A comparison of behaviorist and constructivist based teaching methods in psychomotor

Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research
Volume 53, Number 1, 2003
177
A Comparison of Behaviorist and Constructivist-Based Teaching Methods in Psychomotor
Instruction
Bree Melton
Alissa Zience
Sarah Leonard
Evan Pick
Lynn Thomasson
William G. Camp
Thomas W. Broyles
Governor’s School for Agriculture
Virginia Tech
Abstract
The authors conducted an experimental comparison of two different teaching strategies,
one based on behaviorist principles and the other on social constructivist principles, in teaching a
linear psychomotor skill. Two randomly selected groups of gifted students were provided
instruction on making an origami piece. The purpose of the study was to determine which
teaching method produced better short-term retention of the selected task. The pieces were
evaluated using a scoring rubric developed and field tested by the researchers. Analysis on the
scores showed that there was no significant difference in the performance between the two
groups. In addition, the University’s official teacher/course evaluation form was used to
compare the students’ evaluations of the different teaching styles. Analysis of the course
evaluation scores showed a significant preference for the behaviorist-based instruction. This
study does not support the current trend of shifting instruction from the behaviorist method to the
constructivist method of teaching for linear psychomotor tasks. However, there was a definite
student preference for the behaviorist method of teaching.
Behaviorism formed the traditional basis for schooling in western societies for most of
the past century, but in recent years there has been a visible shift to in educational practice
toward social constructivism as the dominant learning theory (Doolittle and Camp, 1999). Using
behaviorist principles, teachers often instruct their students using a linear step-by-step approach
(Dobbins, 1999). Educators who base their pedagogies on social constructivism, believe that
students learn in a less structured and more social environment in which they “construct” their
own knowledge (Dobbins, 1999).

178
Background
In 1956 Benjamin Bloom developed a taxonomy of learning. He identified three
domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Cognitive learning involves fact-based
knowledge and affective learning involves student attitudes. The third domain, psychomotor,
involves teaching a student to perform a manipulative task. Many educators focus on cognitive
and affective learning, but it is equally important to teach psychomotor skills (Gagne, 1975).
These psychomotor skills, Gagne (1977) wrote, progress throughout a student’s life. Children
begin by learning how to sing or throw a ball. They then progress by learning how to use certain
tools such as protractors and microscopes as well as learning foreign languages and how to cook
or sew.
Dobbins (1999) pointed out that career and technical education curricula tend to be
heavily weighted with psychomotor tasks and are often very linear in nature, meaning the tasks
must be mastered in a sequential manner. Doolittle and Camp (1999) examined the efficacy of
constructivist principles in teaching the kinds of domain-specific tasks that are so common in
career and technical education curricula. They concluded that social constructivist principles
have serious limitations in terms of the teaching of content that must be learned in a specific
sequence and to specific standards. Beyond that, they suggested:
Career and technical education remains, in fact if not expressly, founded on the learning
principles of behaviorism. Many scholars and reformers in the profession have advocated
changes that implicitly relied on cognitive constructivist principles. Indeed, many of the changes
we have seen in recent years implicitly rely on constructivist principles. Nevertheless, scholars
in the profession (career and technical education) have yet to explicitly address the shift from
behaviorism to constructivism. (Doolittle & Camp, 1999, p 40)
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
Behaviorism is the basic learning theory underlying most traditional teaching in
American schools. According to behaviorist principles, it is the teacher’s job to transmit
knowledge (Dobbins, 1999). B. F. Skinner, one of the main early proponents of behaviorism,
theorized that a job should be broken down into tasks and that students learn best in a linear step-
by-step format. Skinner posited that repetition and constant reinforcement of the step-by-step
processes were essential for students to learn a skill properly (Entwistle, 1981).
Some psychologists in current times still praise behaviorism and its learning benefits.
Derbyshire (National Review, 1999) discussed a book written by Andy Koestler in 1967.
Although he conceded that behaviorism had become a somewhat out-of-date theory, Koestler
argued that behaviorism still has validity.
However, beginning around the 1970s with such writers as Vygotsky, there has been a
move towards constructivism and a decrease in the popularity of behaviorism (Eisner, 1999).
Constructivists believe that the learner creates his or her own knowledge, and the teacher is
simply a facilitator. “They contend that these methods involve students in realistic contents in
which ‘active’ learning can occur and in which the social construction of knowledge can best be
fostered” (Sikula, 1996, p. 152). Vygotsky (cited in Dixon-Krauss, 1996) wrote “teaching and

179
learning occur in a social context as a dynamic process rather than as a preconceived one.” The
learner must use his or her own previous knowledge about a particular subject to further learning.
The teacher’s job is to create an environment in which the student can carry out this process.
According to Gagne (1977), as a student uses constructivist methods more often, he or she also
becomes more self-sufficient and able to create his or her own knowledge.
In the past few decades, teachers have shown a rapid movement towards constructivism.
Results from a study conducted by researchers for American Scientist showed that “the past few
decades have not been kind to the behaviorist school” (Robins et al., 1998, p. 310). There have
been many studies supporting the idea that constructivism works best in the fact-based, problem-
solving learning. Teachers also praise constructivism for its time- and monetary-efficiency.
To date, educational theorists and researchers have examined constructivist-based
instructional methods primarily in the context of teaching cognitive content. Psychomotor tasks
make up a significant part of the curricula in career and technical education in general and in
agricultural education in particular. A review of the research literature in both career and
technical education and in agricultural education produced no research in which constructivist-
based pedagogies had been tested in the psychomotor domain.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether teaching methods using
behaviorist or constructivist approaches are more effective for teaching students a psychomotor
task. We had three objectives in our experiment:
1. To compare the ability of students to perform a psychomotor skill after learning the task
through a behaviorist or constructivist-based approach.
(Null hypothesis: There will be no differences between the mean scores on the task
performance by treatment and gender.)
2. To compare the reaction of these students to the instruction based on the methods by which
they were taught.
(Null hypothesis: There will be no differences between the mean scores instruction
evaluation by treatment and gender.)
3. To qualitatively assess the reactions of the subjects to the two different instructional
paradigms: constructivism-based and behaviorism-based.
Procedures
Population and Sample
The Summer Residential Governor's School for Agriculture (GSA) is a program for
rising juniors and seniors in Virginia public, private, and home schools who have been identified
as gifted students. Admission is highly competitive and involves screening at both the local and
state levels. Students accepted for the program spend a month on campus taking a series of short
courses from university faculty and selected high school teachers. In addition, they are required
to complete a major group project that is either research or developmental in nature.
Although the general population from which students at the school were drawn is much larger,
the students in the GSA were self-nominated and competitively selected. Thus, the actual

180
population for the study consisted of 85 students attending the Governor's School for Agriculture
at Virginia Tech in summer, 2002.
Although, Krejcie and Morgan (1970) suggested a sample size of 70 to represent a
population of 85, we elected to select a smaller sample because of the mechanics involved in
teaching a psychomotor task of this nature. We concluded that a “class” size above 20 would
create instructional problems, therefore we decided on a sample size of 40, with 20 subjects
being assigned to each of the two treatments. Because males and females were not equally
represented in the total student body, and because gender was considered a variable of interest, a
stratified random sample of students (n=40) consisting of equal numbers of males and females
was selected to participate in the experiment. The sample was then randomly assigned to two
groups so that each group had equal numbers of males and females.
Design
To accomplish the objectives of the study we designed a 2X2 factorial study. The
independent variable of primary interest was treatment. Group 1 received the constructivism-
based instruction and group 2 received the behaviorism-based instruction. The second
independent variable was gender. Each cell was randomly assigned 10 subjects
The Psychomotor Task
The first step towards conducting our comparative study was to select a psychomotor
task. The first criterion used was that the task must be psychomotor and linear in nature so that
the steps had to be completed in a precise sequence. The second criterion was that the task must
include enough steps that it would be difficult to complete. Finally, the task had to be
uncommon enough that the subjects were unlikely to have pre-knowledge of it. We chose an
unusual origami figure of a “pumpkin face” for the study (Chen, 1997). The researchers then
taught themselves the skill using those instructions and practiced the skill so that they would be
proficient enough to teach other students.
We next developed an evaluation rubric for grading the participants’ final products. The
rubric included three categories on which we graded the origami figure: size, shape, and neatness
on a scale from one to four. We field tested our rubric to establish our inter-rater consistency by
grading sample pumpkin faces.
Behaviorist-Based Treatment. To represent behaviorist principles we used a
demonstration procedure based on the suggestions of Newcomb, McCracken, and Warmbrod
(1993) and Hammonds (1968). In the behaviorist group, we taught the students how to make the
origami pumpkin face using a traditional step-by-step approach.
1. We set up two tables in the middle of the room where two teachers provided the
demonstration.
2. The teachers used the instruction sheet to teach the students in blocks of three steps at a
time, sending the students back to their own desks in between to complete those three
steps.

181
3. Each student had an instruction sheet and ruler to use as he or she wished and each table
had a completed pumpkin head to serve as a model. The students could ask question
from the teachers but could not speak to other students.
Constructivist-Based Treatment. To represent social constructivist principles, we used a
cooperative learning procedure based on suggestions from McKeachie (1994) and Borich (2000).
We let the constructivist group learn in an interactive manner.
1. Students were stationed around larger tables to facilitate cooperative learning.
2. Each student had a sample pumpkin face, ruler, and instruction sheet to use in the
process.
3. The students were encouraged to talk with and help each other in order to learn how to
replicate the example pumpkin face.
4. Two instructors provided coaching and answered questions.
Pilot Study
We then conducted a pilot study using four students who had not been selected for the
sample. We taught one boy and one girl how to complete the task using the behaviorist method
and the same was done using the constructivist method. This allowed us to secure an appropriate
time frame for the experiment, make sure the pumpkin face was feasible, and work out any other
problems in the experimental design. Based on the pilot study, we decided to give each student a
ruler to use in order to standardize the instructions and increase accuracy. We also decided to
teach the behaviorist students in a series of three step blocks rather than have them complete the
task one step at a time. We believe that this change made the study more time efficient and
about the same difficulty level as the constructivist teaching method.
Data Collection and Analysis
The two treatments were presented simultaneously in neighboring laboratories. Two of
the of the researchers had rehearsed each of the instructional methods and presented the
instruction independently. Two additional researchers were assigned to move from one
laboratory to the other to observe the process for qualitative assessment.
In the experiment, we provided instruction/facilitation to each group for precisely thirty minutes,
based on the results of the pilot study. We then collected all supplies including samples,
instruction sheets, and practice figures. We passed out one sheet of origami paper to each person
and allowed ten minutes to make a pumpkin face.
Three members of our group formed a scoring committee and used the evaluation rubric
to score each pumpkin face. The composite scores were recorded. The instructional evaluation
scores were recorded. Both the task performance and the instruction evaluation scores were
analyzed using SPSS 11.0. In both cases, the students’ gender and the dependent variable of
interest were analyzed using univariate, the General Linear Model (GLM) two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) procedures in SPSS.
At the conclusion of the experiment, each student who participated completed a survey
designed to provide an evaluation of the instruction. This survey used was the same

182
teacher/course evaluation form used by Virginia Polytechnic Institute as described in Virginia
Tech University Faculty Handbook (2000). The evaluation from asks for Likert-type ratings of
nine additive items and then asks for open-ended comments regarding the instruction.
For the qualitative portion of the study, assessment began during the instruction with
observations by the two of the researchers who were not involved as instructors. That was
followed by the analysis of the written comments for themes using the general procedures
described in Creswell (1994).
Results and Discussion
Findings
Of the 40 subjects selected to for the sample, 20 males and 20 females, only 37 actually
participated. A total of 18 females and 19 males participated with 1 being in the behaviorist
treatment and 18 in the constructivist treatment. The means were very close with a slight
difference favoring the group taught using behaviorist-methods. See Table 1.
Table 1.
Mean composite scores for the completed origami piece using a scoring rubric based on size,
shape, and neatness, each scored on a 1-4 scale. Total composite score was on a 3 to 12 scale.
Behaviorist Based Constructivist Based
n Mean n Mean
Females 10 7.00 9 7.66
Males 8 8.12 10 6.20
Objective 1, Task Performance. The first objective was to compare the ability of the
students to perform a psychomotor task after being instructed using the two different approaches.
The result of the GLM ANOVA is shown in Table 2. After scoring the origami, both the
behaviorist- and constructivist-taught groups had little difference in the final product. The final
score was a composite of three scores on scales from one to four which looked at size, shape, and
neatness. The results were not significant and the null hypothesis regarding task performance
was not rejected.

183
Table 2.
Analysis of Variance for the composite scores on a completed origami piece representing a
linear psychomotor task taught using behaviorist-based versus constructivist-based instruction,
using a scoring rubric based on size, shape, and neatness with a 3 to 12 point scale.
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Probability
Corrected Model 19.201 3 6.40 .83 .487
Intercept 1927.30 1 1927.30 249.93 .000
Treatment 3.631 1 3.631 .471 .497
Gender .268 1 .268 .035 .853
Interaction 15.401 1 15.401 1.997 .167
Error 254.475 33 7.711
Total 2186.000 37
Corrected Total 273.676 36
R2
= .070, Adjusted R2
= -.014
Objective 2, Instruction Evaluation. Unfortunately, we failed to collect gender data on
the evaluation form and were unable to use that as a second independent variable. In addition,
one evaluation instrument was not usable. Using our sample, we computed a Cronbach’s alpha
the with a result of ∝ = 0.97. The treatment group means are shown in Table 3. The ANOVA
results showed a significant difference favoring the behaviorist teaching method. See Table 4.
Table 3.
Mean composite scores for the evaluation of instruction comparing two methods of instruction.
Total composite score was on a 9 to 36 point scale.
n Mean Standard Deviation
Behaviorist Based 18 23.50 4.315
Constructivist Based 18 16.11 11.146
Total 36 19.81 9.133
Table 4.
Analysis of Variance for the composite scores for the instructional evaluation comparing a
behaviorist-based and a constructivist-based instruction for a linear psychomotor task .
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Probability
Corrected Model 491.361 1 491.361 6.880 .013
Intercept 14121.361 1 14121.361 197.723 .000
Treatment 491.361 1 491.361 6.880 .013
Error 2428.278 34 71.420
Total 17041.000 36
Corrected Total 2919.639 35
R2
= .168, Adjusted R2
= -.144
Objective 3, Qualitative assessment. The subjects being taught the skill in a linear,
structured, behaviorist setting proceeded in an orderly manner. They followed the instructions
quietly and efficiently. They exhibited a very receptive manner. The subjects in the group-
centered, less structured, constructivist setting quickly became disruptive and surly. They were
unwilling to grapple with the problem-solving and group-based requirements of the task. The

