Stop "Watering Down" School: Shift from Behaviorism to Heutagogy
- Greg Mullen
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
A friend of mine is a professional writer and was lamenting how they are required to write out the names of organizations, rather than use acronyms, to avoid confusing their readers who may not know to check the start of the article for clarification of the acronym. It is common for an article to cite an organization's name, such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration, followed by the acronym for that organization in parentheses (i.e. "NASA"). Throughout the article, the use of the acronym would replace the long name of the organization for ease of reading. This practice, however, is considered an advanced writing skill that the layman reader who has received a general education is not expected to refer back to the start of the article for that initial reference for clarification as needed.
Most newspapers are written specifically for an audience with about a high-school level of reading knowledge and skill. This means that journalists often have to simplify their writing and avoid complex sentence structures or technical jargon to ensure their content is accessible to a broad audience. While this approach helps reach a wider readership, it also reflects a larger issue in modern compulsory education: the gap between the reading and analytical skills necessary for engaging with complex material and the skills that are actually taught in schools. This discrepancy is largely driven, though not entirely, by the focus on standardized testing and technical knowledge, which has historically narrowed the scope of education, limiting the development of advanced literacy and critical thinking skills in students.
Publications aim to make their content accessible to a broad audience and I believe this adjustment at the publication level speaks more about a failure in public education to develop the advanced literacy skills necessary for engaging with more sophisticated writing. It isn't that schools are not providing older students with opportunities to interact with more complex reading. What is happening is that the content with which students are being directed to engage often has little to do with their lives. Furthermore, they have little to no authority to decide how that narrow scope of knowledge and skills being taught applies to them and any goals they may or may not have been asked to consider as a purpose for that compulsory education.
This lack of student authority and responsibility for what, when, how, and why learning happens to them is rooted in a historical focus on behaviorist principles which developed around the same time as public schooling was becoming compulsory, around the start of the 20th century, all of which came out of the rise of the Industrial Revolution and its focus on strict systems-based oversight and accountability. This top-down perspective towards efficiency of systems saw people as cogs in a machine who could be externally controlled to perform, behaviorally and academically, to meet externally-set goals defining what is best for individuals based on what is best for the system in which they have been placed (e.g. age-based grade levels).
Unfortunately, this has caused a cyclical development which has led to the general public struggling with complex texts and compelling media outlets to “dumb down” how they communicate complex social issues. This article is not just about writing standards in media; it’s a direct critique on how an overemphasis on behaviorist pedagogical models and standardized testing has shaped education. These models measure technical skills in isolation, ignoring the sociocultural relevance of knowledge to students’ lives and communities. A shift toward heutagogical constructivism—a student-centered, self-directed approach to learning—offers a way to break this cycle by focusing on the development of critical thinking and advanced literacy, while also connecting learning to students’ lived experiences.
The Problem with Behaviorism and Standardized Testing
At the heart of this issue is the longstanding dominance of behaviorism in education. Behaviorism focuses on observable behaviors, emphasizing rote memorization and skill acquisition, and it often leads to teaching practices aimed at meeting the narrow, measurable outcomes of standardized assessments. These assessments prioritize technical knowledge and conformity, shaping the curriculum to teach students what to think rather than how to think.
The funding tied to standardized test scores further perpetuates this approach. Schools and districts that score well are rewarded with additional funding, which incentivizes teaching to the test and narrowing the focus to what is measurable. This leads to a curriculum driven primarily by technical content—basic math, vocabulary, and fact-based knowledge—while neglecting the broader, more complex aspects of education, like critical thinking, inquiry-based learning, and socio-cultural relevance.
This behaviorist, test-driven approach often leaves students ill-equipped to handle more complex, abstract concepts. They may be able to memorize facts or pass multiple-choice exams, and many may construct formal writing that follows a strict organization with an identified "style" or "voice" that appeases assigned test reviewers, but this often results in a lack of skills necessary to engage with documents that involve nuanced, technical ideas that have an immediate and long-term impact on their lives.
The Sociocultural Relevance of Knowledge: Where Education Fails
One of the most significant drawbacks of the behaviorist, test-centered model is that it neglects the sociocultural context in which students live. Every student brings a unique set of experiences, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds into the classroom, yet these aspects are often ignored in favor of a uniform curriculum that treats all students as though they share the same learning needs and experiences.
When students do not see how what they’re learning connects to their own lives or communities, does not align with goals students and their families have openly discussed, insisting that education will improve their lives without declaring by what authority improved lives are meant to look like, they are less likely to engage with the content in a meaningful way. Throughout a student's K-12 schooling career, their engagement with learning becomes a passive process where they absorb technical knowledge but are not encouraged to critically engage or apply that knowledge to their personal or social context in meaningful ways. Their capacity to use knowledge is not assessed by standardized assessments and, therefore, provides little insight into the effectiveness of the education thy are receiving.
As a result, students struggle to develop the complex skills required for advanced reading, writing, and thinking. Without exposure to real-world, contextually relevant material and opportunities to connect learning to their lived experiences, they are unlikely to build the capacity for engaging with sophisticated, nuanced writing. This lack of engagement, in turn, leads to a public that struggles to understand and critically analyze the complex ideas presented in higher-level texts, prompting media outlets to "water down" their writing in order to accommodate a broader, less skilled readership.
Heutagogy: A Shift Toward Self-Directed, Constructivist Learning
To address this problem, a shift from behaviorist models to heutagogical constructivism would be transformative. Heutagogy—an approach that emphasizes self-directed learning—focuses on fostering learners' autonomy, encouraging them to take control of their educational journeys, and connecting their learning to real-world contexts. This shift challenges the narrow focus on standardized assessments and encourages the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and advanced literacy.
In a heutagogical framework, students are not simply recipients of pre-determined knowledge. Instead, they are encouraged to ask questions, explore topics of interest, and engage with the material in a way that is personally and socially relevant. By taking ownership of their learning, students are more likely to see the value in acquiring complex skills, such as advanced reading, that go beyond the technical knowledge assessed by standardized tests.
This approach also connects knowledge to the sociocultural realities of students’ lives. Students are encouraged to explore how what they’re learning relates to the world around them, how it intersects with their identities, and how they can apply it in their communities. This connection between knowledge and context not only makes learning more engaging, but it also encourages deeper, more thoughtful engagement with complex material—skills that are critical for understanding sophisticated writing.
The Benefits of Heutagogy for Advancing Literacy
A heutagogical approach empowers students to engage with reading and writing at a higher level at all age ranges. By fostering critical thinking, creativity, and self-direction, students can develop the skills needed to understand and analyze complex texts. They are more likely to engage with sophisticated materials, such as academic articles, literature, and current affairs, because they see these texts as relevant to their lives, not as detached, abstract exercises.
A classroom that emphasizes heutagogy expects students to analyze, critique, and engage with real-world issues through their learning. Rather than memorizing isolated facts or preparing for a standardized test, students would be encouraged to think critically about their learning and how it connects to the world outside of the classroom. This would not only improve their reading and writing skills but also equip them with the tools to become active, informed citizens capable of engaging with complex ideas in a meaningful way.
Rethinking Standardized Assessments
Standardized assessment could still exist in a heutagogical constructivist framework to provide systemic oversight and accountability while moving beyond the existing technical focus of knowledge recall and reproduction. Instead of testing mere facts and procedures, assessments could focus on evaluating a student's ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world contexts that are meaningful to their lives and communities.
For example, in a social studies assessment, students could be asked to analyze a current community issue—such as local environmental challenges—and explain how they would use concepts from science, economics, and civic responsibility to propose solutions. Imagine a district-wide standardized assessment that looks for individual perspectives on collective concerns, assessing writing skills not in isolation but within the context of the entire response. The rubric could evaluate how well students understand the issue, apply relevant knowledge to propose practical solutions, think critically about the consequences of their actions, and demonstrate awareness of the sociocultural relevance of their ideas. By focusing on real-world applications, such an assessment would not only measure writing and analytical skills but also encourage students to engage with complex issues in a meaningful way, reflecting both individual and community needs.
This type of assessment would evaluate not only the student's knowledge of the subject matter but also their ability to integrate and apply that knowledge in a way that addresses real-world problems. By emphasizing practical application and relevance, these assessments would encourage critical thinking and problem-solving while ensuring that students can see the value of their learning in the context of their own lives and the needs of their communities.
Breaking the Cycle of “Dumbing Down”
The current cycle in which publications must “water down” their writing to accommodate a general readership is a direct consequence of an education system that prioritizes technical knowledge and narrowly defined skills. This system, shaped by behaviorist pedagogies and standardized assessments, ignores the sociocultural context of students’ lives and fails to develop the advanced reading and critical thinking skills necessary for engaging with complex ideas.
Shifting to a heutagogical approach to education—one that emphasizes self-directed, contextually relevant learning—offers a way to break this cycle. By prioritizing the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and advanced literacy, education can better prepare students to engage with complex writing and ideas. This shift not only enhances the quality of writing in the public sphere but also fosters a generation of learners capable of understanding and contributing to the complexities of the world around them.
Greg Mullen
April 9, 2025