Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:05:15.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying Behavioural Psychology in Education: Contributions and Barriers to the Implementation of Effective Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

David J. Leach
David J. Leach*
Affiliation:
Murdoch University
*
Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Murdoch University, Murdoch WA 6150, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Between 10% and 25% of children in Australian schools have significant difficulty in mastering basic educational skills. Failure to achieve “tool” competencies in literacy (and numeracy) expected for independent adult functioning can have cumulatively negative consequences for individuals and their communities. The contribution of behavioural approaches to the instruction in basic literacy skills in schools is outlined. Empirical evidence of their effectiveness is presented and two of the most comprehensive (and most successful) models are described: the Morningside model of generative instruction and direct instruction. Despite strong research support, however, behavioural approaches have not been widely adopted in general education. It is suggested that the main barriers to their adoption are the currently dominant paradigms of structuralism and constructivism, neither of which have translated into effective teaching practices for children most at risk of failure. Constructivist epistemology, in particular, is seen as oppositional to behaviour-based instruction and scientist–practitioner intervention, and its disregard for empiricism is cause for concern that ineffective practices will be maintained. It is concluded that behaviour-based practitioners (and researchers) need to become more effectively involved in system-level change strategies if they are to make an impact on the wider problems of educational failure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M.J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Word recognition: The interface of educational policies and scientific research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 113–139.Google Scholar
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1982). Applied behavior analysis for teachers: Influencing student performance. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Alexander, P., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andresen, J. (1991). Skinner and Chomsky 30 year later, or: The return of the repressed. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, R.J., Elkins, J., Berry, P.B., & Burge, J.A. (1979). A survey of special education in Australia: Provisions, needs and priorities in the education of children with handicaps and learning difficulties, Brisbane, QLD: Fred and Eleanor Schonell Educational Research Centre.Google Scholar
Arter, J.A., & Jenkins, J.R. (1979). Differential diagnosis — prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.Google Scholar
Australian House of Representatives Enquiry. (1993). The literacy challenge. Canberra: Australian Printing Office.Google Scholar
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.Google Scholar
Bailey, J.S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24. 445–448.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 7, 518–543.Google Scholar
Berlin, J.A., & Sum, A. (1988). Toward more perfect union: Basic skills, poor families, and our economic future. New York: Ford Foundation.Google Scholar
Binder, C.V. (1988). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining academic excellence. Youth Policy, 10, 12–15.Google Scholar
Binder, C.V., & Watkins, C.L. (1990). Precision teaching and direct instruction: Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3. 74–96.Google Scholar
Blankenship, C., & Lilly, M.S. (1981). Mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as 1:1 tutoring. Educational Leadership, 4, 4–17.Google Scholar
Branwhite, A.B. (1983). Boosting reading skills by direct instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 291–298.Google Scholar
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069–1078.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. (1992). Studies in the acquisition procedure for reading: Rationale, hypotheses, and data. In Gough, P.B., Ehri, L.C., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 1–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
California Achievement Tests. (1978). Monterey: CTB/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Camine, D.W. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261–269.Google Scholar
Carnine, D.W., Granzin, A., & Becker, W. (1988). Direct instruction. In Graden, J.L., Zins, J.E., & Curtis, M.E. (Eds.), Alternative delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 167–177). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
Carnine, D.W., & Silbert, J. (1979). Direct instruction reading. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., & Stein, M. (1980). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Collette-Harris, M., & Minke, I.K. (1978). A behavioral experimental analysis of dyslexia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 16, 291–295.Google Scholar
Cummins, R.A. (1991). Remedial education and neurological development: Matters of ethical concern. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 8, 20–23.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429–444.Google Scholar
Department of Education, Western Australia. (1992). First Steps: Language Development. Perth, WA: Author.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. (1976). Morphographic spelling. Ontario, Canada: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Dixon, R., Engelmann, S., & Bauer, M.M. (1990). Spelling mastery. Chicago: SRA, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dowhower, S.L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 343–358.Google Scholar
Ellmore, R.F., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E.C. (1988). Reading mastery. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D.W. (1981). Corrective mathematics. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D.W. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D.W. (1992). Connecting math concepts. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., & Johnson, G. (1978). Corrective reading. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., & Bruner, E.C. (1983). Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1987). Distar language. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Silbert, J. (1983). Expressive writing. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Englert, C. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enter prise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 153–172.Google Scholar
