The effectiveness of reinforcement in learning environments depends on the quality of social relationships

This weekend I read an interesting article In The New York Times, Students Learn From People They Love, that reminded me the discussion we had in the last class about the relevance of the social relationships in the modification of one’s behavior. As the title suggests, Brooks explain how emotions pervades the process of learning. Something that caught my attention from this article and could contribute to the explanation of why environmental changes are (sometimes) effective in modifying others’ behavior is the fact we can synchronize our brains (brainwaves) with others; this might affect our social behavior. I say sometimes because we tend to use the same rule to measure everyone regardless of their individual differences (their historical background), which is not correct from the perspective of operant learning. So, in line with this idea of synchronization, it is possible that ignoring students’ misbehaviors is effective for some cases not only because it corresponds to a change in the environment and, therefore, a modification in the contingencies of their behavior, but also because students share something (maybe values or interest) with their teachers. If students have a positive relationship with their teachers, they may easily synchronize themselves with their teachers and pay attention and care about things that their teachers value. This synchronization facilitates the co-regulation among the parties of the social relationship. So, when the teacher ignores the student’s misbehavior, the student might behave differently in order to synchronize herself with her teacher and, therefore, maintain a positive relationship with him.

Reflections on Behaviorism, Bandura and animal training for 2 year olds

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?  

   

The Hard way is usually the Correct way

Today's class picked up a little momentum, with us discussing punishment and bullying with some extremely lively examples that involved some pretend fist fights and loud, intentional singing that Michael explained how to 'subdue'. The main topic of contention today was similar to that of last class, but we tried to deconstruct it in a much more structured manner, having arrived to class after reading each other's posts. While most of us were skeptical about totally ignoring bullying or disruptions in a classroom setting, don't you all think that this skepticism arises from the notion that we've all been brought up being punished for our wrongdoings, and watching how others get sent to a corner, get asked to leave class, or get yelled at profusely if they did something questionable. Coming from a Catholic school, corporal punishment was pretty regular in my school setting. While this made me a little afraid of my teachers (especially my P.E. teachers who were extremely strict about haircuts and would snip students' hair off if it was long or shaggy) and made me think twice before doing anything 'wrong', did it make me respect them any more or learn better? Not really. I thought they were a bit extra, and did well in my tests only because I studied by myself and had good home tutors.

Skinner said that one shouldn't put fugitives in prison because it creates an atmosphere where their questionable acts are supported by other people who've done similar things. This is definitely a very bold statement, as the converse may just lead to them running amok. However, when we take this notion and apply it to a rogue student within a classroom, it might just be the way to deal with their questionable behavior. However, the flaw in behaviorism and operant learning lies in the fact that it is extremely hard to plan out and implement successfully. However, does anything easy really yield the best results? The hard thing is almost always the right thing to do. 

Take for instance an example from my work at the Ohio State University Childcare Center. 

We've been instructed as teaching assistants not to raise our voices or scold the pre-schoolers when they act up. What they want is our attention. We've observed that whenever there is a conflict, and a teacher is about to say something about the situation through confrontation, the kids pick up on these vibrations and immediately start to bawl uncontrollably and become totally unresponsive because they think they're in trouble and are going to get yelled at. They lose the sense of trust they have in us. However, if we distract them from what they are doing or say 'I think it's a good idea for you to move your body away from here', they take the cue right away. Mind you, this is an example involving mere 3 year olds. A college student is probably more likely to understand this better.

I really enjoyed listening to Kim and Arianna's stories from their own lives, and it reminded me of the times that my cousins and I would negotiate our strict nan's behavior through manipulation. We totally shamu'd her, and it worked. My grandma has always had an extremely strong personality, and she's from the 1920's. This made her extremely set in her ways, and totally critical and choleric about the post-modern era. She was a lovely lady, but she'd often lose her temper over really trivial things. We decided that we should brush it aside and be distant whenever this happened. If we reacted, she would yell back at us because, like Michael said there are some people who enjoy a good shout-fest, and she was one of them. I do miss my nana, but some of her idiosyncrasies were best dealt with by subtle avoidance.

