Talk:Behaviorism (philosophy of education)

Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behaviorism (philosophy of education) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Series of articles[edit]

I just finished the article on Humanism (learning theory) and will start the article on Behaviorism (learning theory) next. It will take awhile to get the articles approved.Stmullin (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was based on my published dissertation which drew from the reading list posted on my user page. The research is not original to Wikipedia and is a legitimate secondary source. Please put a citation needed flag where you believe something needs to be tracked down to the original source and I will search my files for that information. What may be common knowledge to my profession may not be common knowledge to others. Please let me know and I will retrieve information from my files. Stmullin (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge[edit]

Please remove the merge banner since discussion indicates a merge is not advisable.Stmullin (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The very recently created article Behaviorism (philosophy of education) overlaps significantly with this article, and has little new to offer. I propose to merge it into this one. hgilbert (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I disagree with the merger and your opinion. The educational perspective is significantly different from the psychology perspective or even the philosophy perspective and the less overlap the better. Stmullin (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - *I think it is ok to merge. --John (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - In general, I would love for there to be single comprehensive articles. However, the political reality is that people from different academic areas don't respect each other on Wikipedia the same way they might in a university setting. This leads to edit warring, and wrongful deletion of good material. So, the best way to accomodate this situation is to have separate articles, and in the main article, have sections with a summary for each of the others. Greg Bard (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree there is overlap, and that there should be a merger, but I also agree with Greg Bard. That said, there is a discipline of educational psychology that has its own page, and there is a section on that page that deals specifically with behaviorism. Thus I believe that the discussion on behaviorism in education should be merged with the ed. psych. page, if there is any merger at all.--Lhakthong ([[User

talk:Lhakthong|talk]]) 14:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you must merge then merge with Learning Theory (education). Please do not mix Educational Philosophy with Psychology . . . the view points are very different.Stmullin (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet, there's overlap, but they are from differing paradigms. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE--while there may be similarities to their theoretical underpinnings, the way they are understood in the educational vs. philosophical context are different. They are mutually exclusive even thought there may be connections in understandings between the two areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.148.44 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist?[edit]

What your are writing is a position taken by people who have an ideology opposed to a behavioral approach and seek to portray behaviorism in education in the worst possible way. The ideas of some behaviorists about education do not involve an instructor (e.g., consider programmed instruction which does not have an instructor). The real issue distinguishing educational "philosophies" is about instructor guidance. Behaviorist ideas related to education do not involve rote learning, which is memorization without meaning. Operant conditioning and systematic design work just fine for meaningful concepts (for about 50 years). The philosophy of behavioral educational principles should not be obtained from one source which doesn't seem to understand behaviorism and is ideologically opposed to it. Behaviorism, as a perspective, focuses on behavior, and the focus on educational outcomes is the basis for behavioral instructional principles. Behaviorists also originated systematic design in which final educational outcomes are analyzed and broken down to smaller, logically arranged, outcomes. Since operant conditioning works via operants (emitted behaviors) students must be active. I am not sure what purpose this page has other than a dump of some ideology couched as encyclopedic fact. Is is okay to present an ideology, but not okay to include a topic that is really not part of that ideology.Robotczar (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page exists to categorize an educational philosophy that is widely used in early learning . . . especially in the form of Direct Instruction in Elementary schools . . . it is NOT opposed to a behavioral approach. My child attended a Direct Instruction Elementary school whose approach is behaviorist and has a track record of success with teaching spelling, multiplication tables, etc. in a fun and effective way . . . with appropriate rewards. I agree that the instructional theories linked to this perspective are pedagogical. Where we disagree is the definition of the word, not the concept. Behaviorism, as a term in education (not defined as broadly as all Learning) provides a term that allows us to discuss memorization of multiplication tables, etc. in a meaningful and informed way. This is differentiated from the strategy that will be experienced and taught in Middle school, which is more about problem solving and less about memorization.174.99.59.109 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

philosophy of education[edit]

To be viable, a philosophy of education needs to include a theory of knowledge, a theory of ethics, and a theory of human nature.^[1] It should also "propound views about what education should be, what dispositions it should cultivate, why it ought to cultivate them, how and in whom it should do so, and what forms it should take," which would include a psychology of learning and teaching methodologies.^[2]

Curriculum resources for Behaviorism (Philosophy of education)[edit]

Flash Cards[edit]

Flash cards can be note cards or even scraps of paper with two parts of information; one part on either side of a piece of paper (e.g. one side with a red dot and the other side and the word red). These are typically used in a classroom or in private study for drills that aid memorization. Pre-made flash cards are available for many subjects. Caregivers and students may make homemade flash cards that are relevant to what they are studying.

Shurley English[edit]

• Direct Instruction • The Memory Model • Multi-Sensory Learning

References[edit]

^ Peters, R.S. (1977). Education and the education of teachers (Reprinted. ed.). London: Routledge & K. Paul. p. 77. ISBN 0710084692.
^ Guthrie, James W. (2002). "Philosophy of Education". In Frankena, William K.; Raybeck, Nathan; Burbules, Nicholas (eds.). Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 0-02-865594-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

Stmullin (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Peters, R.S. (1977). Education and the education of teachers (Reprinted. ed.). London: Routledge & K. Paul. p. 77. ISBN 0710084692.

[POEE-2] Guthrie, James W. (2002). "Philosophy of Education". In Frankena, William K.; Raybeck, Nathan; Burbules, Nicholas (eds.). Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 0-02-865594-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[1]

[2]

Criteria for Good Article Status[edit]