Fahrner, H. (1996). Direct instruction: A whole school longitudinal evaluation. Unpublished DPsych thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, WA.Google Scholar
Frederickson, N., & Reason, R. (1995). Discrepancy definitions of specific learning difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, D. (1979). Reading and perceptualmotor performance: Can we strengthen them simultaneously? Journal of Special Education, 13, 265–273.Google Scholar
Fullan, M.G., with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R., Sainato, D.M., Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., Heward, W.L., Eshleman, J.W., & Grossi, T. (Eds.). (1994). Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Gerber, M.M. (1994). Post modernism in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 368–378.Google Scholar
Gersten, R. (1985). Direct instruction with special education students: A review of evaluation research. Journal of Special Education, 19, 41–58.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., & Brengelman, S.U. (1996). The quest to translate research into classroom practice. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 67–74.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Becker, W. (1988). The continued impact of the direct instruction model: Longitudinal studies of Follow Through students. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 318–327.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Morvant, M. (1992). Refining the working knowledge of experienced teachers. Educational Leadership, 49, 34–39.Google Scholar
Gillat, A., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). Promoting principals' managerial involvement in instructional improvement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 115–129.Google Scholar
Gillham, W. (Ed.). (1978). Reconstructing educational psychology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gipps, C., Gross, H., & Goldstein, H. (1987). Warnock's eighteen per cent: Children with special needs in primary schools. Lewes, UK: Falmer.Google Scholar
Glynn, T. (1982). Antecedent control of behaviour in educational contexts. Educational Psychology, 2, 215–229.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educational Leadership, 49, 69–72.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. (1992). Why whole language is today's agenda in education. Language Arts, 69, 354–363.Google Scholar
Goyen, J.D. (1992). Diagnosis of reading problems: Is there a case? Educational Psychology, 12, 225–237.Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. The Journal of Special Education, 28. 275–289.Google Scholar
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D.W. (1990). Diagramming a logical strategy: Effects in difficult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guskey, T.R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Guskey, T.R., & Pigott, T. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programmes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, D. (1976). Reactions to labelling. In Hammersley, M. & Woods, P. (Eds.), The process of schooling (pp. 232–238). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Haughton, E.C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1, 3–20.Google Scholar
Haywood, H.C., Tzuriel, D., & Vaught, S. (1992). Psychoeducational assessment from a transactional perspective. In Haywood, H.C. & Tzuriel, D. (Eds.), Interactive Assessment (pp. 38–63). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian-mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403–415.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, A., Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1989). Developing and validating science education videodiscs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 665–677.Google Scholar
Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional relations. In Little, J.W. & McLaughlin, M.W. (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 11–50). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Information Please Almanac, Atlas and Yearbook. (44th ed.). (1991) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Johnson, K.R., & Layng, T.V.J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.Google Scholar
Johnson, K.R., & Layng, T.V.J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative instruction. In Gardner, R., Sainato, D., Cooper, J., Heron, T., Heward, W., Eshleman, J., & Grossi, T., Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173–198). Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M.M. (1991). Implications for teaching. In Ramp, E.A. & Pederson, C.S. (Eds.), Follow through: Program and policy issues (pp. 57–71). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum: Does history really repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 270–275.Google Scholar
Layng, T.V.J., Jackson, P.J., & Robbins, J.K. (1992). Fluent thinking skills: A generative approach. Unpublished developmental testing draft. (Available from T.V.J. Layng, Academic Support Center, Malcolm X College, Chicago, IL 60612)Google Scholar
Leach, D.J. (1987). Increasing the use and maintenance of behaviour-based practices in schools: An example of a general problem for applied psychologists? Australian Psychologist, 22, 323–332.Google Scholar
Leach, D.J. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of the work of psychologists in schools. Australian Psychologist, 24, 357–376.Google Scholar
Leach, D.J., & Ingram, K.L. (1989). The effects of information and feedback on teachers' classroom behaviour and students' academic engaged time. Educational Psychology, 9, 167–184.Google Scholar
Leach, D.J., & Siddall, S.W. (1990). Parental involvement in the teaching of reading: A comparison of hearing reading, paired reading, pause-prompt-praise and direct instruction methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 349–355.Google Scholar
Liberman, I.Y., & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–77.Google Scholar
Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22, 10–15.Google Scholar
Lindsley, O.R. (1992). Why aren't effective teaching tools widely adopted? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 21–26.Google Scholar
Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.Google Scholar
Lockery, M., & Maggs, A. (1982). Direct instruction research in Australia: A ten-year analysis. Educational Psychology, 2, 263–288.Google Scholar
Lovaas, O.I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S., Glynn, T., & Robinson, V.M. (1987). Pause, prompt and praise: Effective tutoring for remedial reading. Birmingham, UK: Positive Products.Google Scholar
Meltzer, L., & Reid, D.K. (1994). New directions in the assessment of students with special needs: The shift toward a constructivist perspective. Journal of Special Education, 28, 338–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2, 371–384.Google Scholar
Ormrod, J. (1986). Learning to spell while reading: A follow-up study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 652–654.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A.S., Winn, J., David, Y., Snyder, B., & Stevens, D. (1993). Approaches to strategic reading instruction reflecting different assumptions regarding teaching and learning. In Meltzer, L.J. (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 247–270). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Poplin, M.S. (1988). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389–400.Google Scholar
Prescott, G., Balow, I., Hogan, T., & Farr, R. (1986). Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT6). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Harris, K.R., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–31.Google Scholar
Prior, M., Sanson, A., Smart, D., & Oberklaid, F. (1995). Reading disability in an Australian community sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47, 32–37.Google Scholar
Ramage, J.C. (1979). National survey of school psychologists: Update. School Psychology Digest, 8, 153–161.Google Scholar
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Redmon, W.K. (1991). Pinpointing the technological fault in applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 441–444.Google Scholar
Reese, H.W. (1991). Mentalistic approaches to verbal behavior. In Hayes, L.J. & Chase, P.N. (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 151–177). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
Reid, D.K. (1993). Another vision of “Visions and Revisions”: A special education perspective on the whole language controversy. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 14–16.Google Scholar
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P., & Koeppl, G. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 212–227.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In Liben, L. (Ed.), Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.Google Scholar
Sashkin, M., & Egermeier, J. (1993). School change models and processes: A review and synthesis of research and practice. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Shinn, M.R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Siegel, L.S. (1993). Alice in IQ land or why IQ is still irrelevant to learning disabilities. In Joshi, M. & Leong, C.K. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 71–84). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Some contributions of the experimental analysis of behavior to psychology as a whole. American Psychologist, 8, 69–78.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45, 1206–1210.Google Scholar
Slaughter, H. (1988). Indirect and direct teaching in a whole language program. The Reading Teacher, 42, 30–34.Google Scholar
Smyth, W.J. (1980). Pupil engaged learning time: Concepts, findings and implications. Australian Journal of Education, 23, 225–245.Google Scholar
Solity, J. (1991). An overview of behavioural approaches to teaching children with learning difficulties and the national curriculum. Educational Psychology, 11, 151–167.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Problems in the differential diagnosis of reading disabilities. In Joshi, R.M. & Leong, C.K. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 3–31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 259–274.Google Scholar
Stepich, D. (1991). From novice to expert: Implications for instructional design. Performance and Instruction, 30, 13–17.Google Scholar
Stewart, K.J. (1986). Innovative practice of indirect service delivery: Realities and idealities. School Psychology Review, 15, 466–478.Google Scholar
Students fall short in new state tests. (1994, 03 9). Los Angeles Times, p. 6.Google Scholar
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1986). Achieving educational excellence: Using behavioral strategies. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Talbert, J.E., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123–152.Google Scholar
Topping, K.J. (1988). Paired reading training pack (3rd ed.). Huddersfield, UK: Kirklees Paired Learning Project.Google Scholar
Topping, K.J. (1995). Paired reading, writing and spelling: The handbook for teachers and parents. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Topping, K.J., & Lindsay, G.A. (1992). Paired reading: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education, 7, 199–246.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
West, R.P., & Young, K.R. (1992). Precision teaching. In West, R.P. & Hammerlynck, L.A. (Eds.), Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B.F. Skinner (pp. 63–74). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Colmar, S. (1990). Peer tutoring for low progress readers using “Pause, Prompt and Praise”. In Foot, H.C., Morgan, M.J., & Shute, R.H. (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 117–134). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective classroom learning: A behavioural interactionist approach to teaching. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
White, W.A.T. (1988). A meta-analysis of the effects of direct instruction in special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 364–374.Google Scholar
White, O.R., & Haring, N.G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., & Noell, J. (1991). Science instruction at the secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 277–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed