Behavioral Learning Theory

Behavioral Learning Theory

 Learning:

In the text, learning is described as “a change in an individual caused by experience” (Ormrod, 2016; Schunk, 2016). This change can occur both intentionally and unintentionally, as children and adults are constantly learning, often without even realizing it. The textbook emphasizes that the real challenge in education isn’t getting students to learn, because learning is always happening. Instead, the challenge lies in guiding students to learn the specific concepts and skills we want them to master. With so many distractions and life experiences competing for their attention, it can be difficult for students to focus on the most important material. As Slavin (pg. 102) asks, “How do we present students with the right stimuli on which to focus their attention and mental effort so that they will acquire important skills?” Ultimately, the goal is to create intentional, meaningful learning experiences

Behavioral Learning Theories:

Behavioral learning theories were not discovered until the late 19th century.  These occurred when researchers started experimenting on people and animals to try and discover how they learned.  

Pavlov: Classical Conditioning

    Ivan Pavlov was a Russian scientist who did some pretty interesting work back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He and his research team were originally studying how dogs digest food, but along the way, they noticed something unusual. Every time the dogs saw meat, they’d get excited and start to drool. This drooling was called an unconditioned response to an unconditioned stimulus.  In this case, the meat. It’s called “unconditioned” because the dogs didn’t have to learn to do it; it just happened naturally.

    After noticing this, Pavlov decided to take things a step further. He started ringing a bell before giving the dogs the meat to see what would happen. At first, the bell didn’t cause any reaction,t hat made it a neutral stimulus. But after hearing the bell over and over right before the meat showed up, the dogs eventually started drooling just from the sound of the bell, even if no meat was there. At that point, the bell had become a conditioned stimulus, and the drooling in response to it was a conditioned response.

This whole process is what Pavlov is famous for. It’s called classical conditioning. It shows how living things can learn to link one thing with another just by experiencing them together over time.

Skinner: Operant Conditioning

Skinner introduced the concept of operant behaviors, which focused on how behavior is influenced by its consequences. According to the textbook, “The use of pleasant and unpleasant consequences to change behavior is often referred to as operant conditioning.” To study this, Skinner created an experimental device known as the “Skinner Box.” In this controlled environment, he used animals such as rats and pigeons to observe behavioral changes. The box was designed so the animal couldn’t see or hear anything outside, keeping distractions to a minimum. Inside the box, there was a bar the animal could press, along with a food dispenser and a water dispenser. Over time, the animal learned that pressing the bar would result in receiving food. This reward influenced the animal’s behavior, increasing the likelihood that it would press the bar again. Through experiments like this, Skinner demonstrated how behavior could be shaped and maintained by consequences.

Principles of Behavioral Learning

The Role of Consequences:

Skinner’s research opened the door for many other studies involving both humans and animals. His main focus was on behavior and how it’s shaped by immediate consequences. The textbook talks about the difference between pleasurable and unpleasant consequences. Basically, pleasurable consequences tend to increase a behavior, while unpleasant ones tend to decrease it. Pleasurable consequences are called reinforcers, and unpleasant ones are called punishers.

Reinforcers

A reinforcer is defined as “any consequence that strengthens (that is, increases the frequency of) a behavior” (Slavin, p. 105). The author makes a really good point—just because we praise or reward someone doesn’t automatically mean it’s a reinforcer. What works for one person might not work for another. Everyone responds differently, so it’s important to figure out what actually motivates each individual.

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

A primary reinforcer is something that meets a basic human need, like food, water, or comfort. A secondary reinforcer is something that gets its value because it’s linked to a primary reinforcer or another reward. Think of things like praise, stickers, or tokens—these work because they’re tied to something meaningful.

Positive and Negative Reinforcers

A positive reinforcer is something pleasant that’s given to encourage a behavior, like a compliment or a treat. A negative reinforcer is when something unpleasant is taken away to encourage behavior, like finishing classwork early to avoid extra homework. The word “negative” can be confusing here because people often think it means punishment, but in this case, it just means removing something unpleasant to increase the chance of the behavior happening again.

The Premack Principle

The Premack Principle is the idea that more enjoyable activities can be used to encourage less enjoyable ones. This is something that comes up in the classroom all the time. For example, if students know they get to go to recess after finishing their work, they’re more likely to stay on task. It’s a simple trick that works well for motivation.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reinforcers

Intrinsic reinforcers are when people do something just because they enjoy it—it’s rewarding in itself Extrinsic reinforcers, on the other hand, are outside rewards like praise or prizes that help push someone to do something they might not be motivated to do otherwise.

Thinking back to my first year of teaching, one challenge I faced was how dependent my students became on extrinsic rewards. It felt like they wouldn’t do much unless there was a prize or treat involved. The textbook talks about this too, saying, “There is evidence that reinforcing children for certain behaviors they would have done anyway can undermine long-term intrinsic motivation” (Deci & Ryan, 2002). That really stuck with me and made me think more about how to build lasting motivation in my students without relying so much on rewards.

Reflection

As I prepare to start my second year of teaching this time in a new school with a new curriculum, I’ve been thinking a lot about how kids learn and what really drives their behavior. I know I’ll be walking into a classroom where I don’t yet know what behaviors to expect, so learning more about how the brain processes information and how behavior is shaped has been incredibly helpful.

One thing that really stood out to me is how learning is always happening, intentionally or not. My role is to help guide students’ attention to the right things so they can make meaningful connections. That starts with creating an environment where they feel safe, seen, and excited to learn.

Last year, I relied a lot on extrinsic rewards, stickers, treats, and praise to manage behavior and keep students motivated. While those tools worked in the moment, I saw how quickly students began to depend on them. This year, I want to shift toward building intrinsic motivation, helping students feel proud of their effort, curious about learning, and motivated from within. Understanding concepts like reinforcement, automaticity, and metacognition gives me tools to do that more intentionally.

As I step into this new chapter, I want to focus less on “what can I give students to get them to behave?” and more on “how can I help them want to do their best?” I know this mindset will take time to build, but I’m hopeful it will lead to more authentic engagement and a stronger classroom culture.

Citations 

Slavin, R.E. (2020). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.