Behavior Modification in Education - Research Paper Example

Behavior modification, tightly defined, refers to empirically verified methodologies for changing human behavior. It should be noted that this definition does not specify why human behavior is being changed; this is a normative question. Rather, strictly speaking, behavior modification is nothing more than the altering of an individual’s behaviors (and reactions to stimuli) through various psychological techniques, such as reinforcement and therapy. Behavior modification is connected to behavior therapy and applied behavior analysis insofar as behavior modification requires applied behavior analysis in addition to interventions based on behavioral principles (Martin & Pear, 2002). In this attempt to define behavior modification before looking at critical evaluations, consider seven of its characteristics: (a) there is a strong emphasis on defining problems in terms of behavior that can be measured in some way; (b) the treatment techniques are ways of altering an individual's current environment to help that individual function more fully; (c) the methods and rationales can be described precisely; (d) the techniques are often applied in everyday life; (e) the techniques are based largely on principles of learning; (f) there is a strong emphasis on scientific demonstration that a particular technique was responsible for a particular behavior change; and (g) here is a strong emphasis on accountability for everyone involved in a behavior modification program (Martin & Pear, 2002). While considering these different characteristics of behavior modification, consider also the criticisms and the public perceptions of its practices, which will further illuminate the nature and the use of behavior modification in education. First, some authors believe strongly in the efficacy of behavior modification to provide an enormous benefit to society, and so recommend that hospitals and schools alike implement training programs based on behavioral principles (Pumroy & McIntire, 1991, p. 292). They are quick to point out that the public is becoming more and more aware not only of the terminology used in behavioral science, but also of the fact that behavior modification can benefit the public. Nevertheless, it is still within the public where much of the opposition to behavioral modification lies. The most fundamental of these criticisms is the so-called “philosophy of controlling others”, by which the authors mean to say, “Many people feel uncomfortable about controlling or changing the behavior of others” (Pumroy & McIntire, 1991, p. 286). Teachers in this view believe their role is to provide information to students, who are free to learn or not learn it. Parents under this view believe their role is to provide children with choices that they make freely on their own. In contrast, advocates of the behavioral view (which favors the normative value of behavior modification) take the position that there are always individuals in society who always and inescapably influence others and are therefore responsible, in part, for the behavior of others. While this does not definitively answer the “controlling others” criticism of behavior modification, it builds a philosophical basis on which the practice may be normatively justified. Another source of criticism of behavior modification is its portrayal in the media, which, particularly in the early 1970s, represented the practice in a wholly negative light. During that time, aversive control in prisons appeared in headlines and was discussed across the nation. Behaviorists who stood by behavior modification were forced to separate ethical or correct modification from aversive control that failed to meet ethical standards. This negative media coverage corresponds to negative fictional portrayals of behavior modification, such as programs presented in dystopian novels like George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (Pumroy & McIntire, 1991, p. 287). This poses a problem for behavior modification of middle school students, who are starting to read novels critical of such methods for achieving better livelihoods. Criticism of behavior modification in their classes makes them more critical of those methods in their own lives, even though they are done for completely different purposes. Muriel Paskin Carrison, in a review of behavior modification principles, which remain largely the same today, compares the practice of behavior modification to the Watergate political scandal (Carrison, 1973). That is, even though behavior modification works in achieving its short-term goals, often dramatically helping in achieving classroom control and producing better test scores, it often produces long-term harms that overshadow the “happy panacea”. Before criticizing behavior modification with a defense of the philosophy of “not controlling others”, Carrison identifies four central theoretical and experimental assumptions related to behavior modification. The first assumption states the human mind can only be understood by observing and measuring the functional behavior it causes, which implies that if something is not objectively measurable or quantifiable, it does not “exist”. She thinks this is clearly wrong, since unquantifiable emotions like grief and love cannot possibly be measured, but they clearly exist. The second assumption states that performance can be equated with learning. She treats learning and performance as “inherently qualitatively different” (Carrison, 1973, p. 5). Even though learning occurs when there is no obvious intent to learn, performance seems to be dependent on external stimuli. That is, external reinforcers affect performance to a much higher degree than learning. The third assumption states that reward systems and token economies improve intrinsic learning. However, she claims, this assumption presumes children do not vary considerably in their personality types, which inevitably affect their internally generated feedback systems. This implies reward systems are not consistent across individual children. The fourth assumption Carrison dispenses with states that all of the variables involved in applying behavior modification techniques in normal classroom can be known and controlled. However, unlike a science laboratory, Carrison argues, the classroom can neither be treated as a closed environment nor seen as an experimental space (Carrison, 1973, p. 8). In addition to these fundamental criticisms of what are seen as the fundamental assumptions of behavior modification, other authors take a different approach: by taking aim at the normative assumptions of behavior modification. Some authors criticize the commonplace definition of “inappropriate behavior” in the classroom as “behavior that interferes with order, quiet, and stillness” in the research literature (Winett & Winkler, 1972, p. 499). Defining inappropriate behavior in these terms allows scientific studies to demonstrate that behavior modification is good. However, the extent to which quiet and docility in the classroom is “good” is up for debate, as some authors point out. In one study of teacher-led behavior modification of shy middle school students, behavior modification was shown to alleviate shyness (Harris & Brown, 1982, pp. 140-1). What this demonstrates, contrary to the criticism of behavior modification’s end goals, is that at least sometimes behavior modification is directed toward achieving a more lively, actively engaged student body, instead of a quiet, passive, and docile group of students. This study also demonstrates the efficacy of some behavior modification methods in achieving a desired outcome: namely, more actively engaged students. Behavior modification is a collection of tools used to change and adapt individual behaviors. The purpose of these changes is not an essential part of this definition, but usually revolves around the betterment of that individual’s livelihood in the context of social normed behavior. In education, students’ behaviors are modified to ensure a more efficient and useful learning environment. But behavior modification is not without its critics and reproach; nevertheless, understanding these criticisms is a useful approach for achieving a more comprehensive definition of what is meant by that term. The techniques referred to by the term “behavior modification” can serve, as its advocates claim, a social good. Yet, as other authors propose, more public awareness of what behavior modification is remains necessary for progress. Works Cited Carrison, M. P. (1973). Behavior Modification: Education's Watergate. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (pp. 1-16). Montreal, CN: APA. Harris, K. R., & Brown, R. D. (1982). Cognitive Behavior Modification and Informed Teacher Treatments for Shy Children. The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 50, No. 3, 137-143. Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2002). Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Pumroy, D. K., & McIntire, R. (1991). Behavior Analysis/Modification for Everyone. Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 1, No. 3, 283-294. Winett, R. A., & Winkler, R. C. (1972). Current Behavior Modification in the Classroom: Be Still, Be Quiet, Be Docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 4, 499-504. Read More