary studies on learning and motivation revealed the crucial role of cognition and physiological brain processes.

Nevertheless, operant principles were deemed to control people, thus, led to ethical issues (Mayers). Nowadays, Skinner’s psychological notions are applied for success reinforcement in different fields (Mayers). Through operant conditioning, a desired behavior is produced by giving positive reinforcements while a behavior is terminated by applying punishing stimulus. Based on the above discussions, the process of socialization has a crucial role on gender acquisition and development. Through socialization process, an individual learns the societal norms and mores.

The agents of socialization such as family, educational institution, peers, and media reflect and even dictate conditioned gender stereotypes that an individual must conform with; otherwise leads to societal ridicule. In line with this, gender stereotypes shaped masculinity as an individual’s ability to control themselves on emotional situations whenever necessary especially within the workplace and even in their sexual relationships (Lothstein 212-214). Thus, has influenced male behaviors as being competitive, assertive, independent, assertive, confident, tough, often angered and violent.

With these characteristics on hand, males must keep in mind to evade having feminine characteristics such as being expressive on their thoughts, emotional, vulnerable and intimate in avoidance of societal ridicule (Lothstein 212-214). In the society, being feminine is traditionally described as “nurturing, supportive, and assigning high priority to one’s relationships” (Lothstein 212-214). Also, females are expected to avoid manly behaviors like being competitive, assertive and often angry and violent (Lothstein 212-214).

Therefore, behaviorism views may not suffice to provide a plausible explanation for the development and acquisition of gender. Unlike the subjects of the behavioral psychologists in their laboratory experiments, humans are exposed to the different socio-cultural factors that spontaneously affect behavioral attributes. Hence, behavioral theories should be incorporated with other contemporary theories on gender such as psychoanalytic, psychosocial, social-cognitive, biological, and schema theory for a better perspective on gender acquisition and development. Works Cited

Brain, Christine. “Advanced Subsidiary Psychology: Approaches and Methods. ” UK: Nelson Thornes, 2000. Elliot, Stephen N. , Kratochwill, Thomas R. , Cook, Joan Littlefield, and Travers, John F. “Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching, Effective Learning, 3rd Ed. ” Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2000. Howard, Judith A. and Hollander, Jocelyn. “Gendered Situations, Gendered Selves: A Gender Lens on Social Psychology. ” Lanham, Maryland: Rowman Altamira, 1997. Lothstein, Leslie Martin. “Female-to-Male Transsexualism. ” Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul plc, 1983

Mayers, David G. “Psychology, 8th Ed. ” 2006. Worth Publishers. 9 January 2009 <http://bcs. worthpublishers. com/myers8e/pages/bcs-main. asp? s=08000&n=00030&i=08030. 01&v=chapter&o=|00510|00520|00530|00540|00550|00560|00570|00580|00590|00600|00610|00620|00630|00640|00650|00660|00010|00020|00040|00050|00060|00070|00080|00090|00100|00110|0&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0>. Naik, Payal. “Behaviorism as a Theory of Personality: A Critical Look. ” August 1998. Personality Papers. 9 January 2009 < http://www. personalityresearch. org/papers/naik. html>.

Education nowadays is not what it used to be around 50 years ago. The introduction and development of technology has taken education to an entirely different level then it was previously. These innovative tools are covered under the broad category of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). There has been research work on development of theoretical models that can facilitate educational learning. These theories and more additional helpful tools have not only facilitated the gaining of education but also improved the quality of education system.

Behaviorism and constructivism are two of these main revolutionary concepts in education. The three terms “behaviorism”, “constructivism” and “ICTs” would first be explained separately and then it would be seen that how they fall together in a picture and facilitate educational learning. Behaviorism Behaviorism is that school of thought which is of the opinion that it is learning process that inculcates learning by the acquisitions of new behaviors in surrounding of environmental conditions.

Behaviorists believe that learning does not regard any mental activities rather it can be achieved by behaviors which according to them are systematic and observable. They believe that the process of “conditioning” facilitates the acquisition of behavior which ultimately facilitates learning. Conditioning is categorized in classical and operant. Classical conditioning is the process in which the object is conditioned as such that it he would response in a specific manner to a certain stimulus. We see this often in educational setting in form of fear conditioning that children are so much fearful of failure in exams or tests.

Operant conditioning is the conditioning in which a response to a stimulus is reinforced by either rewarding or punishment. This concept is also very much applicable in educational setting as we see teachers rewarding and punishing to get desired behavior from students (On Purpose Associates n. d. ). Constructivism Contrary to behaviorism is the school of though of constructivism. They are of the opinion that knowledge is a consequence of one’s personal experiences. According to constructivists, humans generate knowledge and formulate their own understanding model through reflection of their experiences.

Human mentality makes sense of the experiences and therefore learning takes place when proper shape is given to these experiences in mentality. In educational setting, constructivism comes into play as it focuses on promotion of customized syllabus in accordance with student’s knowledge. This is achieved by giving students hand on problems. Apart from that, teachers conduct assessment in the form of assigning open ended questions to the students and conduct dialogues and debates amongst students which lead to the open mindedness of students.

The students are therefore able to conceive and manipulate information in a better way (Bruner n. d. ). ICTs ICT is acronym of Information Communication Technology. The three words are very meaningful and together they form ICT which has been the pulse of the developmental changes in all fields in years behind. The concept is very vast but in short we can say that ICT comprises of all innovative tools of digital technology which has helped in all the fields to save, extract, communicate and interpret the information in a digital manner.

This has been made possible by digital electronic aids such as computers, laptops, emails, robotic machines and many more. ICTs have enabled the people to come together and form intercultural and inter communal links to share ideas and experiences together. The ICTs have plenty scope and potential in education field. ICTs and its tools has facilitated education by coming up with tools and equipments that have improved both the earning and the teaching. ICTs focus is to create awareness in the students of the usage of computers and other technological devices that may enhance the acquisition of knowledge for them.

Learning by Doing Learning by doing as the name suggests is the way that a person learns any action or activity by actually doing it himself. There is always a first time but that has first time has to be DONE as only then a person learns and is able to see where he is faulty and through this he can learn. The examples can be given simply as when the child is learning how to walk, the parents are there just to support him and keep him out of danger. It is the child himself who tries again and again and learns how to walk. Similarly, a more business oriented example can be that of starting a new business.

The businessman approaches his business with his own ideas and therefore learns the business. The theories of behaviorism can come here that a person who will do an action comes across a negative consequence then he would still be learning and would avoid the repetition of the same incident again. Constructivism is applicable here to as they emphasize on experiences. When a person BEHAVES he does an activity i. e. he interacts with the environment and as a result conditioning takes place. This conditioning gives him an experience may it be good or bad.

Through these behaviors and experiences he is able to formulate his own understanding model. Therefore this shows that both behaviorism and constructivism are active when a person is learning by doing (Engines for Education 2008). Role of ICTs, Behaviorism and Constructivism in Education The use of ICTs has promoted the teaching and learning and made it superior. If we just take computer as an example of educational technology we see that it has been devised for students and humans to address to their needs and problems. ICTs address to the problems of both students and teachers.

Though the effects of the use of ICTs in schools and educational settings are good but we see that the facilities are inadequate. The effects of ICTs are good as they enable the students to use educational software through which they are able to get activity based learning in a better technologically equipped learning environment. This environment and educational software have given opportunities to the teachers to change their teaching ways and make it more comprehensive with the use of these tools. Effective teaching automatically ensures effective learning as well.

These tools of educational technology have enabled the teachers and students to identify systematic problems and then discover systematic solutions for it. Constructivism school of thought complements educational technology. They say that students should be taken away from the standardized curriculum and their thinking skills need to be developed by experiential learning. If the students are given a proper educational environment which hold high relevance then they would interact with the environment to generate the desired experiences.

These experiences take form of personal sets of meanings and information framework for a separate student. In educational setting, student gains knowledge either through interaction with environment or by the intervention of school in form of curriculum imposed on students. Usually the learning is resultant of mix of both these sources. Constructivism also focuses on bringing out prior knowledge of students out. Effective use of ICT by the students would give teachers an opportunity to know the prior knowledge of the students (Newhouse 2002).

There are many different types of ICTs and tools which are helpful in educational setting and can explain how people learn through them and how teachers effectively use them for teaching. One example can be Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs). This device is operated with the help of a projector and a PC. This board is placed in the front center of the class and is connected to the PC and projector. Through equipments like keyboard, mouse, pencil and other devices students are able to achieve interaction with it.

