Constructivism or Behaviorism: What is the Best Method to Teach Special Needs Students?

Abstract

This review article will examine differences and similarities of constructivism and behaviorism to determine the best method(s) to teach pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, elementary and secondary students with special needs. Some educators may use constructivism methods and others may use behaviorism methods to teach students with special needs. Others are unsure what methods to use and decide it may be best to integrate the two.

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.”

—Dr. Martin Luther King

Introduction

Many states and districts are changing their style of teaching and the materials they use with special needs students, trading in traditional text-heavy materials for those created with the “universal design for learning” philosophy (CAST, 2011). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a set of principles for curriculum development that gives all individuals equal opportunities to learn. It provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone--not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs (CAST, 2011).

At the heart of every effective classroom is a devoted teacher, embracing the opportunity to educate the world’s next generation of citizens. Hence, teachers have a moral obligation—by virtue of achievement for all students—to develop and nurture their lifelong learning. The topic of this article is important for educators, school administrators, parents and policymakers to evaluate as the education reform movement strives to engage and prepare special needs students for a technologically-advanced and globally-impacted society. There are many methods of delivery that special education teachers can use to reach their students. I propose that special needs students learn best under a constructivism paradigm. However, this article will examine the constructivism (which focuses on how individuals learn) and behaviorism (which is a worldview that assumes a learner is passive, responding to environmental stimuli) paradigms to determine which model is more effective in the learning process of special needs students. Therefore, the guiding question for this article is: Constructivism or behaviorism, which is the best approach to use to teach special needs students?

Definitions of Special Education and Specific Learning Disability

Special Education may be defined as a specialized area of education which utilizes unique instructional methods, materials, learning aids, and equipment to meet the educational needs of students with learning disabilities (Special Education News, n.d.). Hasselbring & Williams (2000) articulate that students with special education needs can be defined as “those who, because of a disability, require special education and related services to achieve their fullest potential” (p.78). Students’ disabilities may range from speech and language impairments to mental retardation, and more than half have a specific learning disability due to a psychological disorder (Fernández-López, Rodríguez-Fórtiz, Rodríguez-Almendros, & Martínez-Segura, 2013).

Specific learning disability is defined as a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations (Specific learning disability, 1997).

Constructivism Defined

According to Thirteen, (n.d.) constructivism is a theory based on observation and scientific study about how people learn. In other words, people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. When an individual encounters something new, he/she has to reconcile it with previous ideas and experiences. Sometimes, an individual may change his/her beliefs or maybe he/she will discard the new information as not important. A person has to ask questions, explore, and assess what he/she knows, hence; the individual is an active creator of his/her own knowledge. Von Glasersfeld describes constructivism as “a theory of knowledge with roots in philosophy, psychology, and cybernetics” (Glaserfeld, 1989). Constructivism has implications for the theory of instruction. Discovery, hands-on, experiential, collaborative, project-based, and task-based learning are a number of applications that base teaching and learning on constructivism.

Contributors to Constructivism

McLeod (2009) articulates that Jean Piaget was the first psychologist to make a systematic study of cognitive development. His contributions include a theory of cognitive child development, detailed observational studies of cognition in children, and a series of simple but ingenious tests to reveal different cognitive abilities. According to Piaget (1936), children are born with a very basic mental structure (genetically inherited and evolved) on which all subsequent learning and knowledge is based.

Piaget’s belief was that individuals learned through the construction of one logical structure after another. He also concluded that the logic of children and the way they think are completely different from those of adults. The implications of this theory and how Piaget applied them have shaped the foundation for constructivist education Thirteen, (n.d.).

Based on maturation factors Piaget came up with a developmental approach to teaching children. The approach changes as children mature as to what is taught at diverse age levels. Piaget then stressed the following maturational stages of development as the child matures:

• sensorimotor from birth to two years whereby the use of the senses and muscles are utilized in learning. The items used can be seen, manipulated by touch, and shaken

• preoperational from two to seven years of age in which the young child perceives one variable only or largely such as length, width, and height, especially when comparisons are made between objects

• concrete operations for the youngster between the ages of seven and eleven. Here, the pupil needs to refer to physical objects in order that the abstraction being studied is meaningful

• stage of abstract thought after twelve years of age in which the abstract becomes increasingly meaningful without making reference to the concrete. (Ediger, 2003, p.175).

