# data[].attributes.body
From my understanding, behaviorism is a learning theory that completely focuses on the external environment and external motivators for learners. Learners are encouraged toward certain behaviors (i.e., taking notes and studying, answering test questions correctly) by offering external rewards, while they are encouraged away from other behaviors (i.e., answering questions incorrectly, behaving disruptively in the classroom) by offering negative consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
A non-exhaustive list of pros and cons of behaviorism

# data[].attributes.headline
 Key Concepts of Behavioral Learning Theory 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Key Concepts of Behavioral Learning Theory 

# data[].attributes.body
'Classical conditioning', which was developed by Ivan Pavlov in the 1890's. This is recognized as learning through association. An example would be a child hearing an ice cream truck would mean a treat.

'Operant conditioning' focuses on reward or punishment to increase or decrease the likelihood of a behavior.

'Extinction' is another process where a behavior that was previously rewarded and decreases until the reward is no longer given (or extinct).

# data[].attributes.body
I found some useful information about Behavioral theory using these sources.

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that I found interesting in the textbook section on behaviorism is the idea of gamification. Using the elements of games that are motivating, such as earning points and winning prizes, leveling up, etc. can be an effective use of behaviorism in the classroom. Here is a recent literature review that discusses several studies on gamification in educational and training settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gamification in education and training: A literature review

Abstract

Gamification, when properly implemented in education and training, can increase the engagement and motivation of learners and inspire them to change aspects of their behaviour to support learning. Although the use of gamification in the learning process might have a positive impact, its potential to strengthen education and training has not yet been confirmed. The descriptive literature review presented in this article synthesises studies and findings on the use of gamification in the education and training context. The authors used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model to select and analyse 46 publications from six bibliographic databases. They investigated the gamification theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics that can support learning. In addition, research was conducted to identify constraints, challenges and organisational impediments that may arise in gamified education and training programmes, to answer the question of how gamification can be implemented to achieve better learning outcomes. Findings show that further studies need to be conducted into this evolving learning approach. Overall, gamification is most likely to be effective when instructional design principles are used to ensure training content meets learners' needs and expectations.

Résumé

Ludification dans l'éducation et la formation : une revue de la littérature - Correctement mise en œuvre, la ludification dans l'éducation et la formation peut accroître l'engagement et la motivation des apprenants et les inciter à modifier certains aspects de leur comportement pour favoriser l'apprentissage. Bien que son utilisation dans le processus d'apprentissage puisse avoir un effet positif, son potentiel de renforcement de l'éducation et de la formation n'a pas encore été avéré. La revue descriptive de la littérature présentée dans le présent article synthétise les études et résultats concernant le recours à la ludification dans le contexte de l'éducation et de la formation. Les auteurs ont utilisé le modèle PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses/Norme de réalisation de revue systématique de la littérature) pour sélectionner et analyser 46 publications provenant de six bases de données bibliographiques. Ils ont examiné les théories, cadres, modèles, éléments et mécaniques de la ludification susceptibles de soutenir l'apprentissage. En outre, ils ont mené des recherches pour identifier les contraintes, défis et obstacles organisationnels pouvant se faire jour dans les programmes d'éducation et de formation ludifiés pour déterminer comment la ludification peut être mise en œuvre afin d'améliorer les résultats de l'apprentissage. Les résultats montrent que des études supplémentaires doivent être menées sur cette approche pédagogique qui évolue. D'une manière générale, la ludification a davantage de chances d'être efficace quand des principes de conception pédagogique sont utilisés pour garantir que le contenu de la formation réponde aux besoins et attentes des apprenants.

Similar content being viewed by others

Article Open access

Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Introduction

Games exist in everyday life and, on many occasions, we are in a "game-like mode" (McGonigal 2011; ESA 2015; Triantafyllou and Sapounidis 2023; Triantafyllou and Georgiadis 2022; Triantafyllou 2022; Voll 2023). This happens not only due to the diffusion of video games in our current reality, but because many systems, services and activities (e.g., in educational institutions and workplaces), that are not usually considered as game-based, are gradually becoming gamified (Deterding 2015). Sebastian Deterding et al. define gamification as "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts" (Deterding et al. 2011, p. 1). Games can affect the cognitive, emotional and social facets of individuals and might enhance motivation in the learning process (Sailer et al. 2017).

The term gamification appeared in the late 2010s, and it became popular in the following years across many scientific domains (Basten 2017). Gamification uses elements and mechanics of game design in non-game environments to support the learning process and encourage learners' commitment in their educational journey (Werbach and Hunter 2012; Basten 2017; Kim et al. 2018). It has been shown to bring positive outcomes in the educational context when properly used (Thiebes et al. 2014; Koivisto and Hamari 2017, 2019; Kim et al. 2018). Specifically, gamification allows game-like features and mechanics to be incorporated in instruction, transforming learning into a more enjoyable process and improving learners' self-efficacy and motivation (Deterding et al. 2011; IEEE 2014).

Some research has demonstrated an optimistic plan: through gamification, it is possible to introduce innovation and build collaboration based on teamwork inside the classroom (Huotari and Hamari 2012; Taalas and Hirsjärvi 2013; Kim et al. 2018). However, arguments about the spread of gamification in the coming years have varied from hopeful and positive to less optimistic outlooks (Seaborn and Fels 2015). Some researchers have noted that gamification is a new technological trend in the field of education, and there are many gamified systems which need to be tested by valid and reliable measures (Cook 2013; Hamari et al. 2014).

The basic aim of a gamified software system is to motivate and engage users by creating "gameful" and enjoyable experiences without having a completely game-equipped environment (DuVernet and Popp 2014). Learners can interact with the gamified system features and work as a team through activities set up to achieve learning outcomes (Copenhaver and Pritchard 2017). According to Dirk Basten, "gamification for collaborative experiences, learning, and knowledge sharing" (Basten 2017, p. 76) includes the following key points that should be considered:

What kind of systems and processes should be gamified?

What user behaviour is desired?

What game elements should be used? (ibid.)

To explore the use of gamification in education and training, we conducted a descriptive literature review. We chose this approach as it not only helps to consolidate existing knowledge but also guides the direction of new research, ensuring that it contributes meaningfully to the academic discourse and advances understanding in the field. A study on gamification in education and training can contribute significantly to the existing literature by providing new insights, refining existing theories and offering practical applications to enhance the effectiveness of gamified learning experiences. In the present context, gamification is a technology which can improve motivation and build interest in learning. However, we believe that merging gamification technology (i.e., theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics) with education and training is still a process in its infancy. Very few studies have examined the best gamification practices to use in education and training.

A study on gamification in education and training could contribute new findings to the existing literature in three main ways:

1. (1)
Personalisation and adaptive gamification. Exploring how personalised gamification strategies - adapted to learners' preferences, abilities and progress - affect learning outcomes could lead to new findings. This approach could demonstrate how tailored experiences enhance engagement and effectiveness compared to one-size-fits-all models.

2. (2)
Exploration of diverse educational contexts. Much of the current research focuses on higher education or specific subjects like language learning or mathematics. A study that examines gamification in different educational contexts - such as vocational training or adult education - could provide insights into its effectiveness across a broader range of environments.

3. (3)
Impact on "soft" skills development. While much of the research focuses on cognitive learning outcomes, there is growing interest in how gamification can be used to develop soft skills such as teamwork, communication, problem-solving and leadership. A study that explores this aspect could expand understanding of gamification's broader educational impacts.

Consequently, through this descriptive literature review, we have attempted to propose some new findings in this continuously evolving domain.

Background

Gamification in education and training

Gamification is often confused with closely related concepts which have similar meanings, for example, gamification and serious games. Gamification takes the best practices from games and applies them in non-game contexts to increase users' participation and engagement and enhance their performance. By contrast, serious games have a typical structure and a specific set of rules that immerse users in a full game environment that is associated with successful learning (Deterding et al. 2011; Groh 2012; Cook 2013; Roth 2016).

In the early era of gamification, a common question among researchers was "Does gamification work?" However, while gamification is a relatively new phenomenon, some studies have already shown efficient gamification practices in education and training (Kim et al. 2018). At this point, it is important to clarify that gamification is not about transforming routine activities into a game. Instead, it is a method for redesigning learning processes by taking the best from game mechanics to enhance motivation for learning (Wood and Reiners 2014; Rodrigues et al. 2019). Gamification does not represent developed video games with full technical characteristics. Rather, it focuses on users, whereby the game mechanics in a gamified software system simply exist to provide them with meaningful learning progress and enjoyment (Kappen and Nacke 2013; Deloitte 2019). When designed correctly through carefully organised learning quests and tasks, gamification might help learners to develop problem-solving skills and progress their learning step by step at their own pace (Wood and Reiners 2014; Hinton et al. 2019; Birk et al. 2016). There are many tools that can be used to design and develop gamified solutions, such as authoring tools (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, eClass) for creating online courses in educational environments and institutions (Kim and Werbach 2016).

According to Karl Kapp ( 2012), two types of motivation can cause a person to choose an activity: enjoyment and reward. Motivation, a basic concept of gameplay, can support the successful creation of a training programme. Gamification boosts both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which are important to enhance learners' willingness to engage and actively participate in gamified activities. Intrinsic motivation occurs when an individual chooses an activity for the enjoyment it could provide (ibid.). Extrinsic motivation is driven by reward. While reward-driven extrinsic motivation is temporary, intrinsic motivation provides long-term benefits like enhanced self-confidence and skill acquisition. Kapp concludes that "incorporating game-based elements and thinking into the design and delivery of instructions fulfills the quest for engaged learning" (ibid., p. 68). Gamification also has the potential to improve learners' skills by developing their self-efficacy (Ortiz-Rojas et al. 2017).

The literature presents various theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics with regard to the use of gamification in education and training. These include, among others, self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan 2002, 2010); organismic integration theory (OIT) (Deci et al. 2001); classic psychological learning theory (Landers et al. 2015); the theory of gamified learning (Landers 2014; Landers et al. 2017); the Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) framework (Hunicke et al. 2004; Zichermann and Cunningham 2011); Werbach and Hunter's gamification framework (Werbach and Hunter 2012); a conceptual model of enterprise gamification (Sarangi and Shah 2015); the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) model (Goldstein 1980); Schell's approach to game design (Schell 2008); and a user-centred model for meaningful gamification (Nicholson 2013).

Enterprise gamification

The global gamification market was valued at USD 7.17 billion in 2019, and it is predicted to have a compound annual growth rate of 30.31% between 2020 and 2025 (Mordor Intelligence 2020). Consulting firm Deloitte cited gamification as one of its Top 10 Technology Trends for 2014, stating that:

[s]erious gaming simulations and game mechanics such as leaderboards, achievements, and skill-based learning are becoming embedded in day-to-day business processes, driving adoption, performance, and engagement (Deloitte 2014, p. 1).

Deloitte successfully applied game mechanics (points and badges) to its digital executive training programme, the Deloitte Leadership Academy (DLA). The firm's main goal was to encourage corporate training among executives and increase their engagement. The DLA implemented game mechanics by using Badgeville's Behavior Platform1 to convince executives to invest their time and participate in the training programme. After implementing enterprise gamification in their online learning system, Deloitte noticed that the number of returning users rose by 37%. A 40% rise was also observed in weekly visitors, and significant improvements were measured in course completion time (Huang and Soman 2013; Bodnar 2014).

A synopsis of key findings from the TalentLMS 2019 Gamification at Work Survey of 900 employees (Apostolopoulos 2019) indicated that gamification increased productivity (for 89% of respondents) and happiness (88% of respondents) at work. In particular:

43% of respondents had not noticed any gamification components at work;

33% indicated that they would like more game-like methods and features in employee training software;

61% indicated that they would like to participate in training with gamification;

83% of those who received gamified training felt motivated, while 61% of those who received non-gamified training felt bored and less productive;

89% believed they would be more productive if their work was more gamified; and

78% said that gamification in the recruiting process would make a firm more attractive (ibid).

Therefore, we can conclude that increasing employees' motivation and engagement to meet education and training needs constitutes the main focus of implementation and use of enterprise gamification (Shahri et al. 2014; Gupta and Gomathi 2017).

Many other businesses and universities have developed gamification techniques and game-based activities to help students and employees gain meaningful experiences, develop team spirit and problem-solving skills, manage organisational tasks and adopt best practices (Markets and Markets 2016; Batchelor 2018; Gartner 2011, 2012; Burke 2012, 2014; Shahri et al. 2014; Kuo and Chuang 2016; Sarangi and Shah 2015; Kristensson et al. 2017; Gupta and Gomathi 2017; Barata et al. 2017; Park et al. 2019). The presence and application of gamification has attracted the interest of many companies, such as Adobe, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and eBay in the United States. These companies have invested in the dynamics and capabilities of gamification, by implementing successful and sustainable projects to enhance users' motivation and overall experience (Shahri et al. 2014; Sarangi and Shah 2015; Vinichenko et al. 2016; Kuo and Chuang 2016; Kristensson et al. 2017; Barata et al. 2017; Gupta and Gomathi 2017; Park et al. 2019; Triantafyllou and Georgiadis 2022). Khan Academy is an example of a learning platform which has invested in enterprise gamification for education and training, by adding game elements that participants experience as they pass through the curricula (Tenório et al. 2018). The gamification consists of badges, achievement statistics and "skill trees" (a visual representation of the progression of skills or knowledge in a particular subject). These elements indicate to what extent the various learning tasks are accomplished and give a general overview of participation in the online community (Khan Acadamy 2013).

For business-to-business (B2B) companies, gamification as an enterprise strategy has emerged as a key way to encourage the consumption of goods and services, and to enhance website traffic, measured by indicators of repeat site visits, which have been shown to increase by an average of 30% over time (Mordor Intelligence 2020). For example, Cisco has used gamification by implementing the Binary Game to improve employees' comprehension of binary numbers (Kapp 2012; Hoogesteger 2016). Xerox has implemented tools to train managers to game proposed challenges, Salesforce has used game-based elements, challenges and scorecards to increase sales, and PayPal has used gamification methods to motivate users to complete their profiles (Hoogesteger 2016). Microsoft was early to foresee the dynamics of gamification: they created the system Ribbon Hero (Microsoft 2011; Faulkner 2011), and its sequel Ribbon Hero 2, to make learning the Microsoft Office suite more enjoyable and engaging through challenges that offer points and skill "level up" or progress (Lamprinou and Paraskeva 2015).

The current study

Aims

As discussed above, organisations have already made considerable efforts to explore whether gamification leads to measurable and achievable outcomes, such as continuous progress in knowledge attainment and change in learners' beliefs and interest in learning. However, there is still a need to better understand how gamification might direct us to these outcomes (Nacke and Deterding 2017; Smiderle et al. 2020; Franco-Mariscal et al. 2023). In response, we conducted a descriptive literature review to synthesise studies and findings on the use of gamification in the education and training context. We also investigated the gamification theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics that support learning - along with possible constraints, challenges and organisational impediments - in order to contribute new findings in the area of gamification research in education and training.

Methodology

Following the guidelines of Guy Paré et al. ( 2015), we conducted a descriptive literature review of published research. According to Paré et al. (ibid.), a descriptive review seeks

to determine the extent to which a body of empirical studies in a specific research area supports or reveals any interpretable patterns or trends with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies, or findings (ibid., p. 186).

To conduct the search for suitable publications, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021). We chose the PRISMA model because it provides a transparent and structured approach to identifying, screening and selecting relevant publications for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. From our search of six bibliographic databases, we ended up with 46 publications that were suitable for final detailed analysis.

Research questions

In this article, we focus on examining three research questions:

RQ1: Which gamification theories, frameworks and models fit best in the education and training context?

RQ2: Which gamification elements and mechanics are mainly used in the education and training context?

RQ3: What are the constraints, challenges and organisational impediments around gamification in education and training?

To answer these research questions, we performed a systematic literature search in six bibliographic databases to locate relevant scholarly publications.

Database search for gamification research in education and training

Scopus

First, we searched Scopus for indexed publications on gamification in education and training published between January 2011 and February 2024. We chose this time period as gamification in education and training has flourished in the past decade. The database was queried using the search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY (gamif* AND edu* OR train*) AND PUBYEAR>2010. The total number of publications amounted to 9,100.

Extra filters and inclusion criteria were then used to extract the most relevant publications for our research topic. Specifically, to be included in our review, the publications needed to be written in English, have clearly explained research methods and be focused exclusively on gamification in education and training. In our second search, we queried Scopus using a more specific search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY (gamif*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (edu*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (train*)) AND PUBYEAR>2010 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English")) (search in the field including titles, abstracts and keywords in Scopus, accessed 6 February 2024). The final number of publications, after excluding 363 which were not written in English and 94 duplicates, was 8,643. The field of Computer Science accounted for 30.9% of these publications, Social Sciences for 21.3% and Engineering for 14.2% (see Figure 1).

We noticed a continuous rise in publications on the topic of gamification in education and training, as depicted in Figure 2. From only 7 Scopus-indexed publications on gamification in education and training in 2011, the number grew consistently every year to 1,510 publications in 2023 and 93 publications in 2024 up to 6 February of that year.

Scopus-indexed publications between January 2011 and February 2024*. Note: *publications up to 6 February 2024

Figure 3 presents the publications on gamification in education and training by institutional affiliation. The six institutions with the highest ranking by affiliation were: Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico (with 73 publications); Tampere University in Finland (71 publications); Universidade de São Paulo in Brazil (63 publications); Universidad de Granda in Spain (53 publications); and Universidade do Porto and Instituto Politécnico do Porto (47 publications each), both in Portugal.

Figure 4 shows the most productive authors who have published in the field of gamification in education and training. The authors with the most publications on the topic included Seiji Isotani (with 45 publications), Juho Hamari (41 publications), Wilk Oliveira (27 publications), Armando M. Toda (24 publications), and David Fonseca and Ricardo Queirós (20 publications each). Furthermore, the countries that contributed the most publications on gamification in education and training were the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, Portugal, Italy, Malaysia, Australia and China (see Figure 5).

While searching for keywords related to gamification in education and training, we found 5,398 keywords on the topic of "gamification", 1,941 on "students", 1,420 on "education", 1,311 on "e-learning", 1,033 on "motivation" and 840 on "teaching" (see the word cloud in Figure 6).

After our initial Scopus search, we continued with a more detailed and focused search in other bibliographic databases to find additional publications of high scientific rigour. The other databases accessed were ScienceDirect (Elsevier), ACM Digital Library, SpringerLink, Emerald Insight and arXiv e-print archive. The search terms "gamification" and ("education" or "training") were used in all databases (search with the above terms in all fields including titles, abstracts and keywords in all databases, accessed 6 February 2024). Table 1 presents the total number of publications found in each of the bibliographic databases. A summary of the search in each database is presented below.

Table 1 Number of publications indexed in databases

ScienceDirect (Elsevier)

We searched ScienceDirect (Elsevier) for publications on our research topic, published between January 2011 and February 2024. The database was queried using the search terms "gamification" and ("education" or "training") (search in the field including publication titles, abstracts and keywords in ScienceDirect [Elsevier], accessed 6 February 2024). We found 1,832 publications during this first search. Of these publications, we excluded 24 encyclopaedias, 4 case reports, 34 editorials, 8 mini reviews and 1 video article because their research methods were not clearly explained. The final number of publications was 1,761 (see Table 1), including 739 in Social Sciences, 590 in Computer Science, 345 in Psychology and 87 in Environmental Science.