It facilitates the teacher to teach the whole class easily keeping in view the discipline of the class along with teaching. The research has proven that the introduction of IWBS have enhanced the thinking of the students, facilitated the teaching methods of teachers and therefore ultimately lead to effective learning (Newman n. d. ). We see that both Behaviorism and Constructivism do not apply similarly in every learning environment. It varies. In some environment which is behavior oriented and which requires high motivation level of people then we see that behaviorism is in action.

Such environment has the need of people to be reinforced and requires there behavior to be aligned for efficient performance. In learning environment that promotes learning through experiences and acquisition of skills through interaction with environment, constructivism is in action. This rationale is well justified but usually we see that successful schools and educational settings take both the approaches together along with ICTs. Conclusion Education has revolved with the development in technology. Tools of ICTs facilitate the acquisition of education.

There have been many theories that have also supported educational cause. Two main theories are Behaviorism and Constructivism. They are both used contrary to each other. Behaviorism believes in learning through conditioning whereas Constructivism focuses on experiential learning. We see that these theories apply with the ICT tools and they result in effective learning and teaching system. References Bruner, J. n. d. , Constructivist Theory. Viewed July 15, 2010, retrieved from http://tip. psychology. org/bruner. html Engines for Education, 2008, Learning By Doing. Viewed July 15, 2010, retrieved from http://www.

engines4ed. org/hyperbook/nodes/NODE-120-pg. html Newhouse, C. Paul 2002, Literature Review: The Impact of ICT on Learning and Teaching. Viewed July 15, 2010, retrieved from http://www. det. wa. edu. au/education/cmis/eval/downloads/pd/impactreview. pdf Newman, n. d. , Types of ICT: Interactive Whiteboards. Viewed July 15, 2010, retrieved from http://www. newman. ac. uk/Students_websites/~shugufta. nazir/typeict. htm On Purpose Associates, n. d. , About Learning: Behaviorism. Viewed July 15, 2010, retrieved from http://www. funderstanding. com/content/behaviorism

Behaviorism is the psychological application of logical positivism. Positivism, whose basis is in the 19th century, yet whose antecedents come much earlier, is designed to force epistemology into a purely scientific context. In so doing, it helped define the scientific method, as well as creating a stir in philosophical circles. This paper will do several things: it will define behaviorism and positivism, it will link the two together as one basic movement, it will detail some of the movement’s critics and finally, look at a possible .

Positivism and its daughter, behaviorism, derived as a critique of idealism, or, to define this somewhat eccentrically, the idea that mental states are, or can be, expressly determining of human behavior. Historically, such a view was held by such wildly diverse thinkers as Plato, Hume, Fichte, Nietzsche and Freud. While, at the same time, the more positivist and materialist vision of human behavior was held by and Karl Marx, both of whom held that material and external explanations of human behavior were wholly adequate to understand motives for action.

In other words, for the behaviorist, external forces, forces that can be publically understood and witnessed, are fully proportionate to the acts that they cause. Behaviorism, as first defined in an explicitly scientific, psychological context by Watson (1912) is a reaction to idealism, loosely defined, that sought explanations for human action in internal mental states. Watson, at one fell swoop, eliminated consciousness from scientific explanation.

Consciousness was something that could not be analyzed scientifically because it was a private affair, something experienced at an intimate and immediate level, and, hence, could not be the subject of a scientific experiment where all the relevant variables were available for all to see. In essence, Watson held that psychology can only be scientific by holding to the tenets of logical positivism. Psychology must use variables that are easily quantified, public and objective.

Hence, mental states and consciousness as the basis of these mental states are not variables. In fact, Behaviorist Gustav Bergmann (1942) and B. F. Skinner (1978) held that such terms were meaningless, since they referred to nothing that can be quantified. Hence, if such terms were used in a scientific paper, they refer to nothing, and hence, create a question that cannot be solved, since the terms are not properly defined. For Watson and his followers, mankind was, in a psychological sense, no different from animals.

Both humans and other animal species were fully determined by material causes acting on the human being, in terms of social forces and internal behavioral dispositions explainable in material terms. If this is true, then all personal and social behavior can be predicted and controlled (Harzem, 2004, 9). In summary, Watson and his followers were trying to create a form of psychology that could do away with all the ambiguities of the language of the philosophy of mind. Consciousness was not definable in quantifiable categories, and hence, was not scientific.