An individual can see what activities and experiences change gradually from observational methods of learning and touch/movement to the abstract with the use of words and symbols as children become mature (Ediger, 2003). Learning has to wait upon the maturational sequence and there are selected activities then which may be emphasized within the sequential stages of maturational progression. Piaget also stressed the importance of students moving forward in achievement whereby students are in charge of sequencing their own learnings, largely on an individual basis (Ediger, 2003).

Lev Vygotsky was another contributor to Constructivism. Vygotsky proposed a theory of cognitive development that emphasized the underlying process rather than the ultimate stage of development. He examined the relationship between the cognitive process and the subject’s social activities and is well known for his sociocultural theory of development that focuses on the “zone of proximal development (ZPD)” (Thirteen, n.d). According to Ivan (1994), Vygotsky’s concept of ‘ZPD may be defined as the difference (expressed in units of time) between the performances of the same child working with and assisted by an adult. In this concept of the proximal zone, the view of the child as a social being engenders a methodological approach with far-reaching implications, since the child’s development is regarded as a dynamic and dialectical process’ (p.10).

The concept of the zone of proximal development opposes the use of standardized tests as a means to measure student intelligence. (Berk & Winsler, 1995). Vygotsky suggests that instead of assessing what a student knows to determine intelligence, it is more helpful to compare their ability to independently solve problems with their ability to solve problems with the assistance of someone who has mastered the concepts being learned. Vygotsky began this research because he wanted to understand how children’s functions (like attention, memory, and perception) develop and are individual to the learner (Zeuli, 1986, p. 7). Vygotsky contends that more emphasis needs to be placed on comparing a student’s ability to solve problems independently, as against his ability to solve problems dependently.

Within the Vygotskian concept of the zone of proximal development, social interaction is the basis for cognitive growth. Accordingly, the communication that transpires in a social setting with more knowledgeable or proficient people (parents, teachers, peers, others) assists children in building an understanding of the concept (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Comparison of Characteristics of Constructivist Perspectives

The chart below depicts a comparison of four major characteristics of a constructivist perspectives.

Major Characteristics	Piagetian Classroom	Vygotsky’s Perspective	Social Constructivism	Holistic
Goal	Develop logical thinking	Develop self-regulated attention, conceptual thinking, logical memory	Construct and reconstruct contexts, knowledge, and meanings through discourse communities	Student ownership of the learning process and the outcomes
Classroom focus	Spontaneous, student-directed experimentation	Interaction with subject-matter concepts to develop advanced cognitive capabilities	The emergence of a community of participants that together re-create knowledge	Real-world communication tasks that build on children’s strengths and interests
Role of the teacher	Create and organize challenging experiences; ask probing questions to facilitate learner rethinking of ideas	Model, explain, correct, and require the learner to explain	Participate in a system of practices that are themselves evolving; participate in the “co-construction: of knowledge	Interact with a variety of learning contexts to actively learn and communicate
Example	Some math and science curricula	Reciprocal teaching	Some elementary math and science classrooms	Whole language

Green & Gredler, 2002

Behaviorism Defined

The focus of Behaviorism is on the conditioning of observable human behavior. J. B. Watson, the father of Behaviorism, defined learning as a sequence of stimulus and response actions in observable cause and effect relationships (learning-theories, n.d).

Cherry (n.d.) suggests that behavior can be studied in a systematic and observable manner with no consideration of internal mental states. This school of thought suggests that only observable behaviors should be studied. There are two major types of conditioning:

1. Classical conditioning is a technique used in behavioral training in which a naturally occurring stimulus is paired with a response. Next, a previously neutral stimulus is paired with the naturally occurring stimulus. Eventually, the previously neutral stimulus comes to evoke the response without the presence of the naturally occurring stimulus. The two elements are then known as the conditioned stimulus and the conditioned response.

2. Operant conditioning (sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning) is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior (Cherry (n.d.).

Contributors to Behaviorism

‘Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take anyone 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 race of his ancestors’ (Watson, 1930, p.82).

According to John Watson (1913), psychology should be the science of observable behavior. Behaviorists view psychology as an objective experimental part of the natural sciences. Moreover, its goal is the prediction and control of behavior.

Skinner’s views were slightly less extreme than those of Watson. Skinner believed that we do have such a thing as a mind, but that it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events (McLeod, 2007).

According to Skinner, voluntary or automatic behavior is either strengthened or weakened by the immediate presence of a reward or a punishment. “The learning principle behind operant conditioning is that new learning occurs as a result of positive reinforcement, and old patterns are abandoned as a result of negative reinforcement” (Belkin and Gray, 1977, p.59). In his book entitled, The Technology of Teaching, Skinner wrote:

“The application of operant conditioning to education is simple and direct. Teaching is the arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement under which students learn. They learn without teaching in their natural environments, but teachers arrange special contingencies which expedite learning, hastening the appearance of behavior which would otherwise be acquired slowly or making sure of the appearance of behavior which otherwise never occur” (Skinner, 1968, p.64).

Skinner believed that more complex learning could be achieved by this process of contingencies and reinforcement “... through successive stages in the shaping process, the contingencies of reinforcement being changed progressively in the direction of the required behavior” (Skinner, 1968, p.10).

Differences between Constructivism and Behaviorism

Learning theories usually fall into one of several paradigms; however, for the purpose of this article, constructivism and behaviorism are examined to support the theory that special needs children learn better under a constructivism paradigm. Constructivism is often articulated in stark contrast to the behaviorist model of learning (Murphy, 1997). When a teacher uses constructivist principles for teaching children, the teacher believes that learning should be meaningful and related to real life situations. Whereas, if a teacher breaks down tasks into small and manageable portions for teaching, the teacher has taken on behaviorist principles (Grobecker, 1999). See some major differences between the two in the chart below:

Characteristics	Constructivism	Behaviorism
Founders and proponents	Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, others.	John Watson, B.F. Skinner, others.
Basic idea:	Learning is an active, constructive process.	Stimulus-response. All behavior caused by external stimuli. Behavior can be explained without the need to consider internal mental states or consciousness.
Learner viewed as:	Information constructor.	Passive, responds to environmental stimuli.
Other	Learners construct their own subjective representations of objective reality. New information is linked to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are subjective.	Behavior may result in reinforcement (increased likelihood that behavior will occur in the future); or punishment.

Teaching/Learning Methods for Special Needs Students

Special needs students are often the most challenging to teach yet also the most neglected by politicians and government educational policymakers. The number of students in special education has skyrocketed since the 1980s and stabilized in the last few years. During the 2008–2009 academic school year, about 6.5 million students aged 3 through 21 were enrolled in special education programs for students with disabilities in the United States (Snyder & Dillow, 2010).

Looking at techniques used by teachers in the late 20th century, Orkwis and McLane (1998) describe the potential of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to help all students meet high standards: In terms of learning, Universal Design means the design of instructional materials and activities that allow the learning goals to be achievable by individuals with wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember. “Universal Design for Learning is achieved by means of flexible curricular materials and activities that provide alternatives for students with disparities in abilities and backgrounds” (Orkwis & McLane, 1998, p.9).

Hallowell and Ratey (2010), specialists on adolescents with attention-deficit disorder (ADD) at Hallowell’s Center in Massachusetts, emphasize structure as the key to effective teaching students with ADD. They stress the importance of creating strict guidelines for students with ADD in the classroom. For example, they believe students should have constant reminders about classroom rules and direction for assignments. Additionally, Hallowell and Ratey (2010) believe that setting limits on children is “soothing” for them, rather than constraining. They also emphasize the importance of play time and creativity for students, since many of them may become frustrated or bored with monotonous, structured work. Moreover, Hallowell and Ratey (2010) advocate fitting playtime and creative intellectual work within the boundaries of strict guidelines and disciplinary measures for students with ADD. Contrary to Hallowell and Ratey’s perspectives Mookerji (2011) points out a story about Paige, a special-needs student featured in a 2005 New York Times article, who was confused and bored due to the lack of structure in her special education classroom. After Paige transferred from a southside Chicago school to one in New York, she despised her special education class, complaining that “everyone just plays around in there too much.” Her special education fifth-grade classroom did not have many assignments and assessments, and substitute teachers constantly rotated in and out of the classroom. Though Paige may have been able to do what limited homework there was, she received bad grades because of the lack of structure in class (Mookerji, 2011).

Another approach to teaching special needs students is differentiating instruction. Hammeken (n.d.) defines differentiating instruction as the process of teachers proactively planning to teach students at their current levels of ability, rather than taking a standardized approach to teaching. With differentiated instruction, classroom teachers plan what the student will need to learn, how they will learn it and how they will demonstrate what they have learned. Hammeken (n.d.) articulates that one of the most popular terms when referring to differentiating instruction is that “one size does not fit all” and it is a wonderful tool for special needs students.

According to Educating Children with Special Needs (n.d.) special education teachers use various techniques to promote learning. Depending on the disability, teaching methods can include individualized instruction, problem-solving assignments, and small group work. Other techniques special education teachers can use include remedial instruction such as repeating the information and devoting more time to working on skills. When teaching special education classes, Teaching Special Education (n.d.) suggests that educators use diagrams, graphics and pictures to augment what they are saying in words; this strategy benefits the visual and auditory learners simultaneously. If the child loses his/her place while reading, or uses his/her finger to point to the words, the teacher can place a colorful piece of plastic under the line to assist the student’s eyes to return to the right place when he/she loses focus. Swanson (1999) not only agrees with the techniques that of Teaching Special Education (n.d.), the researcher also suggests that teachers break learning into small steps, administer probes, and engage students in directed response/questioning. Grobecker (1999) concurs that breaking down tasks into small, manageable segments is a strategy that is associated with a structured approach to teaching special needs students.

Using a different approach, Marcus (2001) articulates that perhaps the most unusual approach to teaching students with special needs is that of pediatrician Melvin Levine at the medical school of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “His Schools Attuned program, which so far has influenced the curricula at the Bank Street College of Education in New York and California State University-Northridge, gives students a grounding in brain research so that they’ll appreciate, for instance, that a child who can’t seem to comprehend information projected on a screen might comprehend when the essential points stand out in color” (Marcus, 2001, p. 4).

According to Levine, students who don’t concentrate can be moved to the front of a classroom or given frequent short breaks. Or a teacher can use a prearranged hand signal to tell a child to get back to work without resorting to a public scolding (Marcus, 2001). A student teacher gave an example of how two students who kept slipping up on tasks such as preparing slides to view in a microscope. She came up with two approaches, first, she wrote and spoke the directions, one step at a time and then she paired advanced students with the ones struggling to catch on. Group learning gave the student teacher time to assist students who needed repeated explanations and she thought that kids have a certain way of explaining things to each other (Marcus, 2001).

Davis (2011) gives an example of how an eighth-grade teacher presented her students with an activity that awarded them $200 in virtual money and asked them to plan a three-course dinner party for eight friends. The students calculated food costs by using a grocery store’s website and then planned the parties. The following week, the teacher gave them the same challenge but limited their budget to $50.00.

Still examining teaching and learning methods, Sze (2009) turned her focus on students with autism. “Students with autism thrive in environments that provide structure. The language learning classroom may be structured a certain way, but the structure of language itself is ambiguous and may cause for difficulty in language learning for these students. Teaching students with autism to communicate is often done through prompting, which involves the teacher saying a phrase and the student repeating the phrase. This type of structured learning may work well for beginning language/communication skills, but educators should strive to wean students off prompting and teach them to speak at their own will” (Sze, 2009, p. 360).

Like, Sze (2009) Kagohara, Sigafoos, Achmadi, O’Reilly, and Lancioni (2012) focused on the learning that of autism, but from a technology perspective. The researchers conducted research that was designed to teach two students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) to check the spelling of words using the spell-check function on common word processor programs. “During baseline, the participants performed less than 40% of the task-analyzed steps correctly. When the video modeling intervention was introduced via an iPad^®, both participants reached the 76–100% correct level on the task analysis and became more successful in using the word processor programs to check the spelling of words. Follow-up data showed 100% correct performance by both participants. The results suggest that the video modeling intervention, delivered via an iPad^®, was effective in teaching two adolescents with ASD to check the spelling of words using common word processing programs” (p. 304).

Multiple Methods of Presenting Instructional Content

The chart below depicts five different ways instructional content may be presented to students.

Auditory	Visual	Tactile/Kinesthetic	Affective	Technology
Lecture	Video clips	Field trip	Small group work	Digitized video PalmPilot Video Conferencing
Discussion	Sign language Speechreading	Sign language Gestures	Cross-age tutoring Peer-mediated instruction	Electronic discussion boards Online chat rooms
Song	Watch a play	Drawing	Roleplay
Read aloud	Books	Braille books	Some elementary math and science classrooms	Tape recorder iPod
Questioning	Graph, table, chart Slideshow Transparency Whiteboard	Demonstration Roleplay Dance Games Manipulatives Build an object		Spreadsheet PowerPoint Overhead data projector

Special Education in Context (n.d.)

Summary

A literature review presented numerous methods of presenting instructional content to special needs students. Going into this article review the thought was that special needs students learn better under a constructivism paradigm. After a careful review of the literature and case studies, it is evident that special needs students learn best when components from both the constructivism and behaviorism approaches are integrated. It is more effective to make instructional and curricular decisions based on the individual child, task and the setting than to use strategies representing one theory. Moreover, the integration of components from both approaches could help special and general education teachers work more effectively as a team to teach children with learning disabilities (Steele, 2005). However, further research in this area is recommended.