In a children's book entitled Math Curse the teacher, Mrs. Fibonacci, announces to the class, "You know, you can think of almost anything as a math problem." From that point on the protagonist sees a math problem in everything she does. Such has been the case for me since the beginning of the semester when I began exploring the ideas of Skinner and Gagne. Everytime I turn around I find myself trying to apply Skinner's analysis of behavior and Gagne's principles of instruction. Thus far, I have concluded that neither of the theorists sufficiently describe learning processes as they would claim that they do. This is not to say that they do not work. Indeed they can. However, there are fundamental underlying weaknesses which if unrecognized or neglected can actually undermine learning. In the last few weeks I have been able to identify examples in my life and practice setting which I believe highlight some of the deficiencies. Likewise, I have seen instances where carefully applied the theories become useful tools. Although I believe the two approaches are closely linked in the interest of

Where Skinner's radical behaviorism oversimplifies learning by ignoring the human mind, Gagne's taxonomy of learning outcomes and principles of instruction oversimplify the learning process by overprescribing. Gagne categorizes all types of knowledge into distinct learning outcomes. Presumably one can identify the learning outcome for any specific objective given that the objective has been will defined. Instruction can then be planned systematically based on the type of learning outcome that one identifies.

Unfortunately, (for Gagne!) I find that it is difficult to identify a single learning outcome for an objective. For instance, in the hospital where I am a pharmacist we have an objective: to see that the patient receives the correct medication. A behavioral objective could be written: given any medication order, process the order to assure that the correct medication is available for the patient with the next delivery. New employees must be able to achieve this objective after a specified time period. So I try to identify the type of learning outcome. Technically, processing the order would include typing the order into the computer, picking the medication up from the pharmacy, and delivering it to the patient's nurse. These are motor skills. However, to obtain the correct medication specific patient information such as indication for drug therapy, concurrent drug therapy, risk for side effects, reported allergies, and coexisting medical condition would have to be considered to determine if the ordered drug is an appropriate choice for the patient. The ordered drug would also be compared to other drugs of the same therapeutic class to evaluate whether the ordered drug is the optimal choice in the given situation. To accomplish these parts of the process, one must apply defined concepts, rules, and higher order rules, i.e., intellectual skills in Gagne's terms. To select the correct medication one must be able to identify and discriminate. These are also intellectual skills: discrimination and concrete concepts. Finally, one could certainly argue that attitude is an important component since concern for the patient , interest in being a responsible health care provider, and the desire to do a good job can all impact the extent to which an order is processed correctly. All of these different types of knowledge are being employed somewhat simultaneously, not independently and not necessarily hierarchically. What is the danger? Suppose I decide that the predominate learning outcome of the objective is motor skills. I plan instruction based on the appropriate conditions of learning for motor skills. If I am successful in the end the learner will be able to process a medication order for a patient to the extent that exactly what the doctor ordered is obtained. However, that may be very different than what is really appropriate for the patient. Important components of the process have been neglected. On the other hand, perhaps I decide on intellectuals skills as the learning outcome. In this scenario, the best drug is ultimately chosen for the patient, but since the order is incorrectly entered into the computer, the wrong drug is obtained. Consequently, requiring instruction to be built around a single learning outcome runs the risk of overlooking important aspects of the objective which may as a result weaken the learning experience and deter successful completion of the objective when encountered in reality.
Admittedly, I have looked at a complex objective. Yet even if I take one component of the objective-keyboarding skills-I still see multiple learning outcomes: motor skills (hitting the keys), intellectual skills (discriminating between keys), and cognitive strategies (developing a strategy for committing the location to memory).

The hierarchical nature of knowledge as described by Gagne is also questionable when examined using this example. To address the I thought I might be able to reconcile the problem of multiple learning outcomes by considering some of the knowledge as entry level behaviors on which to build. Immediately, I saw that was inconsistent with reality. Certainly one can be proficient on the pharmacy computer system without ever knowing the purpose of a single drug therapy. Similarly, knowledge of drug therapy can exist without knowledge of the pharmacy system. By planning instruction based on the preconceived ideas of the instructor , the knowledge the student actually brings to the experience is trivialized.

Despite the weaknesses, I do see that Gagne's principles can be useful in some situations. At the very least Gagne forces you to be organized. Gagne forces you to plan ahead. Gagne's principles may be most useful from whence they came-training. Frequently, the pharmacists where I work are required to implement new drug-related patient care programs. Generally, time for instruction is extremely limited, focus is very narrow, incentives are rare, and performance expectations (from management) quite high. In this case, instructional objectives seem to have a helpful role. Their intent is not to foster extensive study of a given topic, stimulate lively debate over a drug therapy, or encourage the development of new, alternate approaches to patient care. Whether or not this is desirable in the long run is certainly debatable but it does produce immediate results. The objectives can establish a reference point for minimal competency. In this setting the reference point has many practical implications. Gagne's nine events of instruction help to organize material an use time efficiently.

However, in my future as an elementary school teacher, I struggle to see an appropriate application from Gagne's perspective. Certainly, many of the nine events of instruction can be important parts of a learning environment, but clearly in a different context. To me, the problem with Gagne reaches beyond the specific weaknesses I have highlighted to the underlying assumptions. Gagne's model is based on the assumption that knowledge is fixed, that knowledge resides outside the learner, namely , in the teacher, and that learning occurs if instruction has occurred "properly". I find all of these assumptions incongruent with my notion of my role in creating an environment where kids might learn.
Returning to the protagonist in the Math Curse we see that, for a while at least, she "lives" math. She sees that she needs math to figure out how much time she has to get ready for school, how much she saves on her candybar that is on sale, and how to equally share a batch of cupcakes with the whole class. Before long she learns math. Why? She found a purpose for math in her life.

Likewise, I see Gagne, Skinner, and others here and there. I think about their application. I look for meaning relevant to my experiences and needs: past, present, and/or future. I observe contradictions and confirmations. I don't know it all and I may even reconsider my positions somewhere down the line, but I'm learning.

Postscript: Something to explore further--Originally this paper included a couple of pages of discussion outlining ideas (vaguely) contrary to Skinner. I deleted them in the interest of space. Nonetheless, I was disturbed by my intense objections to the application of Skinner to learning/teaching knowledge. It has been my frequent experience that when I strongly oppose something that I know little about there is more truth to it than I'm willing to admit. I decided to do some further investigating and began to read Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Somewhere in the beginning of that book Skinner says that it is "human nature" (or maybe that it is "natural") to resist his explanations of behavior as the foundation of learning. The mere suggestion of a human nature seems like a contradiction to some of his assumptions. Yet I must be missing something. How does a theory become such a powerful force in spite of major flaws? . . . .