I really think that we're getting somewhere with our class discussions in terms of having some shared purpose. I hope you guys do too. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Behaviorism and Gamification of Education

Spoiler alert: I'm probably going to talk about games in general a lot over this semester as they relate to self-efficacy. I apologize in advance.

In class we briefly discussed how video games use conditioning to encourage player behavior. Most video games, be it Flappy Bird or Fortnite or anything in-between, employ very similar methods of positive reinforcement to encourage player behavior. Players gain experience points (XP) depending on how much time they dedicate to playing and how much they improve in their game play, thus allowing them to "level up" to gain rewards. These rewards can include badges, access to new activities, cosmetic changes to the player's avatar, and many games have in-game currency that can either be earned by playing for significant amounts of time or paying real money to unlock certain features within the game itself.* Many games also reward simply logging in on a daily basis, and some of them punish the player missing a day by decreasing or withholding a reward until the next consecutive login. 

These types of reinforcement within the gaming industry have proven incredibly effective, as demonstrated by the dents in many people's wallets** and the rise in awareness of gaming addiction. These games are often seen as guilty pleasures; people recognize that being a level 102 player in Candy Crush may signify a lot of seemingly unproductive time, but it's enjoyable enough that they keep coming back to it (myself included). 

It isn't a stretch to see elements of game conditioning in education. After all, if it's so effective in keeping players engaged, why not students? Students complete tasks and spend time in school to receive good grades (experience points and badges). Students are required to attend classes daily and are punished for skipping in their participation grades (daily-login bonuses). Teachers may employ a special system in their classrooms to reward in-class behavior such as gold stars or points to be redeemed for classroom prizes (in-game currency). Teachers may also offer extra credit to allow the students to increase their grade and encourage them to explore class topics more thoroughly (side-quests). 

 Such activities are examples of gamification of education, whether that is the intent of educators or not. I posit that traditional meritocracy is simply systematic gamification of education, following the principles of behavioral conditioning. As we discussed in class, that is uncomfortable to admit, as it may seem to take the humanity and complexity out of learning and teaching that we cherish. However, as Sutherland discusses, keeping the "self" in mind through the process of teaching and learning allows us to acknowledge the complexity and variability of people back into the equation. Teachers should not only consider their students' individuality, motivation, and interest when it comes to their teaching method, but they should also reflect on their own desires for their students. If a teacher simply wants their student to pass their classes with scores that reflect well on the teacher, then it is easy to gamify their classroom in a way that keeps students superficially engaged. If instead they want their students to be deeply engaged and interested, then accounting for their “selves” may just be the way to do so. With this in mind, I’m excited to engage with the topic of self-efficacy for the semester.

* There has been significant controversy surrounding this topic for multiple reasons, a prominent one being that game developers will put special tools or abilities behind a paywall that will significantly boost game play in a way that is unfair in a competitive setting.
** This link is a fun little collection of stories of people spending too much money on otherwise "free" mobile games.

Stimulus and response

What impressed me most was when it seemed like that most people agreed with the claim that we do things because we expect to gain positive reinforcement from them. It sounds very animal but I am not able to set an argument against that, which could be the basic mechanism on which creature exists and survives. This is so prevalent in my living environment throughout my life. For example, if a child follows teacher's instruction and carry the tray back to the desired location after finishing lunch, teacher will praise them with lingual stimulus "You are doing so great", as a positive reinforcement. Oppositely, if a child rushes to other areas and plays with dolls or blocks, leaving the tray on the table, teacher might stop the child and asks him/her to do what teacher wants him/her to do. Being prevented from doing something could be a kind of negative reinforcement, and teacher's instruction and guidance could be shaping of behavior. This is an example given from behavioral perspective, where teacher plays a role in providing stimulus (token) and ends shaping or modification process by the appearance of expected behavior. Indeed, a similar scenario like this is everywhere, the effect we pose on individual's behavior is explicit and apparent.

However, it could be a bit deceptive and flurried when I tried to distinguish the reinforcement by purely behavioral or purely cognitive, or both. Individual's sensory stimulus, central connections and motor responses could be function factors which work on individual's cognitive, but that could emphasize on different part. For instance, you recite the information from the textbook and write the identical words from memory in the standardized exam. As a result, you got the ideal score and recognize that if you repeat the same test skills you can get similar positive reinforcement again. Taking test and writing process could be more behavioral, but learning method, thinking process, attitudes towards tests emphasize more on the cognitive part.

Additionally, when it comes about whether we should distinguish reinforcement by the positive side or the negative could be ambiguous, because different individuals have discrepant subjective feelings towards the similar feedback from the stimuli/teacher/event. Therefore, it might be hard to develop a consistent and objective reference standard on how to differentiate emotion and motivation strictly. If a stimuli such as money, food or praise could cause feeling of pleasure, thus it might be related to positive reinforcement. The revocation of aversive stimulus such as electric shock, criticism could trigger a sense of relief, so it would be related with negative reinforcement. However, when you remove the disgustful negative reinforcement, the process of releasing pain might appear along with the positive emotion, which is too complicated to define subjective experiences.

Ignoring sounds good in theory

I completely agree with Loretta's blog, especially her last paragraph about the differences between "incompatible behaviors" and more severe behaviors. It sounds really nice, in theory, to say that teachers should just ignore behaviors that they do not wish to see repeated and reward behaviors they wish to continue. In the real-world, as Loretta points out, this is simply not possible. If a student is bullying another student, physically or verbally, a teacher would be at-risk of losing their job if they simply ignored the behavior. Even with more mundane negative behaviors, like acting out in class, a teacher ignoring the behavior is not going to get it to stop. Even if the child is just looking for attention, they are getting that attention from the other 20 students in the class. Our discussion in class last week failed to consider real-world situations.

Further, in classroom situations, it is not possible to reward good behaviors consistently enough to change behaviors. For a student who acts out in class, yes a teacher can reward/praise that student when they are working quietly in their seat, but is the teacher supposed to do this every single time that behavior occurs? Again, we lost all context in our discussion last week. Even if we think more about animal training, if I want my dog to stop trying to eat poop whenever we go on a walk, behaviorists would suggest rewarding the times when he doesn't eat poop. Well, that's like 98% of the time; how can you reward consistent behavior effectively? Also, if he does start to eat it, correction is necessary, because by ignoring it, he's going to eat and get sick, possibly severely. You have to correct bad/harmful behaviors.

There's a reason that behaviorism and operant learning fell out of vogue and were replaced by other, more sophisticated learning theories; they are woefully inadequate to understand and change human behavior.

Action vs. reaction

While it seems we all agree on reinforcing desired behaviors, one topic from class involving the behavior of others has created two clear sides: we ignore behavior we don’t want to see or we address it. I, like Loretta and probably others, struggle with the idea of ignoring behaviors that are undesirable. Ignoring the fact, for example, that my boyfriend cannot seem to grasp the concept of washing both the inside and the outside of a dish will not change his behavior; he will just continue not washing the dishes correctly. Likewise, my pleas and instruction on doing the dishes better has also not produced results. What do you do when neither ignoring nor addressing the behavior seems to work?

As I began to read Shamu, I was still struggling with this. Sutherland in chapter three, however, points out how much self-reflection and self-control it takes to change the behavior of others. That led me to think that perhaps along the way, it becomes less about the behavior you seek to change and more about the self-discovery of why you wish to change that behavior in the first place. Is it more important that the behavior change or that our perception and understanding of the behavior, and therefore the subsequent impact it has on us, change? How much do we stand to gain if we altered our perspective in this way? Instead of blaming others for behaviors that bother us, we are taking ownership that the reason it is bothersome lies in our own prior experiences and our perceptions. Like Sutherland shared, after much introspection she stopped caring about her husband’s lost wallet and let the scene unfold without her interruption. What I took from this example is that not everything needs a reaction; sometimes we are better off being patient. In this day and age of constant communication, the inability to turn off, and instant gratification, however, this is not an easy task. If we seek behavior change, we have to employ conscious actions and not just reactions. While I still struggle with the idea of ignoring behaviors, Sutherland has provided some insight, or at least food for thought, about how we have to first train ourselves to be cognizant of our actions and reactions in order to positively impact our interactions with others.