184
room became very noisy and the subjects’ attention was clearly not focused on the task at hand.
Repeated trips to both rooms not only confirmed the initial reactions but increased divergence in
the reactions of the treatment groups continued throughout the experiment. The level of apparent
focus became progressively more intense with the behaviorist group and the level of noise and
expressed dissatisfaction became increasing intense with the constructivist group.
When we examined the written responses on the evaluation forms to identify themes, it
was clear that the students preferred the behaviorist method to the constructivist method.
Typical responses from the constructivist group included illustrate this conclusion:
“Give verbal instructions and demo.”
“I get too frustrated.”
“It was really hard [sigh] and if we had been taught it would have been better.”
These statements essentially describe the behaviorist method of teaching. Thus, even
though there was virtually no difference between the end origami products of the two groups, the
surveys still showed a preference for the traditional behaviorist teaching method.
Conclusions
Our group found no significant difference between the performances of behaviorism-
taught students and those taught using the constructivist approach. We conclude hat, based on
this experiment, using a select group of gifted students learning a linear psychomotor task is
done as efficiently and effectively by teacher-centered linear instruction and open-group, self-
directed instruction. Neither the behaviorist-based nor the constructivist-based approach offer an
advantage in terms of actual task performance in a short-term setting.
We did, however, determine that there is a significant and meaningful difference in the
subjects’ evaluation of the quality of the instruction between the two groups of students. The
students strongly preferred the instruction based on a teacher-centered, behaviorist approach over
the less structures, group-centered, self-instruction of the constructivist method.
In terms of the qualitative aspect of the study, the of students taught in the
constructivism-based room became very frustrated and responded with negative comments both
during the actual instruction and on the open-ended portion of the survey.
We found a strong preference among students for the teaching style based on behaviorist
concepts. On the student survey, the majority of people from the constructivism room responded
with negative comments explaining their frustration over the lack of formal teaching. We,
therefore, believe that behaviorist method provides a more organized learning environment,
which consequently produces better student satisfaction.

185
Discussion
Given the ambiguous outcome of this study on the actual task performance combined
with the strong preference for the behaviorism-based instruction method, our study provides
qualified support for the use of a behaviorist teaching style for linear psychomotor tasks.
A number of variables that may have affected the outcome of this study. The small
number of test subjects involved was a limitation. Different instructors presented the behaviorist
and constructivist instruction. Although the instructors did rehearse the task as well as the
instruction, it is inevitable that their presentations would be different. Finally, the reader should
consider the select nature of the population.
Further studies should be conducted to either refute or support the results from this one.
Future experimentation could also include using different psychomotor tasks and different
groups of test subjects such as elementary-school students or non-gifted high school students.
References
Borich, G. D. (2000). Effective teaching methods (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Chen, S. (1997). Origami. Retrieved July 15, 2002, from
http://dev.origami.com/diagram.cfm?CurrentPage=12.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Derbyshire, J. (1999). Observer: Forget about it – John Derbyshire. National Review, 51(18),
56.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom. New York: Longman Publishers.
Dobbins, T. R. (1999). Clinical experiences for agricultural teacher education programs in
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia
Doolittle, P. E. & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education
perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46.
Eisner, E. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan,
80(9), 658.
Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Faculty handbook. (2000). Retrieved July 29, 2002, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University Web site: http://www.provost.vt.edu/fhp/FHB-2000/fhb.html.

186
Gagne, R. M. (1975). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Hammonds, C. H. (1968). Teaching vocations. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, Inc.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and psychological measurement, 30, 607-610
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.
Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., & Warmbrod, J. R. (1993). Methods of teaching
agriculture (2nd ed.). Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, Inc.
Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D. & Crail, K. H. (1998). Psychological science of the crossroads.
American Scientist, 86(4), 310-314.
Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

A comparison of behaviorist and constructivist based teaching methods in psychomotor

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to A comparison of behaviorist and constructivist based teaching methods in psychomotor (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A comparison of behaviorist and constructivist based teaching methods in psychomotor