In class, we discussed, “How do you discern experience-based behavior versus organic behavior.” I am considering a situation I observed Friday morning when subbing for a middle school math class. The teacher left “busywork” for students to complete during the class time. In the first period class, one student just could not focus… he was very restless and distracted and clearly not interested in the busy work. I observed the intervention specialist in the classroom try to encourage him, pleading with him to focus, and quit looking around the room and set small goals: “finish this first section and you can walk around the room” or “complete this page and you can go to the restroom.” But no amount of coercion, begging or threats made much of an impact in the amount he completed. Later in the day, I was told that he deals with severe ADHD and several learning disabilities. His classroom behavior was an organic behavior that required unique training and reinforcement. Alternatively, in second-period, a rambunctious sixth-grade boy, also not interested in doing his work, boldly distracted those around him for 10 minutes or so. At first, he did not respond to my gentle redirecting him to his work and moving him to a table by himself. However, when I mentioned a potential negative consequence (writing down his name for the teacher to deal with upon his return), the student quickly focused, completed his work, and was calm and respectful for the remainder of the class. This second scenario was experience-based behavior, which needed a different type of training than the boy in the first-period class.
In both previous scenarios, I do not believe either student felt that they could not do the work. The minimal work that the boy with ADHD was answered correctly. He did not struggle with concepts. The same is true of the rambunctious class clown in second-period. One had an organic behavioral issue and one was an experiential issue. In these circumstances, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that these students were trying to avoid their work because they felt they would not be successful. Perhaps the opposite was true for the second-period attention seeker… perhaps the worksheets were too easy and he was not motivated to do the mundane computations.
----------------
Reflecting on an article by Bandura article titled: “Self-Efficacy: a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Bandura shares a proposed model of learning, where expectations of personal efficacy are derived from four principal sources of information.
After leading a student ski club trip to Snow Trails Ski Resort last night, I am reflecting on these four principles, and I believe I observed each principle in varying forms:
1. Performance accomplishments(Increased success leads to increased self-efficacy). After strapping on my boots and securing my skis, my self-efficacy was quite low… not low enough to avoid skiing, but very cautious. I kept my self-talk positive, in hopes of creating a positive experience which would increase my self-efficacy. After a few cautious runs down the “green” (beginner level) hills, I moved up to the “blue” (intermediate) and finally to the “black” (advanced). The small, temporary patterns of success led to increased self-efficacy that I could stay upright, maneuver my skis around obstacles, control my speed and enjoy the thrill of the sport.
2. Vicarious Experience(The greater the perceived similarity to the role model, the greater the influence of the experience). Reflecting on my evening, I believe that watching my 14-year-old daughter repeatedly zooming down the black diamond hills encouraged my self-efficacy. I observed her, thinking “I’m just like her – if she can do it, so can I!”
3. Verbal Persuasion(learning depends on WHO the persuaders are, their credibility and their knowledge of the activity). The first hour of the trip, I hung out with the newbie skiers, as they took an introduction group lesson with the Snow Trails staff. The students were very responsive to the “expert” skiers, decorated in Snow Trails apparel. The verbal persuasion and knowledgeable advice by the expert staff proved instrumental in the beginner skiers building their self-efficacy.
4. Psychological Responses(Positive mood leads to increased self-efficacy, whereas melancholy mood leads to decreased self-efficacy). The boy in my first-period math class began his ski trip in a bad mood. He had a rough day at school and was in tears over his ski gear not fitting properly and dealing with the hour-long delay of renting proper fitting skis. Not able to find his buddies to ski with, he started his skiing experience off with a bad attitude. At the end of the night, he told me that he didn’t couldn’t understand why he didn’t ski well although he had skied many times before. Perhaps it was his poor mood that led to a decreased self-efficacy on the slopes.
----------------
As I close out this blog, my brain is wandering off in a different direction:
I’m sitting here in a Chick-fil-A, and I just observed a young mother trying to get her 2-year-old to walk over to her. The counting method she is loudly vocalizing to the entire restaurant is clearly not working. “One… Two… Riley, come here… One… Two…. I’m warning you… One… Two…” Little Riley just found herself a seat across the restaurant and sat down. I find myself wondering: “What would an animal trainer have done in this scenario?” Would an animal trainer have ignored the undesired behavior and waited for the girl to walk over to her mother, then rewarded her praise for finally doing the right thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment