Unit 2: Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a learning theory rooted in an objectivist epistemology, meaning that knowledge is assertive and focuses on evidence-based facts (Bates). Initially popularized in the early 1920s, behaviorism remains the dominant learning theory in the U.S. education system, military training, and in corporate development (Bates).
​
This theory dates back to Ivan Pavlov’s experiments on classical conditioning, when he conditioned dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell, which he associated with food. Throughout time, other researchers like Edward Thorndike, John B. Watson, and B.F. Skinner expanded on these foundations to develop operant conditioning. Today, behaviorism is defined by a change in observable behavior caused by external stimuli. It empowers educators to manage a student’s environment by associating specific actions with reinforcement, punishment, escape, or avoidance (Brau, Fox, Robinson). For example, a teacher may use positive reinforcement by awarding a “gold star” for correct answers and/or class participation, encouraging participation. Or they could enforce negative consequences, such as a “timeout” for disruptive behavior or no gold star for lack of participation, ultimately discouraging undesirable behavior (NU Editorial Contributors).
As a Learner Experience (LX) Analyst, behaviorism is a vital framework for building the logic required to interpret data and generate actionable insights. Because behaviorism necessitates that learning be observable, an instructional designer must ensure that learning objectives are equally measurable. This alignment is the foundation of key performance indicators (KPIs) in digital learning environments.
Specifically within higher education, the focus often narrows to whether a student successfully completes a course (i.e., passes a course, compared to failing or dropping). Trackable actions like viewing unit videos, engaging with supplementary content links, or answering quiz questions correctly are all trackable actions that can be used to gauge whether knowledge is mastered. In these situations, we do not account for internal cognitive or emotional variables that exist outside the observable interactions within the learning management system (LMS). The implication for behaviorism is clear: success will be defined by quantifiable performance metrics.
Implications for Learning Design
Strengths & Limitations
In my professional context of LX operations, behaviorism is necessary, yet it does not do a great job at providing the full picture, leaving many questions to be answered.
​
Strengths
One primary strength of behaviorism lies in its practicality and scalability. Because it relies on objective epistemology, it generates clean, quantitative data (e.g., logins, click-through rates, engagement) that can be analyzed at a visual scale of measurable impact. I understand why it is the primary foundation for the U.S. education and political systems. However, the U.S. is not the only country that uses behavioral analyses as the foundation for political policies. Many countries, like Canada, Vietnam, Denmark, Tanzania, and so on, use behaviorism to condition students and citizens to act accordingly – reinforcing punishment.
In Vietnam, behaviorism is deeply rooted in education, specifically its teaching paradigm (Quyen Le Nguyen). So much so that there is very little focus on if or how students gain or retain knowledge, as long as the student’s behavior is as expected. Behaviorism is very much a teacher-centered method used in the classroom, with heavy emphasis on reinforcement, repetition, and punishment (Quyen Le Nguyen). In addition, Singapore has utilized behaviorism in public policy to influence family planning through a system of external pressures and incentives (Guay).
​
Limitations
However, the limitations of behaviorism are significant, particularly when designing for complex human experiences. B.F. Skinner acknowledged that behaviorism often fails to consider the internal mental processes that underlie actions (Brau, Fox, Robinson). By focusing solely on the “output”, behaviorism oversimplifies complex human minds and disregards emotional and cognitive processing, which are essential for deep learning.
From my perspective, behaviorism is overly simplified and relied on. One reason is that conditioning can lead to avoidance or discouragement rather than true engagement. For example, if a student participates only to avoid a negative consequence or to gain a reward, the “learning” is transient and lacks intrinsic value. While behaviorism is the primary backbone for behavioral insights globally, it must be balanced with more holistic theories to ensure that we are not just training students to “act accordingly” but rather to understand, connect, and retain the knowledge they have acquired.
Bates, A. W. Teaching in a Digital Age : Guidelines for Teaching and Learning. Third ed., [Vancouver], [Tony Bates Associates Ltd], 2022. Accessed 16 Jan. 2026.
Brau, B., Fox, N., and Robinson, E.. Behaviorism. Education Research: Across Multiple Paradigms. 2022. https://open.byu.edu/education_research/behaviorismt.
Guay, Jennifer. “The 10 Governments Leading in Behavioural Science.” Apolitical, 1 Mar. 2019, apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/these-10-governments-are-leading-the-world-in-behavioural-science. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.
NU Editorial Contributors. “Behaviorism in Education: What Is Behavioral Learning Theory?” National University, 17 Aug. 2023, www.nu.edu/blog/behaviorism-in-education/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2026.
Quyen Le Nguyen. Problems with the Behaviorist-Centric Approach in the Current Vietnamese Education System and Related Alternatives. 14 Oct. 2023. Research Archive of Rising Scholars, doi.org/10.58445/rars.589, https://doi.org/10.58445/rars.589. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.