ACM Digital Library

We searched the ACM Digital Library for publications on our research topic, published between January 2011 and February 2024. The database was queried using the search string: ContentGroupTitle:(gamification) AND ContentGroupTitle:(education)) AND ContentGroupTitle (training) (search in the field including publication titles, abstracts and keywords in the ACM Digital Library, accessed 6 February 2024). At first, the total number of publications was 4,267. After excluding 40 duplicates, 798 written in German and 4 written in Dutch, the total number of publications was 3,425 (see Table 1).

SpringerLink

We searched SpringerLink for publications on our research topic, published between January 2011 and February 2024. The database was queried using the search string: Gamification AND Education AND Training within 2011-2024 (search in the field including publication titles, abstracts and keywords in SpringerLink, accessed 6 February 2024). At first, the total number of publications was 4,292. After excluding 81 duplicates and 503 other publications (reference work entries, and reference works and protocols), the total number of publications was 3,708 (see Table 1). This included 1,313 publications in Education, 211 in Psychology and 2,184 in Computer Science. Journal articles accounted for 34.7% (1,286) and conference proceedings for 65.3% (2,422) of these publications.

Emerald Insight

We searched Emerald Insight for publications on our research topic, published between January 2011 and February 2024. The database was queried using the search terms "gamification" and ("education" or "training") (search in the field including publication titles, abstracts and keywords in Emerald Insight, accessed 6 February 2024). After 1 duplicate was removed, the total number of publications was 950 (see Table 1), including 937 journal articles and 13 case studies.

arXiv e-print archive

We searched the arXiv e-print archive for publications on our research topic, published between 2011 and February 2024. The database was queried using the search string: Query: order: -announced_date_first; size: 200; date_range: from 2011-01-01 to 2024-02-06; include_cross_list: True; terms: AND all=Gamification; AND all=Education; AND all=Training (search in the field including publication titles, abstracts and keywords in the arXiv e-print archive, accessed 6 February 2024). The total number of publications was 9 (see Table 1).

Selection criteria for the pool of publications

To select the final set of publications to be analysed for our literature review, we used the following criteria:

Full-text publications written in English.

Peer-reviewed publications focused on gamification in education and training.

Research publications with a detailed description of existing gamification theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics.

Publications with research methods clearly explained.

Every publication that was aligned with our selection criteria was included in our literature review. For those publications we found difficult to make a decision on after reading only their title and abstract, we chose to read their full text. After conducting this search process, we selected 46 papers to include in our review that were most relevant to our research topic. As noted in the methodology section, we conducted our literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021). A flowchart showing how we used the model in our publication selection is shown in Figure 7.

The PRISMA flowchart (Page et al. 2021) for publication selection

In summary, the total number of publications we initially identified from six databases was 18,496. We removed 1,381 of these publications before screening with our selection criteria (216 duplicates and 1,165 not written in English), using the EndNote Desktop application (UNC 2024). This left us with 17,115 publications to screen by title and abstract, when we removed another 3,392 because they were unrelated to the research topic. We then assessed the remaining 13,723 publications for eligibility. Of these publications, we excluded the following:

574 with no clear research methods;

200 with no measurable research outcomes;

814 that did not describe the game mechanics used;

915 that did not describe the game elements used;

532 that included general and not fully justified opinions based on literature about gamification in education and training;

464 that did not present the theoretical background of gamification in education and training;

503 with irrelevant content (e.g., ambiguous questions and concepts that left room for misunderstanding);

2,609 where the gamified practice was not used on learners;

5,170 that were not empirical (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods) in an education or training environment; and

1,896 that were not aligned to a science-related subject area.

Finally, the total number of publications selected for the literature review was 46 (see Table 2).

Table 2 Publications selected for the literature review

Findings

This section presents the analysis from our literature review in response to each of the three research questions.

RQ1: Which gamification theories, frameworks and models fit best in the education and training context?

Gamification theories

Gamification is a technology that educational institutions and organisations might consider when trying to identify and manage specific behaviours of their staff. Many researchers argue that the appropriate use of guidelines provided by gamification theories, frameworks and models, which emphasise the need to support learners' motivation and willingness to participate in the learning process, will result in positive learning outcomes (DuVernet and Popp 2014; Storbacka et al. 2016; Larivière et al. 2017). The basic purpose of using gamification in education and training is for learners to work as a team to complete activities based on learning outcomes (Copenhaver and Pritchard 2017). However, learners working individually may also exploit the advantages of gamification technology. There are opportunities for them to study the available content, access novel content and develop skills and motivation in order to engage with and complete their learning journey. Gamification is used in various fields due to its potential to enhance motivation and engagement and accelerate behavioural changes, fair competition and collaboration (Deci and Ryan 2010; Leclercq et al. 2017; Groening and Binnewies 2019). Some gamification projects are designed to incentivise learners to engage with a platform or mobile app, by containing meaningful and enjoyable learning material (Deterding et al. 2011; Alsawaier 2018).

Gamification may lead to a significant increase in engagement and competition through game-based mechanisms and motivators (Kumar and Raghavendran 2015). In education and training, gamification is often accompanied by target-oriented activities, rewards and progress monitoring (Glover 2013; Landers et al. 2017). Consequently, institutions wanting to organise and restructure their educational programmes can invest in gamification and its promising models, and also exploit game elements and mechanics specially designed for learning (Dale 2014; Kumar and Raghavendran 2015; Kim and Werbach 2016; Armstrong and Landers 2018).

Karen Robson et al. define gamification as "the application of game design principles in order to change behaviors in non-game situations" (Robson et al. 2016, p. 411). This definition has common elements with the one proposed by Deterding et al. ( 2011), mentioned in the introduction, except that Robson et al. also refer to motivation and behaviour change. In particular, Robson et al. ( 2016) and José Ruiz-Alba et al. ( 2019) propose that change is formulated through extrinsic and intrinsic reinforcing stimulus and rewards. Juho Hamari et al. ( 2014) outline three basic aspects of gamification: reinforcing stimuli, psychological outcomes and behavioural insights. Furthermore, Dichev and Dicheva ( 2017) claim that gamification is not simply a technology, but also a form of methodology that supports changes in specific aspects of behaviour to facilitate the learning process. Basically, it involves integrating game elements into educational content and redesigning learning tasks with more meaningful behavioural model-based approaches (Burke et al. 2006; Denny 2013; Dichev and Dicheva 2017; Armstrong and Landers 2018).

Of the many theories related to gamification, we first examine self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan 2002, 2010). This is a theory of human motivation and personality developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. The key point of SDT is the motivation that drives a person to act. As mentioned earlier, Deci and Ryan clarify two distinct forms of motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000): (i) intrinsic motivation, which is attractive to users because it is meaningful and enjoyable; and (ii) extrinsic motivation, which is closely related to external rewards such as money or virtual goods (Deci et al. 1999; Deci and Ryan 2012). However, some studies have found that extrinsic motivation can lessen intrinsic motivation in non-game contexts. In other words, games can provide enjoyment, especially when learners absorb learning experiences that satisfy their psychological needs, and they can act as intrinsic motivators for interaction within the gamified learning process (Przybylski et al. 2013). Furthermore, one of the main characteristics of gamification is that it tends to effectively combine intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, by providing continuous feedback to learners and reinforcement with specific rewards, to support the successful completion of learning tasks (Nicholson 2014).

According to SDT, each learner has three basic needs - autonomy, competence and relatedness - and only when these needs are satisfied can learning performance be improved. Autonomy refers to learners' need to have free choice of the learning content they want to study (Niemiec and Ryan 2009). Consequently, this emphasises the degree to which an individual's behaviour is self-motivated and self-determined (Deci and Ryan 2000, 2012, 2017). SDT also asserts that simply transferring elements from video games to non-game situations does not ensure reinforcing stimuli (Ruiz-Alba et al. 2019). Rather, these game elements need to be designed to formulate meaning, usage and reinforcing stimuli. Games should allow players to come to their own decisions (autonomy), by providing them with many options to choose from (Wulf et al. 2014) and encouraging interaction with peers (relatedness) (Deci and Ryan 2002, 2010, 2012, 2017). In addition, overcoming challenges can help players feel like active learners during gameplay, which is strong motivation to continue to learn (competence).

Scott Nicholson ( 2013) has proposed a user-centred model for meaningful gamification, consisting of a set of core theories that could lead to a more intrinsic gamified strategy. The term meaningful refers to Jack Mezirow's model of transformative learning. This model describes how people develop and use critical introspection to consider their beliefs and experiences and, over time, change dysfunctional ways of seeing reality (Mezirow 1991).

Moving on from SDT, reinforcement theory asserts that the right stimuli can contribute to expected learning outcomes (Jozefowiez and Staddon 2008). Reinforcement theory is closely connected to behaviourism, as proposed by Burrhus Frederic Skinner ( 1957). For example, extrinsic motivators, such as rewards (Kordaki and Gousiou 2017) or leaderboards (Huang et al. 2018), might bring about desired learning outcomes.

Organismic integration theory (OIT), a sub-theory of SDT, addresses the concept of internalisation, especially with respect to the development of extrinsic motivation. The more internalised the extrinsic motivation, the more autonomous the person will be when enacting the behaviours (Deci and Ryan 2000). If someone sees a reward as a means of controlling behaviour, then that external motivation will be connected to the rewarded behaviour in a way that negatively affects the person's sense of self. Consequently, if the rewards were to suddenly disappear, then the person's motivation to engage would vanish at the same time (Deci et al. 2001). OIT emphasises that meaningful game elements are intrinsically motivating, regardless of other external rewards that may be related to them (Nicholson 2013; Seaborn and Fels 2015). Situational relevance refers to users' choice about what is meaningful. Specifically, it refers to a basic understanding of the context and the essential match between the user's background and the gamified system (Deterding 2011). Universal design for learning aims to provide useful experiences to different types of users in three ways: varied presentations of content, comprehensive knowledge through numerous types of activities and multitask learning pathways (Kapp 2012; Kim et al. 2018).

Recently, the promising theory of gamified learning (Landers 2014; Landers et al. 2017) has become potentially helpful to e-learning designers to determine which game elements are suitable in education and training. This theory proposes that the effectiveness of gamification is indirect and will become visible through behavioural changes in learners (Landers 2014; Landers et al. 2017). Gamification uses various game-based elements (Deterding 2011) which might be chosen by training programme designers because they offer easy, low-cost implementation (Burke et al. 2006; Flatla et al. 2011; Denny 2013; Hamari et al. 2016; Looyestyn et al. 2017; IRMA 2018). However, when analysing game-based experiences in non-game contexts, the discussion is more often oriented to game elements and mechanics, forgetting to consider the game thinking that is an important basis for successful gamification in learning. Game thinking refers to "the use of games and game-like approaches to solve problems and create better experiences" (Marczewski 2015, online; see also Sicart 2008).

Gamification applies the dynamics and mechanics of psychology that make games so engaging. It is a means of inserting information into a gamified system and then sharing it (Maan 2013). Some researchers consider gamification to be more successful when game design thinking is applied to non-game contexts, for example, education and training programmes. In particular, several research studies indicate the importance of simple game elements such as points, badges and leaderboards, which can serve as extrinsic motivators for learners (Seaborn and Fels 2015; Shadmehr et al. 2016; Armstrong and Landers 2018). In these instances, when learners behave in a desirable way, they receive a reward, such as additional points displayed on a scoreboard or leaderboard. Thus, there is a need to focus on gamification in terms of learning methods rather than solely on content. This argument is based on classic psychological learning theory, which proposes that simple rewards, like points for good behaviours, can enhance those behaviours (Landers et al. 2015; Armstrong and Landers 2018).

Gamification frameworks

Game elements are the basic components used in the game design process. They include badges, leaderboards, levels, rewards and achievements. These elements can motivate employees and make their jobs more interesting, creative and enjoyable.

Game mechanics, such as data and algorithms, are key to improving users' motivation and engagement in a gamified system. Target-oriented game mechanics can bring positive results with specific strategies and techniques that can boost employee performance, ensuring alignment with established business objectives. Both game elements and mechanics affect three kinds of user experience: insight, circumstantial affordances and interactional context.

Insight (perception) describes users' level of understanding on how to accomplish the objectives of a gamified project. Users must be aware of the gamified procedure and consent to it. They should know the total number of participants and feel that the experience is fair, useful and enjoyable.

Circumstantial (situational) affordances (e.g., points, badges, leaderboards) are a visual representation of the overall function of objects in gamified projects.

Interactional context describes the philosophy and overall structure of the organisation, including systems, tasks and applications. Analysing the interaction of users with these systems, tasks and applications can reveal whether the overall gamified process is successful in creating engagement and motivation for learning.

Sarangi and Shah's model of gamification (Sarangi and Shah 2015)

RQ2: Which gamification elements and mechanics are mainly used in the education and training context?

Gamification elements and mechanics can be used to support learning progress in education and training programmes (Hamari et al. 2016; Baxter et al. 2017). Specifically, the integration of typical elements of gameplaying in e-learning platforms shows how the dynamics of gamification can support education and training (Alsawaier 2018; IRMA 2018; Kim 2019). The selection of game elements (e.g., points, badges, leaderboards) needs careful consideration. Elements must support the game dynamics, which need to be linked to organisational processes and desired results (Wood and Reiners 2014). According to Lincoln Wood and Torsten Reiners ( 2014), some frequently used game elements include:

Points: can be allocated to users to encourage them to reach a higher level of progress.

Badges: simple but important virtual symbols that show users' achievements and skills.

Leaderboards: used to create competition among users as they attempt to reach the top of the leaderboard.

Levels: incentivise users to reach more challenging game levels.

Missions: game-proposed challenges aimed towards a defined goal, with the intention of being rewarded.

Virtual goods: what users can buy with the score achieved during their mission, thus rewarding their skills and efforts.

Gifting/social treasures: rewards given between users to help each other.

A common practice in gamification is to offer points and badges when specific training behaviour signs are identified (e.g., tracking the completion of a learning task) (Kuo and Chuang 2016; Landers et al. 2019). Game mechanics and elements do not constitute the backbone of a gamified software application or system; rather, they operate as motivators (Deterding et al. 2011, Huotari and Hamari 2012, Domínguez et al. 2013; Hamari et al. 2014; Triantafyllou and Georgiadis 2022; Triantafyllou and Sapounidis 2023). Further investigation is needed to examine whether adding game elements strengthens the possibility that user enjoyment will last for long periods of time. Points, leaderboards and progress levels are classified by José Zagal et al. ( 2005) as goal metrics, with the main purpose of tracking users' behaviour and efficiency during gameplay. Luis von Ahn and Laura Dabbish ( 2008), along with Rosta Farzan et al. ( 2011), consider goal metrics to be important in increasing joy and playfulness in human computation tasks. However, research on the usability of these goal metrics in non-game contexts is still in its infancy, and further investigation is needed.

Sailer et al. ( 2014) have also identified basic game elements referred to in gamification research, including:

Points: can be collected for specific activities within the gamification environment.

Badges: visual representations of achievements which can be collected.

Leaderboards: scoreboards showing the names and current scores of players.

Progress bars: show the current status of a player towards a specific goal.

Performance graphs: give an overall image of a player's performance, compared to previous performance.

Quests: specific missions with challenges that players have to face.

Meaningful stories: show learners how to get on a path to mastery.

Avatars: visual representations that players can choose.

Profile development: the development of avatars and their behaviours.

Table 3 presents a summary of game elements as identified by Wood and Reiners, and Sailer et al., in their respective research published in 2014.

Table 3 Summary of game elements from Wood and Reiners (2014) and Sailer et al. (2014)

Game mechanics can be described as a set of rules (e.g., for interaction, communication, strategies), roles and storytelling techniques (e.g., designing interaction with game elements and other users), while game elements constitute the basic components of games (Martens and Mueller 2016). A more detailed classification of game components includes: (i) interaction elements, which are the game elements a user can interact with; and (ii) rating elements, which provide feedback to a user, such as levels, badges and leaderboards (Martens and Mueller 2016).

Researchers have described game mechanics in various ways. Kris Duggan and Kate Shoup ( 2013) suggest that gamification mechanics include leaderboards, points, levels, missions, challenges, quests and feedback. For Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter ( 2012), game mechanics refer to the fundamental processes that will lead to action (practice). In response, they proposed a classification of game mechanics that includes avatars, achievements, badges, "boss fights" (with strong non-player characters), collections, combat, content unlocking, gifting, leaderboards, levels and points. Gabe Zichermann and Joselin Linder ( 2013) provide examples of mechanics such as badges, points, levels, leaderboards and rewards.

Table 4 presents the main elements of game mechanics derived from the research studies mentioned above. The table is drawn from a study by Ivo Blohm and Jan Marco Leimeister ( 2013), which is a synthesis of several game design elements, dynamics and motives towards the development of a service-based gamification approach.

Table 4 Summary of game mechanics, dynamics and motives (Blohm and Leimeister 2013, p. 276)

whether the course has met learners' needs and objectives;

the organisational benefits of the training programme;

the reinforcement of learning; and

suggestions for improvement.

With regard to both games and gamification, several studies show positive outcomes for engagement, motivation and satisfaction (Deterding et al. 2011; Huotari and Hamari 2012; Hamari et al. 2014; Seaborn and Fels 2015). However, while many studies have already investigated how game elements - such as points and badges (Denny 2013) or progress levels (Thom et al. 2012) - influence users' behaviour, few have explored how to support intrinsic motivation.

RQ3: What are the constraints, challenges and organisational impediments around gamification in education and training?

Despite research findings that support the use of gamified methodology suitable for education and training programmes, some organisations still hesitate to implement gamification in their training and development systems (HR Daily Advisor 2016). However, there are examples of institutions and research labs that have considered investing in a learning management system (LMS) to improve learners' skills. Monica Cornetti, founder and CEO of Sententia Games, explains what gamification has to offer as a training method:

Gamification is an effective tool to make training engaging and fun, because it uses the "dynamics of games", such as collaboration, chance, and progression, to tap learners' intrinsic desire to master and complete tasks ... When done well, gamification makes training more engaging because it requires participants to complete a challenge, helps them see their progression, and gives them instant feedback and reinforcement (HR Daily Advisor 2016, online, quoting Carnetti).

When using gamification in this context, it is important to identify education and training needs and focus on common impediments that can appear. As Monica Cornetti points out:

The obstacles include failing to identify why gamification is being used and not knowing whom you are designing for. Most trainers "don't do assessments of who the players are and what motivates them". However, this is key to success with gamification, since the concept relies on triggering a reaction in learners (ibid.).

Another important observation is that gamification frameworks mainly focus on game components and ignore concepts such as those in Jesse Schell's approach to game design. Schell ( 2008) describes four main game elements: aesthetics, mechanics, story (narrative) and technology. The communication between players and these elements is developed through interaction and system feedback (see Figure 9). Schell notes that the further away an element is from the player, the more its visibility and tangibility weakens.

Schell's approach to game design (Schell 2008)

Discussion

This article aimed to answer three main research questions. Our first question aimed to better understand gamification in an education and training context by examining the theories, frameworks and models that have been included in literature. To do this, we examined SDT, OIT, classic psychological learning theory, the theory of gamified learning, the MDA framework, Werbach and Hunter's gamification framework, the ADDIE model, Schell's approach to game design and a user-centred model for meaningful gamification. The literature shows that the use of gamification promotes positive behavioural changes (e.g., collaboration, competitiveness and knowledge sharing). The key factor that leads to behavioural change is motivation. In gamification, motivation is a psychological state that might lead to behavioural change through the appropriate use of points, levels and leaderboards, among many other game elements. In summary, the literature demonstrates that gamification theories, models and frameworks can bring positive learning outcomes under certain circumstances (Deterding et al. 2011; Pettey 2012; IEEE 2014; Deci and Ryan 2000, 2002, 2010, 2012, 2017; Landers 2014; Landers et al. 2017; Ryan and Deci 2012). However, these theories, models and frameworks need to be continuously tested, and further research conducted, to contribute new findings to this evolving research domain.

Our third research question aimed to identify the constraints, challenges and organisational impediments around gamification in education and training. Gamification's use in education and training implies the introduction of game-based elements to improve learning, encourage teamwork, develop learners' interests and create more enjoyable learning experiences. A well-organised gamification plan must be able to retain learners' concentration, connect to the topic of training in a meaningful manner, encourage learners to participate in activities and confront challenges, provide feedback, emphasise areas of improvement and inculcate a sense of accomplishment at the end of training sessions. Research has demonstrated several applications (successful or not) of gamified training by organisations. However, when it comes to education and training, organisations are dealing with many problems, such as driving a learning culture, improving learning effectiveness and engaging learners who are easily distracted. The main problem in applying gamification, however, is the difficulty in transforming the complex structure of organisations. In addition, organisations focused on profit often introduce game elements without considering effective implementation. Therefore, it is necessary for each institution to differentiate and strengthen its competitive advantages in order to meet learners' expectations and support learning in an efficient way.

Conclusion

The training environment is a spectrum with many aspects to carefully consider. Our review of research into gamification in education and training shows the need for further studies to be conducted in order to collect more data for investigation. Gamification is a concept that is still evolving. In this article, we examined insights into gamification in education and training environments from current academic literature over a ten-year period, to answer three research questions concerning gamification theories, frameworks, models, elements and mechanics, along with constraints, challenges and organisational impediments that may appear. Our main aim was to contribute new findings in this research area.

Gamification is more likely to bring positive outcomes and be effective when it is used in combination with basic instructional design principles. When organisations are willing to adopt gamification in their training programmes to help motivate staff, they must first decide which motivational theory best fits their goals and expectations. By simply adding game elements to training without careful consideration of psychological impacts, it is uncertain whether the desired outcomes will result. Designers of learning content should implement gamification that fits learners' needs and expectations. Ideally, personalised gamification approaches should be designed and implemented to match learners' profiles. Only then, we believe, can gamification implementation be considered successful.

Notes

Badgeville was a Californian software provider whose platform was originally designed for gamification and behaviour management. Tracking gamers' behaviour with analytics tools, it prompted their receiving praise for achievements, rewards and virtual badges.

References

Burke, B. (2012). Gamification 2020: What is the future of gamification? [research paper]. Stamford, CT: Gartner Consulting, Inc. Retrieved 20 January 2020 from https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/2226015/gamification-2020-what-is-the-future-of-gamification-

Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. New York, NY: Bibliomotion.

Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. Presented during a workshop, "Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts", at the CHI '11 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, held 7-12 May in Vancouver, BC. Retrieved 3 March 2025 from http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/09-Deterding.pdf

DuVernet, A., & Popp, E. (2014). Gamification of workplace practices. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 52(1), 39-44.

Google Scholar

Hoogesteger, E. (2016). Generational perceptions of gamification of leader development. Doctoral thesis, Phoenix, AZ: University of Phoenix.

Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. AAAI Workshop - Technical Report 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Retrieved 3 March 2025 from https://aaai.org/papers/ws04-04-001-mda-a-formal-approach-to-game-design-and-game-research/

Khan Academy (2013). KhanAcademy 226,116,151 lessons delivered. Learn almost anything for free [website content]. Palo Alto, CA: Khan Academy. Retrieved 28 January 2020 from http://www.khanacademy.org

Kim, S., Song, K., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2018). Gamification in learning and education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47283-6

Book Google Scholar

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2017). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research [online paper]. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) online repository. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3226221

Microsoft (2011). Ribbon Hero 2 for Word [Office Labs online]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Online Download Centre. Retrieved 31 August 2020 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26531

Mordor Intelligence (2020). Gamification market-growth, trends, and forecast (2020-2025) [gamification market report; online resource]. Hyderabad: Mordor Intelligence. Retrieved 20 January 2020 from https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/gamification-market

Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In M. Vlada (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning (ICVL), vol. 1 (pp. 323-329). Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.

Ortiz-Rojas, M., Chiluiza, K., & Valcke, M. (2017). Gamification in computer programming: Effects on learning, engagement, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. In M. Pivec & J. Grundler (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning (ECGBL) (pp. 507-514). Sonning Common: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange. A. W. Kruglanski & E. Tory Higgins (Eds), Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 416-436). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.

Singh, S. P. (2012). Gamification: A strategic tool for organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Management, 1(1), 108-113.

Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Book Google Scholar

UNC (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (2024). EndNote Desktop: X9 & 20: Removing Duplicates [online library guide]. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC University Libraries. Retrieved 26 March 2024 from https://guides.lib.unc.edu/endnote/lit-reviews

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

Download references

Funding

Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. School of Philosophy and Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Kentrikḗ Makedonía, Greece

Serafeim A. Triantafyllou & Theodosios Sapounidis

2. Department of Applied Informatics, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Central Macedonia, Greece

Christos Georgiadis

Authors

1. Serafeim A. Triantafyllou

2. Christos Georgiadis

3. Theodosios Sapounidis

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodosios Sapounidis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Authors' contributions

All authors have made a scientific contribution in this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Triantafyllou, S.A., Georgiadis, C. & Sapounidis, T. Gamification in education and training: A literature review. Int Rev Educ 71, 483-517 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-024-10111-8
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gamification in education and training: A literature review - International Review of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gamification, when properly implemented in education and training, can increase the engagement and motivation of learners and inspire them to change aspects of their behaviour to support learning. Although the use of gamification in the learning process might have a positive impact, its potential to strengthen education and training has not yet been confirmed.

# data[].attributes.body
While looking for the three resources I found this great infographic that compares behaviorism and some other learning theories. I find it really helpful to compare perspectives to build a deeper understanding of something so this was really helpful for me. I liked the breakdown of key strengths and weaknesses especially. I think a core criticism to be made of behaviorism is one we talked about last week during the conversation on standards: If there is too much focus on just skills or passing a test there isn't space to get to deeper comprehension and thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
This video gives an excellent overview of behaviorism and focuses on the psychology and scientific studies behind this theory. After watching this video, I have more negative feelings about behaviorism because of the use of negative reinforcement and the applications of this theory in animal training. In educational settings, behaviorism might lead to results but it is not likely to lead to a love of learning, positive relationships, or lasting internal motivation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behaviorism: Skinner, Pavlov, Thorndike, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I love seeing the visual video elements in the explanation of this theory. As someone who works with children in a school, I see behaviorism approaches used well, and I see the drawbacks. It definitely puts the theory into perspective. And the author has an Australian accent ;)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behaviorism in Education (Explained in 4 Minutes)

# data[].attributes.body
The thing that immediately came to mind when I saw the first pro-behaviorist item is that utilizing this learning theory can help scientists to generate empirical data, but wouldn't that data be skewed without utilizing other theories? If data is formed from someone with a blank slate, not considering the human element or constructivist theories, isn't that data automatically incorrect?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Behaviorism - Advantages & Disadvantages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pros and cons of behaviorism. Behaviorism is a branch of psychology that focuses on studying observable behavior. It was developed in the early 20th century

# data[].attributes.headline
Textbook Chapter on Behaviorism in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Textbook Chapter on Behaviorism in Education

# data[].attributes.body
Though a bit of a longer read, this chapter from a textbook used in a Masters of Arts in Teaching program has a lot of helpful examples of what behaviorism actually looks like in a classroom setting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The focus of this chapter is Behaviorism. This educational philosophy is based on the belief that human behavior can be explained based on response to external stimuli. When translated into a classroom setting, behaviorists believe that the best educational environment can be obtained when student behavior is shaped by arranging specific conditions for learning.

To better understand Behaviorism, this chapter will provide an overview of the key characteristics of Behaviorism. Information related to how this philosophy of education is reflected in the curriculum and its instructional methods will also be presented. Within this presentation, a discussion of the role of the teacher and role of the learner will be discussed. Finally, key proponents of behaviorism and their contributions to this philosophy of education will be presented.

By the end of this section, the following Essential Questions will be answered:

1. What are the philosophical foundations of behaviorism?

2. What are some of the educational implications of Behaviorism?

3. What are some examples of behaviorism in the classroom?

When you hear the term "Behaviorism," what comes to mind? For many people, the first thing that comes to mind is shaping behavior in response to a specific stimuli. In the classroom, Behaviorism is often linked to "rewards" or positive reinforcement.

According to Zirpoli (2005), the basic principles or philosophical foundations of behaviorism are as follows:

1. Most behaviors are learned.

2. Most behaviors are stimulus specific.

3. Most behaviors can be taught, changed, or modified.

4. Behavior change goals should be specific and clearly defined.

5. Behavior change programs should be individualized.

6. Behavior change programs should focus on the here and now.

7. Behavior change programs should focus on the child's environment (p. 13).

As demonstrated by these philosophical foundations, behaviorism is focused on the study of observable behaviors.

For a brief overview of the foundations of behaviorism and its current impact on educational practices, please watch the attached "Behaviorism" video. While watching the video, think about the Questions to Consider to enhance your understanding of the video.

1. How was behaviorism a change from other theoretical perspectives?

2. Who were two key researchers in behaviorism?

3. What is the application of behaviorist instruction in the classroom referred to?

4. What are some examples of direct instruction in the classroom?

5. In a classroom using behaviorism, is instruction student-centered or teacher- centered? Why?

By the end of this section, the following Essential Questions will be answered:

1. What is the focus of the curriculum in a behaviorist classroom?

2. What are the key elements of the curriculum in a behavioristic approach to instruction?

3. Do you think the focus of this curriculum is beneficial for students? Why or why not?

The focus of the curriculum in a behaviorist classroom is not the curriculum itself. Rather, it is on the environmental variables within the classroom (i.e., the teaching materials, instructional methods, and teacher- classroom behaviors), as each of these variables directly influence the learner's behavior (Witrock, 1987). An example of an environmental variable would be the disciple plan. As demonstrated in the picture below, this behavior chart outlines what the behavioral expectations are for the students in the classroom. In order to stay "blue," the students need to be following all the rules of the classroom and be behaving in an shows that the student gets a amazing manor. "Green" indicates that students are following the rules of the classroom as expected and doing a . "Yellow" warning for not following one or more of the classroom rules and needs to get back on track. "Orange" means that the student gets a . Finally, "red" means that the student looses a privilege.

Curriculum design

In a behaviorist classroom, curriculum is designed in a very prescriptive manner. The reason for this is that students are expected to master the curriculum being presented. To help students achieve mastery, instruction is presented in a step-by-step approach.

Step One: A stimulus is provided by the teacher.

Step Two: The learner responds to the stimulus.

Step Three: Reinforcement is provided by the teacher.

As demonstrated in the steps above, curriculum is defined by learning and behavior change in a behaviorist classroom. When creating curriculum, the teachers focus is on results. To see if results are met, the teacher carefully analyzes student outcomes. If outcomes are not met, more programed instruction is implemented to achieve desired behaviors.

For a more in-depth look at behaviorism in the classroom, please read the following article titled: Behaviorism in the Classroom. As you are reading, consider the following questions:

1. Why is the distinction between learning and performance and between cognitive and observable changes important for teaching?

2. What characteristics of learners should classroom teachers be concerned about when planning their lessons?

3. How does a teacher deliver instruction in a manner that minimizes the likelihood that learners will make mistakes? What four factors are important?

4. What are two examples of prompts teachers can use during instruction?

5. What are some examples of informational feedback?

6. What is the distinction between positive consequences and positive reinforcers?

Behaviorism in the Classroom

By the end of this section, the following Essential Questions will be answered:

1. What are the main methods of instruction in a behaviorist classroom?

2. What is the teachers role in the classroom?

3. What is the students role in the classroom?

4. What strategies do students use in behaviorist classrooms?

As previously stated, the behaviorist theory of instruction is focused on providing reinforcement for behaviors that have been identified as appropriate for the learning environment. To achieve these behaviors, a variety of instructional methods can be applied. The key is to make sure that any instructional method that is implemented can be observed and measured. For example, students might work on the computer so that they receive immediate feedback and reinforcement. Zirpoli (2005) found the following instructional methods to be effective in modifying students cognition and behavior as well as problem solving, anger control, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement training.

Standridge (2002) identified the following behaviorist techniques which have long been employed in classrooms across the country to promote positive behavior and discourage behavior that is undesirable:

Behavioral Contracts: Simple contracts can be effective in helping children focus on behavior change.

Consequences: They can occur immediately after a behavior and may be positive or negative, expected or unexpected, immediate or long-term, extrinsic or intrinsic, material or symbolic (a failing grade), emotional/interpersonal or even unconscious.

Positive reinforcement: The presentation of a stimulus that increases the probability of a response (i.e., smiling at students after a correct response).

Negative reinforcement: Increased probability of a response that removes or prevents an adverse condition (i.e., perfect attendance is rewarded with a "homework pass").

Punishment: Involves presenting a strong stimulus that decreases the frequency of a particular response (i.e., students who fight are immediately sent to the principal).

Extinction: Decreases the probability of a response by contingent withdrawal of a previously reinforced stimulus (i.e., a teacher gives partial credit for late assignments; other teachers think this is unfair so the teacher decides to then give zeros for the late work).

Teachers Role

The teacher is the center of instruction in the behaviorist classroom. It is his or her role to ensure that the classroom is properly managed in order to ensure that student learning can take place. According to research by Emmer (1987), there are two general management principles that a behaviorist teachers must follow in the classroom:

1. Identify expected student behavior so that behaviors that are appropriate and inappropriate are identified before instruction begins.

2. Translate expectations into procedures and routines by creating basic rules of conduct for the classroom.

In addition to these two general management principles, other roles of the teacher include: monitoring classroom events, timely and accurate addressing of inappropriate behavior, apply a reward and accountability system, creating a checklist for completed assignments, and monitoring class participation/engagement (Emmer, 1987).

All of these roles require skill on the part of the behaviorist teacher in order to implement successfully. For example, the teacher needs to know about educational psychology in order to establish an appropriate behavioral reward system in the classroom (Webb et. al., 2010). This includes knowing what would be appropriate reinforcers and how best to set up a proper schedule of reinforcement. Since behaviorism also emphasizes empirical verification, teachers must also be trained in the scientific method (Webb et. al., 2010).

These systems of student monitoring and tracking are used in many classrooms across the country today. Particularly for students on Instructional Education Plans (IEPs) who many need more one-on-one monitoring and feedback. Which is why behaviorist teachers are sometimes referred to as "the controllers of behavior" and the "arrangers of contingencies" (Webb et. al., 2010, p. 80). No matter what name they are assigned, teachers applying this philosophy of education have a very big responsibility when it comes to classroom and student management.

Do you think the level of classroom management outlined by behaviorists is really necessary? Why or why not?

If you had to set up a behaviorist classroom, what type of reinforcements would you use? Why?

Students Role

According to research by Webb et. al. (2010), the behaviorist philosophy assumes the following two things about students:

First, every student is capable of, and predisposed too, modifying or changing his or her behavior.

Second, every student is capable of learning new behavior.

Based on these two assumptions, the students role is to learn to modify or change a learned behavior based on the introduction of specific stimuli from the teacher.

The students success is measured via specified "behavioral objectives (e.g., the behaviors of knowledge that students are expected to demonstrate or learn) that are observable and preferably measurable" (Webb et. al., 2010, p. 79). For students, better classroom performance is achieved through behavior modification when the following six basic components are in place:

1. Clear articulation of the desired outcome including stating what students must changed and how behavior will be evaluated. For example, increased student participation in class discussions as measured by tally marks teacher notes each time a student participates in class.

2. Development of a positive and nurturing environment where students feel safe and comfortable. For example, calling on a student to share an answer when you know they can successfully provide the correct answer.

3. Identification and application of appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Note - each student may require a different type of reward.

4. Reinforcement of desired behavior until the student is able to independently apply behaviors in class.

5. Gradual reduction of rewards so the student does not require them to display desired behaviors.

6. Evaluation and assessment of behavior modification techniques to ensure teacher expectations and student results are what are desired (Brewer, Campbell, & Petty, 2000).

Do you believe every students is capable of, and predisposed to, modifying of changing his or her behavior? Why or why not?

How important do you think it is to have behavioral objectives?

By the end of this section, the following Essential Questions will be answered:

1. Who were the key proponents of behaviorism?

2. What impact did each of the key proponents of behaviorism have on this philosophy of education?

The roots of behaviorism can be traced back to the early 20th century. Among the key philosophers who influenced the development of behaviorism were Ivan Pavlov, John W. Watson, and B.F. Skinner. In this section, a brief overview of each of these philosophers and their contributions to the philosophy of behaviorism will be presented. As you read about each one and watch the video clips providing additional information for many of the researchers presented here, critically reflect on the similarities and differences among them. Specifi cally, see if you can identify any overarching themes between them.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849 - 1936)

Russian physiologist and psychologist, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, is best known for his experiment in which he trained a hungry dog to drool at the sound of a bell.

However, an interesting fact about his research is that Pavlov's initial study was only focused on the interaction between the amount of saliva dogs produced and their digestive process (Standridge, 2002). It was only when he was conducting his study that he found the dogs began to salivate before they received their food. Finding this to be very interesting, Pavlov decided he to determine if an external stimuli such as a bell being sounded would also cause the dogs to salivate. Training the dogs to respond to the bell resulted in what Pavlov called a "conditioned stimulus," and the dogs salivation was the "conditioned response" (Standridge, 2002).

For more information on Ivan Petrovich Pavlov and his groundbreaking research, please watch the following video clip. As you watch, use the Questions to Consider that have been posed about his work and the implications of his research on the field of behaviorism.

1. How did Pavlov determine that the dogs were responding to the stimulus before it was being introduced?

2. What did Pavlov do to test his hypothesis?

3. What did Pavlov do after introducing the bell? How can Pavlov's work be applied to the classroom?

4. In what ways do you think Pavlov's work shaped the philosophy of behaviorism?

As shared in the video, Pavlov's experiments demonstrate three major tenets of the field of behaviorism:

1. Behavior is learned from the environment: The dogs only learned to salivate when they heard a specific stimulus and then were presented the same stimulus along with food multiple times.

2. Behavior must be observable. Pavlov was able to demonstrate his findings because he was able to observe the dogs salivating in response to a specific stimulus.

3. All behaviors are a result of both stimulus and response. The stimulus would cause no response in the dogs until it was associated with the presentation of food, to which the dogs naturally responded with increased saliva production ( , & 2022, p. 1).

As a result of his research, Pavlov won the 1904 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

John B. Watson (1878 - 1958)

Building on the work of Pavlov, Watson argued that the process of classical conditioning was able to explain all aspects of human psychology. In fact, he argued that individual differences in behavior were simply due to different learning experiences (McLeod, 2014). Based on this belief, he was once quoted as saying:

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well- formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant- chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors" (Watson, 1924, p. 104).

Perhaps best known for his "Little Albert experiment," Watson set out to demonstrate how specific learning experiences could shape an individuals behavior in 1920. This experiment involved testing baby Albert, a 9-month-old infant, and his reactions to various stimuli. Working with his partner, Watson and Rayner observed little Alberts reactions and noticed that he was not adversely affected to different stimuli. However, when the a specific stimuli (a white rat) was paired with a sudden loud noise, little Albert got startled and began to cry. By conditioning little Albert to fear the white rat through repeated pairing of the rat with the noise, Watson and his partner were able to demonstrate classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia (McLeod, 2014).

Please watch the following video clip which presents an overview of the experiment. As you watch the video, use the Questions to Consider as a guide.

How ethical do you think this experiment was?

What did you learn about classical conditioning as a result of this experiment?

Do you think an experiment this would be allowed today?

What are the implications of Watson's research on behaviorism?

The Little Albert experiment would not be considered ethical today. However, the experiment did demonstrate that by controlling Albert's environment his behavior changed. Thus demonstrating that learning had occurred.

B. F. Skinner

Skinner is best known for the concept of operant conditioning. Based on hisexperiment with the Skinner box, Skinner was able to determine the following:

Operant conditioning is the rewarding of part of a desired behavior or a random act that approaches it.

An operant response would be pressing a bar to receive a food pellet.

A reinforcer is the food pellet itself.

A punisher is the consequence that suppresses a response and decreases the likelihood that it will occur in the future (i.e., receiving an electric shock for pressing the bar to receive a food pellet).

Skinner is quoted as saying: "the things we call pleasant have an energizing or strengthening effect on our behavior" (Skinner, 1972, p. 74). Through Skinner's research on animals, he concluded that both animals and humans would repeat acts that led to favorable outcomes, and suppress those that produced unfavorable results (Shaffer, 2000). The following visual, buy Standridge (2002), demonstrates the concept of operant conditioning.

In other words, we are who we are based on the operant conditioning we have received. Consequently, Skinner believed that an individual persons behavior could be shaped or conditioned if the right operant responses and reinforcements were utilized.

To see an example of Skinner's work in practice, please watch the following video clip and then respond to the guided questions.

How is positive reinforcement being applied in the video?
Do you think chocolate is really an effective tool? Is this a valid example of operant conditioning?

Is it valid to "change" others behaviors?

What are the implications of this video when it comes to behaviorism?

How might you apply what you learned about Skinner's work to your future professional practice?

Although the video above shows a rather extreme example of Skinner's work in practice, it illustrates key tennents of Skinner's work in practice. When applied to the classroom setting, behaviorist techniques have frequently been used to promote positive classroom behavior and discourage behaviors which is not.

Reflect on your learnings about Behaviorism! Write down three things you learned about this philosophy of education, two things you found surprising, and one professional connection you can make to your future professional practice.

, , & (2022). Behaviorism. In (Ed.), Education Research. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/education_research/behaviorismt

McLeod, S. (2014). Classical Conditioning. Common Lit. https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/classical-conditioning

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March, 2022, from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The focus of this chapter is Behaviorism. This educational philosophy is based on the belief that human behavior can be explained based on response to external stimuli. When translated into a classroom setting, behaviorists believe that the best educational environment can be obtained when student behavior is shaped by arranging specific conditions for learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Incorporation of Behaviorism in Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Incorporation of Behaviorism in Learning

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides a general overview of behaviorism, but what I want to focus on from it is its breakdown of incorporating the theory in a variety of ways. It stresses the importance of positive reinforcement in particular, given how it benefits both retention and encourages further improvement within a skill/topic. Beyond this point, however, it also sheds light on other facets to incorporate that tie into the positive reinforcement, such as the repetition of information/training, the formulation of motivation in learners, and the consideration of aspects from social learning theory. I personally am intrigued by the point included in social learning theory (given its consideration of outer influences) since I feel it helps to address a gap that behaviorism might run into otherwise, and it helped me to think further on the theory. I believe it helps to cement in aspects of behavior learning beyond that of just repeating desired behaviors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Textbook Chapter on Behaviorist Theories of Learning (Foundations of Educational Technology)

# data[].attributes.subject
Textbook Chapter on Behaviorist Theories of Learning (Foundations of Educational Technology)

# data[].attributes.body
While more in the vein of educational technology, this textbook chapter from the "Foundations of Educational Technology" takes a focus primarily on classical and operant conditioning. It covers the history and aspects of the processes themselves, but also delves into some of the more psychological aspects of these types of conditioning, which I was happy to read about. This included identifying the various stimuli and responses associated with classical conditioning.

The chapter itself concludes by reflecting on the way behaviorism is incorporated into educational technology, but I think it's notable here how the focus is primarily on aspects of operant conditioning. Having highlighted both, it would have been beneficial to see how aspects of classical conditioning might have affected educational technology as well, as this would have tied back into both behaviorist theories mentioned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the early 1900s, the most prevalent way of looking at learning was the view we call behaviorism. Behaviorists defined learning as an observable change in behavior. At the time, this was viewed as a scientific approach, in contrast to the introspective or psychoanalytic view of learning that had been prevalent in the past. Behaviorists believed that we can never know what is going on "inside people's heads" and that it is inappropriate to try to guess or speculate at what cannot be empirically observed. Instead, they believed that we should watch for observable changes in behavior to find out what people were learning.

Classical Conditioning

In the early part of the 20th century, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) was studying the digestive system of dogs when he noticed an interesting behavioral phenomenon: The dogs began to salivate when the lab technicians who normally fed them entered the room, even though the dogs had not yet received any food. Pavlov realized that the dogs were salivating because they knew they were about to be fed; the dogs had begun to associate the arrival of the technicians with the food that soon followed their appearance in the room.

With his team of researchers, Pavlov began studying this process in more detail. He conducted a series of experiments in which, over a number of trials, dogs were exposed to a sound immediately before receiving food. He systematically controlled the onset of the sound and the timing of the delivery of the food, and recorded the amount of the dogs' salivation. Initially the dogs salivated only when they saw or smelled the food, but after several pairings of the sound and the food, the dogs began to salivate as soon as they heard the sound. Pavlov concluded that the animals had learned to associate the sound with the food that followed.

Pavlov had identified a fundamental associative learning process called classical conditioning. Classical conditioning refers to learning that occurs when a neutral stimulus (e.g., a tone) becomes associated with a stimulus (e.g., food) that naturally produces a behavior (e.g., salivation). After the association is learned, the previously neutral stimulus (e.g., a tone) is by itself sufficient to produce the behavior (e.g., salivation).

Psychologists use specific terms to identify the stimuli and the responses in classical conditioning. The unconditioned stimulus (US) is something (such as food) that triggers a natural occurring response, and the unconditioned response (UR) is the naturally occurring response (such as salivation) that follows the unconditioned stimulus. The conditioned stimulus (CS) is a neutral stimulus that, after being repeatedly presented prior to the unconditioned stimulus, evokes a similar response as the unconditioned stimulus. In Pavlov's experiment, the sound of the tone served as the conditioned stimulus that, after learning, produced the conditioned response (CR), which is the acquired response to the formerly neutral stimulus. Note that the UR and the CR are the same behavior-in this case salivation-but they are given different names because they are produced by different stimuli (the US and the CS, respectively).

The image found at https://goo.gl/images/u4HSU3 is helpful for visualizing these relationships.

Conditioning is evolutionarily beneficial because it allows organisms to develop expectations that help them prepare for both good and bad events. Imagine, for instance, that an animal first smells a new food, eats it, and then gets sick. If the animal can learn to associate the smell (CS) with the food (US), then it will quickly learn that the food creates the negative outcome, and not eat it the next time.

Operant Conditioning

In contrast to classical conditioning, which involves involuntary responses (e.g., salivating), B.F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning, posited that learning occurrs through the process of reinforcing an appropriate voluntary response to a stimulus in the environment.

Operant Conditioning has some very specific terminology. This terminology is often misused because the terms have a different meaning from their common colloquial use. Skinner claimed that the consequences that follow any given behavior could either increase or decrease that behavior. He used the term reinforcement to describe consequences that increases a behavior and punishment to describe those that decrease the behavior. He further claimed that a reinforcement or punishment could be either a stimulus added, which he defined as positive, or or a stimulus removed, which he called negative. It is important to set aside the common meanings and connotations of the words positive and negative and focus on how they are defined in Operant Conditioning. In this context the terms are more like "adding and subtracting" rather than "good and bad."

A reinforcement, then, can be either positive or negative. For example, if you give a child praise for completing her homework (because you want her to continue this desirable behavior), you would be giving her positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement, on the other hand, removes a consequence or stimulus that the person doesn't like, in the hope of increasing the desirable behavior. If you tell the child that because she completed her homework immediately after school today she is excused from helping with the dinner dishes, you are giving her negative reinforcement. In both cases, you are hoping the reinforcement you provide will increase the desirable behavior of completing her homework.

