My perception of how students learn is informed by a combination of both behaviorism and social constructivism. Behaviorism states that all human behavior, learning included, is a product of conditioning via stimuli and response. This theory places the responsibility for student learning solely on the teacher, as he/she attempts to facilitate learning through manipulation of reinforcement and consequence in the classroom. Behaviorism will be evident in my classroom via my use of structured, teacher-led direct instruction lessons. Topics and skills (knowledge), that are given and absolute, black-and-white, are best taught in this manner as they leave little room for personal interpretation. Conversely, social constructivism states that the learner’s own past experiences, beliefs, attitudes, or prior knowledge inform learning, placing much of the responsibility for student learning on the students themselves.  This theory allows for the component of individuality in the learning process that is lacking in behaviorism. In order to incorporate both theories into the classroom, I will use a balance of aforementioned direct-instruction and collaborative learning groups. Much of what we learn falls in the gray area and is subjective in nature. For this reason, I believe it is important to allow for student dialogue on some topics. After teaching a lesson, I will allow for student input or interpretation via open discussion. Additionally, student reflection on the day’s activities during afternoon wrap-up will allow for student dialogue on how each child digested the day’s lessons differently. Though these theories may seem mutually exclusive, I hope that by melding the two together, taking primary responsibility for learning while also encouraging student accountability, the most progress will be made in my classroom.

        Behavior management in my classroom will be informed by behaviorism. Using behaviorism to inform my management, I will assume that all student behavior serves a function, and that it can be changed through teacher introduction of varied consequences, be they reinforcement or punishment. I plan to have medium-high control, relinquishing some control when open student dialogue is occurring. During teacher-led instruction, I expect student attention and will not tolerate much student noise/activity as this may distract others from the lesson. However, in student discussion, I will allow for moderate noise so long as all discussion is respectful and productive. By nature, teacher-led direct instruction will be highly structured and follow the “I do, you do, we do” model, while discussion will be less structured, with the main stipulations being the mandatory relation of discussion to the day’s topics and respect for everyone’s opinions. The goals of my social curriculum will be accountability, respect, and appreciation. I believe it is important to produce learners who are open to and respectful of the opinions of others, realizing that different life experiences produce unique lenses through which learning will take place.

        My adherence to a combination of behaviorist and social constructivist learning theories aligns with my beliefs about management as medium-high teacher control allows for both teacher and student responsibility in learning. I understand that students will contribute their own unique outlooks to the learning experience, and will allow for such input via student discussion and feedback with less teacher control. However, I also understand that in order to set the stage for such cooperative and dialogic learning, it is necessary to first provide quality instruction on the topic via highly structured, teacher-led lessons in the matter. During these lessons, I will use consequences to manage behavior and ensure student engagement while minimizing distraction.