Psychology then, could only proceed if it relied solely on quantifiable phenomenon and assumed that this was sufficient to give a full account of human behavior. This method of psychology was not without its critics. The main criticism of this approach is that it is simplistic. This criticism has been leveled many times against the logical positivists, not the least among such critics have been Nietzsche, Dostoyevskii and Sartre. For all three of these writers, the human subject is free, which means that physical causes and quantifiable categories do not suffice to complete account for specific human behaviors.

For all of these famed writers, the human ego could detatch itself from its external surroundings and current mental states and hence direct itself. Dostoyevskii goes so far in his Notes From Underground as to say that the deliberate believe that 2+2=5 is justified as a means of preserving one’s freedom of choice from the oppressive, materialistic straitjacket of scientific methods. From the point of view of pure psychology however, the first and most important of Watson’s critics was E. B. Titcherner (1917), who criticized Watson and his ideas on several areas.

First, that the concept of science of the positivists was too narrow. It was an arbitrary Procrustean bed that eliminated some of the most important and intimate of human experience, which is the whole point of psychology in the first place. This has always been the existentialist criticism of positivism, that so much of what makes a human human is eliminated by the arbitrary demand that all relevant variables be quantifiable. It is almost as if the positivists demand to be the gate keepers of not only scientific answers, but also of the questions themselves.

Nevertheless, Titcherner does hold that the positivist critique did some good for the discipline in that it did force psychology out of its older, purely internal methods. Prior to Watson, the discipline was concerned solely with internal mental states, and hence, lacked a certain scientific “rigor” to its conclusions. Furthermore, the clarification of language was also necessary and important. Hence, while he is willing to claim that the behaviorist is too doctrinaire in his views, that school was a necessary addition to the discipline.

Secondly, Titcherner holds that it is arbitrary to say that consciousness cannot be a scientific object of study or explanation. And thirdly, that the positivists were holding that the concept of observation is also too narrow. Observation was somehow confused with quantification. If consciousness is a phenomenon, then science has something to say about it. Quantifiability is not the sine qua non of the scientific approach. The positivists, of whom Watson was an avid follower, eliminated thought, mind, and sensation from scientific study. This was unacceptable from both a scientific and specifically psychological point of view.

Gustav Bergmann (1942), defends Watson’s basic theses a generation later on several counts. First, as a typical positivist, he is concerned wit the construction of a “meaningful” question or proposition. In order for this to be the case, the words in the proposition must be clearly defined and understood. X must mean x, and not x+y; connotation and denotation must be the same thing. Hence, the question is of clarity and public “observation” of the relative phenomena. In his (1942) essay, Bergmann holds that the most significant contribution to scientific discourse in his time was the positivist insistence on the clarification of language.

For example, when one speaks of carbon, there is a very specific, definable and understandable entity involved. There are not two carbons, and there is no distinction between the connotation and denotation of carbon. The word “mind,” however, is very different. It can mean mental states, it can mean behavioral characteristics, it can mean personality, it can men general moral dispositions, as well as a host of other more nuanced ideas contained in the very general idea of mind,. Given this confusion, it cannot be meaningfully used in a sentence.

Skinner (1978) went so far as to attempt to eliminated such words in psychological discourse (quoted in Addis, 1982). In other words, the positivist critique is not so much obsessed with quantification, but with clarity of language and scientific discourse. An important critic of the positivist/behaviorist approach is Peter Harzam. In his (2004) essay, he criticizes behaviorism on several grounds. Following Titcherner, Harzam holds that the assumption of materialism that undergirds behavioral methods is a non-scientific assumption.

Materialism is one of those “nonsense” words that positivism must reject, though it is almost always reluctant to do so. Materialism is not a scientific view, but rather a metaphysical one. Secondly, he is suspicious as to who the media and government establishment loved Watson so much. It seems that he opened up the door to later developments in psychotropic drugs, surveillance and an entire infrastructure of control that is based on behaviorist ideas, specifically, the idea that human beings can be manipulated like cattle, so long as the elite have adequate ideas as to what makes humans act.

Though Harzam does not explicitly say this, it is a clear and uncomfortable conclusion of Watson’s teachings. And third Harzam holds that consciousness can be a scientific variable precisely on the grounds that it is experienced as the ground of experience, and therefore fits into the older, purely empirical scientific model of inquiry. Another critic of this regime is Laird Addis, who in his (1982) essay deals with the history and struggles of the behaviorist paradigm.

