Talk:Learning Theories/Behavioralist Theories

Terminology
In the US the term is Behaviorist, UK and elsewhere Behaviourist- not behavior(al)ist

Headings
This page needs more headings -- TimNelson 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a few --Michaelwayw2 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has many errors
For example: Spillane (2002) states, “the behaviorist perspective, associated with B. F. Skinner, holds that the mind at work cannot be observed, tested, or understood; thus, behaviorists are concerned with actions (behavior) as the sites of knowing, teaching, and learning” (p. 380)

Is wholly false except in the most literal interpretation of "mind" which Skinner asserts does not exist at all as a causal entity. SKinners Radical Behaviorism does allow for inner knowledge, does not assert truth by consensus (as the Methodological Behaviorists did or do) and so can allow for self-knowledge, self-perception, and the observation of thinking and so on. THis is explained in About Behaviorism and in numerous other places.

Which leads me to my second point. This text on Skinner's theories is comprised almost entirely of secondary texts - a hallmark of poor scholarship. Skinner's works are freely available, and numerous journal articles are available online, e.g. The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, which are direct Skinnerian extensions of behaviorist learning theory. Use primary texts unless you want to repeat the obvious mistakes of people like Spillane, above. --Michaelwayw2 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Merriam ?
Is this the citation

Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education Series) (Hardcover) by Sharan B. Merriam (Author), Rosemary S. Caffarella (Author)

There is no listed reference for it, so I will move them into references using this cite.

Simplistic or fundamental?
The problem with this entire section is that is segues off of the simplified presentation of "behaviorist" theorist to begin with.

Behavior Analysis is not simple. Verbal Behavior is not simple. However, the critics of behaviorism have consistently attacked human extensions of the theory and consistently presented it as a simple theory, mostly or entirely for animals. Thus, this is little more than the discussion of a straw man whether it is pro or con. The reflex only theories of Pavlov & Watson proved insightful for some things but fell to the more powerful theories of learning like Skinner's. However, even Skinner realized that it couldn't account for language, so he proposed Verbal Behavior as a conceptual extension to his basic work. To discuss whether behavior analysis is simplistic requires that it be considered in a non-simplistic manner first. This article does not do that. I am inclined to delete this entire section. --Michaelwayw2 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)