The goal of punishment is to decrease a behavior. Positive punishment is an added stimulus designed to decrease a behavior. If a child is acting out in class and you scold him, you are delivering a positive punishment. The scolding is an added stimulus. A negative punishment would be taking something away that the child wants. For example, if you tell him he has to stay in from recess after acting out in class, you are using negative punishment.

The important thing to remember about reinforcement and punishment is that the result determines whether a stimulus serves as a reinforcement or a punishment, regardless of the intentions of the person delivering the stimulus. A teacher can take a certain action with the intention of punishing a child, but end up inadvertently providing reinforcement. If the child who is acting out in class craves any kind of attention she can get from an adult, both the praise and the scolding can be equally reinforcing for her.

While the examples above involve humans, it is important to note that Skinner's research was primarily done with animals trained in special cages called "Skinner Boxes" designed to deliver reinforcements and punishments. For example, he would train a rat to push a lever when a green light came on by first watching the rat move around and explore the cage until it eventually pushed the lever. When the rat pushed the lever a food pellet would be released, which caused the rat to push the lever frequently. Once this behavior was established, he would start turning on a light, and only release a food pellet if the rat pushed the lever when the light was on. Eventually, the rat would be trained to push the lever every time the light came on.

Skinner believed that human learning occured by the same mechanism, and that even very complex behaviors could be learned by reinforcing intermediate behaviors (as in the example of the rat above) and gradually shaping the complex behavior. In 1957, Skinner published "Verbal Behavior," where he applied his theory to language learning. This was controversial. The linguist Noam Chomsky, for example, argued that Operant Conditioning was inadequate to explain how humans learn to construct new sentences in response to new experience.

For more information about B. F. Skinner and his Operant Conditioning theory, see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-RS80DVvrg (4:45 minutes).

Behaviorism in Educational Technology

Today, principles of Operant Conditioning are used by teachers for general classroom management and to support students with special needs. Educational technology has also employed Behaviorist principles, especially Operant Conditioning. Programmed Instruction (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmed_learning), for example, is a teaching strategy that developed and grew along with advances in technology. Drill and practice software is helpful for specific content, such as multiplication tables or second language vocabulary, that must be learned to a level of automaticity. Games and gamification also make use of Operant Conditioning principles. Acquiring resources and "leveling up" provide reinforcement, while losing one's sword in a battle or falling off a cliff serve to punish errors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the early 1900s, the most prevalent way of looking at learning was the view we call behaviorism. Behaviorists defined learning as an observable change in behavior. At the time, this was viewed as a scientific approach, in contrast to the introspective or psychoanalytic view of learning that had been prevalent in the past.

# data[].attributes.headline
Controversies & Criticisms around Behaviorism

# data[].attributes.subject
Controversies & Criticisms around Behaviorism

# data[].attributes.body
The overview on behaviorism by The Decision Lab is a comprehensive one, but I wanted to shed light on the section that it has on "Controversies", which can be jumped to in the overview by the tabbed menu on the left side of the page.

In noting the shortcomings of behaviorism, it is emphasized how it is one-dimensional in nature, as it doesn't consider internal factors when it comes to human behavior (e.g., thoughts, feelings, etc.). Critics who have taken this stance over time would include Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers.

Alongside this, while evidence of behaviorism in humans is highlighted as a criticism, another point against it that intrigues me would be how behaviorism doesn't explain why a behavior might occur. This point is expanded upon by considering the work of Edward Tolman on latent learning, but I wanted to reflect on this since it has me thinking on the correlation between the "Why?" with behaviors and how this can tie into the previous criticism posited of behaviorism being one-dimensional. In its dismissal of aspects such as thoughts and feelings, it is not likely that behaviorism can answer the question of "Why?" beyond pure prediction. This is something that could likely be addressed by implementing aspects of more social learning based theories, but as it stands serves as a mark against behaviorism in my mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Decision Lab - Behavioral Science, Applied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A behavioral design think tank, we apply decision science, digital innovation & lean methodologies to pressing problems in policy, business & social justice

# data[].attributes.body
As I was reading about behaviorism, I was reminded of a teaching "buzzword" that was popular in my school a few years ago- PBIS. I looked up this infographic to refresh my memory on the basics. The goal part at the bottom stood out to me, as I think it in theory sounds great and is rooted in good intentions, but my school faced the following issues:

1. Staff buy in- this required everyone to be on board and was a huge shift that some teachers did not fully support, which impacted how it was carried out to students

2. Not all expectations were trauma informed, or there was not enough nuance in the implementation to make it so

3. Unreliable data- ex. if we were tracking tardies, we found that some teachers tracked tardies and updated our tracking system more than others, resulting in students demonstrating superficial growth

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of us gave great examples of when we have seen behaviorism strategies being implemented in the classroom. It made me think about my old school and how we used a merit and demerit system to track behavior. I think it definitely had its pros and cons, and this study dives deeper into the idea as a whole. The study "connected and drew inferences between teacher perceptions of discipline and how the merit and demerit system impacted student referral and punishment." This study supports a lot of our anecdotal faults with behaviorism (and positive and negative reinforcement behavior systems) with applicable research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher Perceptions of School Discipline: A Critical Interrogation of a Merit and Demerit Discipline System - ProQuest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

# data[].attributes.headline
Behaviorism and Behavior Intervention Strategies 

# data[].attributes.subject
Behaviorism and Behavior Intervention Strategies 

# data[].attributes.body
I sometimes find it easier to think about things as a whole when I have specific examples/ideas of what it actually looks like. These are 20 strategies that use rewards (mainly around intrinsic motivation), consequences, and reinforcement to manage behaviors in the classroom. I also liked how it emphasized the following key points when considering implementing these strategies effectively: 1. Does the person implementing the strategy have a solid foundation in trust and a positive relationship with the student?

2. Does the strategy match the functional needs of the student?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of 20 Essential Behavior Intervention Strategies + PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download our List of Behavior Intervention Strategies PDF for proven ways to foster positive student behavior and success.

# data[].attributes.body
On reading about behaviorism, I immediately recalled hearing some critiques of reward systems -- namely, that they decrease intrinsic motivation, eliciting mere compliance rather than actual learning. In searching for the source of those critiques, it appears that this is THE book on the subject. I haven't been able to read the whole thing, but the Kirkus review has my interest piqued! Seems to be chock full of studies (and an actual interview with B.F. Skinner himself!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A compelling argument that the use of rewards is counterproductive in raising children, teaching students, and managing workers. Kohn (The Brighter Side of Human Nature, 1990, etc.) contends that rewards, like punishments, are methods of controlling people—perhaps a morally objectionable goal—and that, at best, they produce only temporary compliance. He begins by tracing the development of behaviorist doctrine and the widespread acceptance of its popular version, encapsulated in the idea ``do this and you’ll get that.″ Kohn examines the effect that rewards have on behavior, concluding that rewards fail for many reasons: They punish; rupture relationships; ignore underlying reasons for behavior; discourage risk-taking; and undermine interest in the task at hand. The author looks carefully at three places in which rewards are used extensively- -the workplace, the classroom, and the home—and demonstrates in turn why incentive plans and other reward-based systems employed, first, by managers fail to improve the quality of work; why outward motivations undermine students’ intrinsic motivation to learn; and why children whose parents use rewards to motivate them are less likely to develop a sense of responsibility and the ability to make ethical judgments. Having shown that rewards don’t work, Kohn undertakes the more difficult task of developing a strategy that does. His solution is based on what he calls the ``three C’s″—``content,″ ``choice,″ and ``collaboration″— and he illustrates how they can be applied by managers, teachers, and parents. Three appendices round out his well-documented study: excerpts from a 1983 interview with a rather crotchety B.F. Skinner; a reflective essay on intrinsic motivation; and Kohn’s prediction of how behaviorists will respond to his arguments. A clear, convincing demonstration of the shortcomings of pop-behaviorism, written with style, humor, and authority.

# data[].attributes.body
This section of a textbook on Educational Psychology goes into detail on different theories of motivation. I appreciate the perspective that a behaviorist approach is helpful in classroom settings where teachers simply aren't able to assess motivation -- whether because they don't have the time, there's a communication barrier, or other reasons. This underscores, for me, that behaviorism is an extremely pragmatic (utilitarian?) theory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behaviorism and Motivation – Educational Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sometimes it is useful to think of motivation not as something “inside” a student driving the student’s behavior, but as equivalent to the student’s outward behaviors. This…

# data[].attributes.body
This paper from an academic librarian at Northern Illinois University is kind of old, but I think still helpful for a.) teasing out how traditional instruction in general has roots in behavioral theory, and b.) how the theory can be applied to information literacy instruction specifically.

# data[].attributes.body
I wanted to find some information about how behaviorism is used in classrooms and the impacts of it and found this article about consistency and it's role in school discipline. The researchers conducted focus groups where they spoke with teachers about their use of consistency in discipline and rule setting, and their opinions of its effectiveness. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, highly recommend skipping to the findings section and reading through the teacher responses.

Irby, D., & Clough, C. (2015). Consistency rules: a critical exploration of a universal principle of school discipline. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.932300

# data[].attributes.body
In the process of finding resources about behaviorism itself I kept stumbling upon information about Skinner, Pavlov, and Watson. I knew more about Pavlov and Watson, so I decided to do a bit of research on B.F. Skinner. I wound up reading through his Wikipedia page and a few biographical things, but I found these interviews the most interesting. Through this research was also how I made the connection that Skinner wrote Walden Two, which I've read. That connection in addition to the interviews really expanded my understanding of how he himself views behaviorism and wants to use it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/15/science/bf-skinner-now-sees-little-hope-for-the-world-s-salvation.html

https://archive.org/details/bf-skinner-all-things-considered-1990