Addis criticizes the behaviorist school in its large number of assumptions that it brings to psychology, namely that of materialism (again), and the basic notion, central to all who call themselves behaviorists, that all human actions whatever have an adequate cause that is quantifiable and material, that is, independent of consciousness or its objects. He wants to make a key clarification, however, and say that the positivist analysis holds that extra-physical ideas need not be taken into account to have a full understanding, but that such ideas can assist in clarifying the basis, physicalist account of action (Addis, 1982, 401-402).

Like many others, Addis is uncomfortable with Watson’s early idea that control and prediction is the aim of science. Here, a rather social and political agenda has invaded the rarified air of positivist science. It is truth and adequacy that is at the center, not the eventual control over human behavior that Watson and Skinner seem to insist upon. A possible use for behaviorism has already developed substantially, that is, the development of chemical alterations of behavior.

At best, this approach holds that mental states are wholly physical and hence, can be manipulated by physical means. If one reduced mental phenomenon to chemical causes, then one has reduced the mind to the interactions of chemicals and their synthesis in specific actions. If this is done, then certain drugs can be developed and administered that can alter the chemical interactions by adding new ones, and hence, affect the reaction of the person.

The chemical approach to psychology is something purely positivist in that the language is clear so long as it retains the technical language of chemistry, it is publically understood since chemical interactions can be replicated in a laboratory, and the concepts of consciousness and thought are eliminated as causal variables. Hence, the development of drugs to deal with obsessive compulsive disorder, depression and bi-polarity derive from the Watsonite approach.

To conclude, it is clear that the Watsonite theory of human behavior is simply a positivist approach to the philosophy of mind. It approaches this discipline by negating it. Its basic ideas are that a) for any human act x, there is a completely adequate explanation y. b) y is always reducible to clear, quantifiable, and publically understood language. c) if not, then y is not completely adequate. Hence, there is an intersection of the clarity of language with that of quantifiability.

Words in scientific discourse can only mean one thing, and cannot have the shades of meaning that make denotation different from connotation. Hence, many followers of Watson insist that their movement is based solely in the clarification of language rather than a elimination of concepts tout court. References: Addis, Laird. (1982). Behaviorism and the Philosophy of the Act. Nous, 16, 399-420 Bergmann, Gustav. (1942) An Empirical Schema of the Psycho-physical Problem. The Philosophy of Science, 9, 72-91. Harzam, Peter.

(2004). Behaviorism for the New Psychology: What was Wrong with Behaviorism and What is Wrong with it Now. Behaviorism and Philosophy, 32. 5-12. Watson, JB. (1913). Psychology as Behaviorism Views It. Psychology Review 20, 158-177. Titchener, EB (1917). On ‘Psychology as Behaviorism Views It. ’ The Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 53, 1-17. Skinner, BF. (1978). Reflections on Behaviorism and Society. Prentice Hall. Dostoyevskii, Fydor. (2006). Notes from Underground. Waking Lion Press.

The theoretical conceptualities of behaviorism cover the prime angle of behavioral perspective in aim of explaining the motives of action, rationale of attitude, and prime associates of human dimensions. The school of behaviorism covers the therapeutic interventions guided by objective and empirical approach. The concepts of behaviorism envelopes the diverse and dynamic character of human behavior that aims to discover possible patterns and links that may further organize human actions.

Various theoretical frameworks that govern the behavioral concept have provided an approach to explain human actions. The theories that have aroused in this firm are Pavlov’s classical conditioning, Watson’s learned neuroses, and B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning, which are the skeletal backbone of behavioral perspective. With further application of the said conceptual pattern, noted limitations have also been observed. Behavior involves gradual statutory progression, which can be learned and unlearned through suggested behavioral patterns.

By learning these behavioral cues, one may possess the capabilities of predicting the probable angles of action that enhances human relations. According to the theoretical framework of Ivan Pavlov, creatures including humans possess the capacity to form their behavioral pattern through reconditioning, which popularly known as the framework of classical conditioning. Pavlov has started his experiment on the behavioral paradigm, which clearly involves animal subjects and their cravings for their needs.

Nature justifies that creatures possess their necessities in order to maintain living, while classical conditioning proves that certain stimuli are triggered in response to these needs, and possess modifiability that depends on the dynamic nature. Another theoretical framework proposed is John Watson’s neuroses and behavioral modifications. Watson proposed that the possibility to induce phobias, fears and overall neuroses are even possible to the extent that it can be applied to an 11-month old infant. Furthermore, Watson has theorized that these behaviors can be further modified back into the negation or absence of the formed neuroses.

The conceptual model of Watson has provided distinct explanations among maladaptive behavior that may have been present to various people. As according to the theory, these behaviors are formed due to the instillation of psychological damage presented at age of vulnerability. Lastly, the most popularly utilized conceptual pattern involves the maximum use of operant conditioning, which holds that human beings are blank slates that obtain behavioral patterns through learning experiences. Behavior theory maintains that human actions are initiated and developed through learning experiences.

The major premise of behavior theory is that individuals change their behavior depending on the reactions it obtains from others: Behavior is supported by rewards and extinguished by negative consequences or responses. The condition of the learned behavior is strengthened by reward and avoidance of punishment or weakened by lack of reward and aversive stimuli. Whether a given behavior pattern persists depends on the differential reinforcement – the rewards and punishments attached to that behavior and the rewards and punishments attached to alternative behavior.

By the conceptual patterns of behaviorism school, the possibility of improving human relations could be present. As humans interact with each other, they utilize variant types of actions and attitudes that are primarily lead by their won behavioral aspect. Taking an example in the view of behavioral deviances, the conditioning of such deviant promotion modifies the personality of the person. These experiences include personally observing other individuals behaving erratically and aggressively to obtain some goal or watching people being rewarded for violent actions on television, movies or other media sources.

People learn to act aggressively when, as children, they model their behavior after the violent acts of adults. Later in life, these violent behavior patterns persist in social relationships. One example is a boy who sees his father repeatedly striking his mother with impunity is likely to become a battering parent and husband. As for human relations, the conditioning of behavior provides development of understanding on how people act and behave, which is essential especially in consideration of probable positive and negative actions.

Taking behavioral perspective in account, the possibility of predicting the rationale for action, comprehension of reasons for action, and understanding of the personality of the person are all possible; hence, reducing chances of conflicts, and probable improvements of behavior through modification and conditioning. However, such theories propose limitations especially in the perspective of every individual’s unique character; since, cultural, upbringing, and social environment varies among individuals. Human relation needs to consider as well other factors that influence behavior, such as physical, emotional, social, and cultural dimension.

B. F. Skinner, as he is known popularly, had made much contribution to psychology as he made confusions and debates. In delving into Skinner’s works, it is not surprising that researching about him and his ideas will overwhelm a student by the immense literature on Radical Behaviorism as well as will be lost in the confusion and humdrum of his “theory”. Thus, it is important in the narrative that it should be divided into smaller units as to delineate subjects about the whole topic. The first part will deal with a short biography of Skinner.

This will only trace his career but will also include some sketches of his life that may have contributed to his line of thought and thinking. Presented in the next section are some ideas about his Radical Behaviorism and a rather shallow understanding of it. The difficulty in here however is that as one goes deeper into Radical Behaviorism, the more it is complex and confusing that the brevity of this paper will not permit. The third part is the presentation of some of the influences Radical Behaviorism had made in other fields of study.

Many authors and many scholars would claim that Radical Behaviorism had influenced their fields, although only some of these fields will be presented. On the next section, a presentation be made on the criticisms on Radical Behavior. With a gigantic amount of literature written by B. F. Skinner, it is in no doubt that there will also be a great amount of published criticisms on Radical Behaviorism and only a few have made their way here. As a whole this paper will not be an ambitious research about B. F.Skinner and Radical Behaviorism but just to answer on the surface as: (1) Who is B. F. Skinner? ; (2) What is Radical Behaviorism? ; (3) What are the fields of study influenced by Radical.

According to Hall, Lindzey & Campbell (1998) as well as Vargas (2004), Skinner lived his early life with much warmth and stability – his parents giving him much freedom on discovery and his inventiveness. As Skinner’s daughter, Julie S. Vargas (2004) would attest that her grandmother gave her father the freedom to discover things and to develop his abilities. On the other hand, she was also strict in social matters, such as etiquette, and the young man devised many things to help him remember his mother’s social controls (Vargas, 2004).

Nonetheless, the family gave emphasis on open debate over things and topics, although they have some conservative stance on certain things. With an interest on Literature, having been encouraged by Robert Frost, Skinner attended a small liberal arts school of Hamilton College where he majored in English, determined to become a writer (Hall, Lindzey & Campbell, 1998). He was not successful though in writing, then he left home for New York and went to Harvard University for graduate studies (Vargas, 2004).

