flickr photo via Kevan
All behaviour elicits a response, and it seems to me, this response will be a naturally occurring one relative to the subjective, or perhaps unknown purpose of the behaviour, (assuming that all behaviour is purposeful).
I'm not an operant behaviourist by any stretch... I just don't think that operant conditioning is natural or effective in nurturing positive behaviour. Let's face it, engaging classrooms lead to engaged students... in the context of behaviourism, can we not call the engaging classroom the unconditioned stimulus, and the authentic, positive teaching and learning that takes place there the unconditioned response? If so, behaviorism is alive and well in North American schools, and thank heaven it is so.
Externally applied operant conditioning, (of which the effectiveness in schools is suspect) is using positive and negative reinforcement to 'do to' in the effort to solicit a desired response, but there is so much more to a behaviourist approach than the cliché 'carrots and sticks' that opponents of what they refer to as 'behaviourism' allude to. I would assert that there is so much more to positive and negative reinforcement in general than many people realize, (positive and negative reinforcement can be unconditioned as well- e.g. if a teacher yells at a student to stop doing something he/she isn't supposed to do, and the student stops, the unconditioned cessation of the student's undesirable behavior has negatively reinforced the teacher's yelling.)
Educators need to explore the scope and context of behaviourism within a new and collaborative mindset if we are to be considered students of our own craft, which, boiled down, is really just a very pure study of human behaviour; is it not?