In 1931, he received his Ph. D. and moved to the University of Minnesota in 1936 for an academic position, where for 9 years he would claim and establish a name as one of the most influential experimental psychologists of that time (Hall, Lindzey & Campbell, 1998). He then went to the University of Indiana for a short stay, in 1945 and returned to Harvard in 1948 to stay for the duration of his entire career until his retirement in 1974, where he would enrich all his ideas and theories (Vargas, 2004).

Finally, on March 18, 1990 one of the most celebrated and controversial psychologists of all time died of leukemia, leaving behind a “ripple effect of his life’s work” as the “Operant procedures have crated entire fields [of science]” (Vargas, 2004) Radical Behaviorism Radical Behaviorism is a term attributed to B. F. Skinner (Schneider & Morris, 1987), described as a distinction from the so-called Methodological Behaviorism and the “rest of psychology” (Malone & Cruchon, 2001). To contrast the two kinds of behaviorism, it is noteworthy to define both.

By definition, Methodological Behaviorism is the: …view that there is a distinction between public and private events and that psychology (to remain scientific) can deal only with public events … private events are ‘mental’ and, therefore, beyond our reach … the “arid philosophy of truth by agreement” (Skinner, 1945) [that] something is meaningful or objective only if at least two observers agree on its existence. (Malone & Cruchon, 2001) According to Skinner’s viewpoint, Radical Behaviorism is quite different because, “it does not distinguish between private and public events.

In so doing, it omits nothing commonly thought of as mental, but it treats ‘seeing’ as an activity similar in kind to walking (Malone & Cruchon, 2001). This is because Skinner “deny the mind/body dualism of the mentalists and the methodological behaviorists” (Malone & Cruchon, 2001). As an example, Malone and Cruchon (2001) succinctly described that: Thinking is something that we do, just as is walking, and we do not think mental thoughts any more than we walk mental steps. Personal experience is not necessarily ‘private’ experience.

That part of the world within our bodies is difficult to describe because society has a difficult time teaching us to name it. (Malone & Cruchon, 2001) In other words, Skinner departed from analyzing behaviour as actions affected by our thoughts rather he argued that thoughts are effects themselves to a degree from our actions (Malone & Cruchon, 2001).

Instead of saying that the organism sees, attends to, perceives, ‘processes,’ or otherwise acts upon stimuli, an operant analysis holds that stimuli acquire control of behavior through the part they play in contingencies of reinforcement. Instead of saying that an organism stores copies of the contingencies to which it is exposed and later retrieves and responds to them again, it says that the organism is changed by the contingencies and later responds as a changed organism, the contingencies having passed into history. (Skinner, 1987)

That is, “All operants and stimuli are members of classes of similar phenomena, defined by the environmental relations in which they participate. ” (Ritzer, 2005). This is further said in the article Evolution of Verbal Behavior as: …species-specific behavior did not evolve in order that a species could adapt to the environment but rather evolved when it adapted, so we say that operant behavior is not strengthened by reinforcement in order that the individual can adjust to the environment but is strengthened when the individual adjusts.

This is to say that Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism rests on the study of behavior in a sense that behavior is not caused by the stimuli but depends on the actions that a person reacts to in a certain setting (environment) resulting into another reaction, thus; “The environment not only triggered behavior, it selected it. Consequences seemed, indeed, to be more important than antecedents. ” (Skinner, 1987). Some Influences by Skinner’s Behaviorism

Surely, the influence of Radical Behaviorism in the applied fields has been proven by academic scholars in numerous research writings as part or a whole of some other fields in psychology. One such field is Human Geography, so called because it is “concerned with the spatial differentiation and organization of human activity and with human use of the physical environment” (Norton, 1997) and is concerned mainly of human behavior in an environment.

In here, Norton (1997) corroborated that Human Geography is related to Radical Behaviorism because the principle of cultural materialism as an approach to the study of the former is similar to latter as: Radical behaviorism is concerned with the identification of the principles of individual behavior and talks about reinforcers and punishers, while cultural materialism is concerned with group behavior and talks about benefits and costs. Both argue that behavioral responses to environmental variables precede mental rationalizations as to the reasons for responses.

” (Norton, 1997) Norton (1997) further adds that the research approach of Human Geography is “the analysis of behavior in landscape”, advocating the use of Radical Behaviorism. Secondly, it has also influenced the approaches of the analysis of Human Cognition as Barnes and Holmes (1991) would contend. This is because, they said that, “radical behaviorism does, on the contrary, and as opposed to earlier forms of behaviorism, direct considerable attention towards phenomena called ‘cognitive.

’” (Barnes and Holmes, 1991), giving credit to the importance of the “contextualistic perspective” in the analysis of human thought. Further, they said that, “its current burgeoning of interest in human behavior, and particularly language and symbolic control, have yet to be fully appreciated and explored” (Barnes and Holmes, 1991), such that Radical Behaviorism, “can play an important role in developing psychology into a fully formed science” (Barnes and Holmes, 1991). Third, as formulated by Skinner, one such field influenced by Radical Behaviorism is the analysis of Verbal Behavior and communication.

In the study conducted by Forsyth (1996) on the Language of Feeling, he identified Behaviorism as a good approach to such an analyses furthering understanding of the communication process. He said that “the functional analysis of verbal behavior has served as the cornerstone for behavior analytic research and theory about emotional behavior beginning with how people learn to label and describe their experience using language”, commending its use in clinical behaviour analysis.

Fourth, an interesting proposal of the use of Radical Behaviorism is the simulation or duplication of a community called Walden Two (Cullen, 1991), based on a novel by Skinner of the same title. The interesting part is that this proposal carried out for a community of disabled children having behavior deficits. This community was called Comunidad Los Horcones which was started in 1971 and has continued up to the present, followed the guiding rules based on the novel (Cullen, 1991).

Cullen (1991) argued that the guiding principles of Radical Behaviorism can sustain a community, nonetheless the presence o only a handful of these kinds of community make it less probable for practical use. In the outset, the promise that, “it might provide the basis for sensible planning in the lives of people with learning disabilities” (Cullen, 1991). Criticisms Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism came out into the academic arena without and exemption from criticisms.

According to Malone and Cruchon (2001), Skinner’s over-simplification of in his prose on the principles of Radical Behaviorism to gain public readership caused further criticisms because those who read it misunderstood it further. They said that these criticisms are, “attributable to the opacity of his prose and the excessiveness of his proposed applications” (Malone & Cruchon, 2001).

Thus, the writings of Skinner led to many misconceptions as well as misinterpretations of Skinner’s works (Ruiz, 1995). Skinner have regretted this himself later in his life as he “eventually complained at having to redress misconstructions in the literature” (Ruiz, 1995). Quite interestingly is that Skinner’s Radical Behavior, undoubtedly had been misconstrued with these “labels” and had been the source of fierce criticisms from many quarters (Ruiz, 1995). Furthermore, Ruiz’s (1995) first entry in the misinterpretation list about Radical Behaviorism as “a mechanistic stimulus-response psychology”, was also claimed by Hall, Lindzey and Campbell (1998). In the long run, Skinner suffered misinterpretation rather than the validity of his Radical Behaviorism as a science.

All three sources would agree that Skinner was misinterpreted and misunderstood (Malone & Cruchon, 2001; Ruiz, 1995; Hall, Lindzey & Campbell, 1998), because his readers and supporters as well as critiques always place labels on approaches, techniques or methods of analyses. Conclusion B. F, Skinner is a remarkable scholar of the 20th century, having to influence a handful of fields of study. In retrospect, Skinner started out with a humble beginning and his upbringing may have contributed to the immense power of thinking.

His Radical Behaviorism, was an attempt of Skinner to delineate his ideas from the whole of behaviorism and the rest of psychology. In such doing, a new breed of approach had taken shape. His ideas on Radical Behaviorism eventually influenced many other fields of study for application and as an approach to many experiments. On the other hand, with such a remarkable approach, B. F. Skinner and Radical Behaviorism had been attacked by numerous criticisms simply because of its complexity; Skinner himself often over-simplify his writings to cover a wider audience that also caused much confusion and labeling on Radical Behaviorism.

Nonetheless, many students and scholars also interpreted and cleared-out his ideas for better understanding such as Malone and Cruchon’s work (2001). Finally, Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism, according to most articles and proposition has a great promise to give for the science of psychology. While it is a fact, as many sources would say, that Skinner’s works are misinterpreted and confused, there is no way that in the subsequent debates and further studies on his Radical Behaviorism that it will shed more understanding to a wider audience.