Week Two: Behavioral Theories of Learning

Description

In Chapter 5, Slavin (2012) explains how we learn and how our behavior is shaped by our learning. The different behavioral theories are described, as well as the principles that make them up. I learned about different types of consequences and how to influence the behavior of someone, as well as how the social environment plays a role in behavior. 

Analysis

Slavin (2012) describes learning as “a change in an individual caused by experience” (p. 116), and this change can occur either intentionally or unintentionally. When attempting to determine how people learn, researchers came up with several different theories. One of these theories was developed by Ivan Pavlov, who based his findings off of his observations of dogs. From his observations, he concluded that some of our behaviors are simply involuntary reflexes to certain situations. However, when those are combined with a learned behavior, we react differently based on what we have learned. B.F. Skinner, another researcher, concluded that “reflexive behavior accounts for only a small proportion” (Slavin, 2012, p. 117) of our actions. He explained that operant conditioning , the idea that we adapt our behaviors based on the response we get after the behavior takes place. This is explained with the example of the rat and the food. When the rat learns that pressing the bar gets him a piece of food, he continually presses the bar. Thus, the reward influences his behavior. Thus, we gain the idea that our behavior is directly impacted by its consequences, whether good or bad. Consequences are either reinforcers, a consequence that strengthens behavior, or punishers, consequences that weaken behavior. Reinforcers can be either primary or secondary. Primary reinforcers appeal to our basic needs, while secondary reinforces require that the person sees the value in the item. Reinforces can also be categorized as either positive or negative, which are exactly what they sound like; a positive reinforcer is something positive, like grades, and a negative reinforcer is a reinforcer because we want to avoid it, like not having to take out the trash because you did all of your other chores. Another type of reinforcer, one that parents definitely use, is the Premark Principle, the idea that you must do one thing to get another. Some of us are intrinsically motivated to perform certain behaviors simply because we enjoy them, while the rest of us must be motivated to perform those behaviors. These are referred to as intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcers. If we have reinforcers, we must also have punishers. Presentation punishment is what we typically think of as punishment, a spanking, raises of your voice, etc. Removal punishment is removing something as punishment, like taking away television time, or sending a child to time out. Another important term to understand when it comes to behavior is shaping. Shaping requires that someone provides consistent, gradual reinforcement to a child attempting to learn a new behavior. For example, my child is potty training right now. I have to help him gradually along the way, not just yell at him for not getting it the first time. 

Another thing that helps shape behavior is how often reinforcement is given, which is termed the schedule of reinforcement. Of course, this schedule can and usually should be modified as the behavior changes. The fixed-ratio schedule is when a reinforcement is given after a certain number of behaviors. There is no timetable for this behaviors, and the number should gradually be changed (probably increased). A variable-ratio schedule is more unpredictable. An example of this would be calling on students in class; it is random. A fixed-interval schedule is only available at distinct times, like at the end of a year (a final exam). Lastly, a variable-interval schedule is only available sometimes, like when we are driving or when we are working on a class assignment. In some cases, the consequences can be removed and the behavior will remain changed. In addition, they will hopefully be able to apply the learned behaviors to other situations (called generalization). 

From the behavioral learning theory grew the social learning theory, which emphasizes “the effects of thought on action and action on thought” (Slavin, 2012, p. 132). Albert Bandura added to our view of behavior that we often model our behavior after others. His term observational learning consists of four phases: attention, retention, reproduction, and the motivational phase. 

Reflection

As a teacher, it is very important to understand behavior and how to shape it. It is also important to understand the background of the kids in the class, as how the teacher shapes behavior and how the parent shapes behavior can sometimes be very different. One thing left out of the chapter that I think is true is that people respond to consequences, whether positive or negative, very differently. Now, a lot of that may be learned, but it is probably learned before the student gets to my class. The story at the beginning of the chapter is something that really resonated with me because I know I am guilty of doing this (self-regulated learning!). As a teacher, it is so difficult to not get frustrated with a student and call him/her out in front of the class. However, in many cases, I am giving that disruptor exactly what he/she wants: attention. This is not wise on my part, and the research proves that I am actually encouraging the behavior for both that student and for other students. Too often the “good” students get no attention. I need to do a better job of praising the good rather than criticizing the bad. It is interesting and good practice to think about the different types of reinforcers, and I think I can do a better job of giving reinforcers periodically. This will also hopefully help the students doing positive things model the behavior for the other students. 

As educators, we are all guilty of giving too many punishers and not enough reinforcers. I think it is just human nature, and it is the way many of us were raised. With the major swing toward positive reinforcement in our schools, I think we are on the right track to make our learning environments more positive. I do, however, think it is sometimes necessary to use punishers. The mistake we make is using them in front of other students and not explaining why it they are receiving the punishment. 

References:
Slavin, Robert E. (2012). Educational Psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week One: Cognitive, Language, and Literacy Development

Description:

It has long been debated how children develop cognitively: is it through experience, or does it occur in stages? Is it determined at birth, or is it determined by experience? Jean Piaget and Lev Semionovich Vygotsky each have a theory that helps us understand how our students may develop.

Analysis:

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests that children develop in four chronological stages, and that each child must pass through each stage, though children will pass through them at different rates. The first of Piaget’s stages, the sensorimotor stage, occurs from birth until approximately two years of age. Babies this age advance from mere reflexes to a “trial-and-error approach” and then to “a more planned approach to problem solving” (Slavin, 2012, p. 33). During this stage, children also learn that things are present even though they are not seen. Around age 2, Piaget argued that children progress into the preoperational stage. At this stage, “children have greater ability to think about things and can use symbols to mentally represent objects” (Slavin, 2012, p. 34). During this stage, children develop the cognitive ability to understand reversibility, and they become egocentric, meaning that they “believe that everyone sees the world exactly as they do” (Slavin, 2012, p. 34). However, children still cannot focus on more than one thing at a time (call centration) and do not understand the principle of conservation. For example, the same amount of liquid poured into different-sized containers does not appear the same to children in this stage. Around the age of seven, children move into the concrete operational stage. Here, children become “very much rooted in the world as it is and have difficulty with abstract thought” (pg. 36). At this stage, children are able to “form concepts, see relationships, and solve problems” given that the objects they are working with are familiar to them. During this stage, children are “able to respond to inferred reality, seeing things in the context of other meanings” (Slavin, 2012, p. 36) and arrange things logically. Around the age of 11, children will enter the last of the four stages, the formal operational stage. This stage lasts until adulthood, and it is during this stage that people learn “the ability to deal with potential or hypothetical situations” (Slavin, 2012, p. 37).  As a teacher, it is important to remember that, according to Piaget, not all students can cognitively complete the same tasks. Paget’s theory does not come without its share of criticism. While Piaget asserted that the “developmental stages were largely fixed and that such concepts as conversation could not be taught,” many researchers have debunked his theory (Slavin, 2012, p. 38). Researchers have shown that some students can in fact reach these stages at an earlier age, and they argue that “children’s skills develop in different ways on different tasks and that their experience can have a strong a strong influence on the pace of development (Slavin, 2012, p. 39).

                

While Piaget believed that environment played only a small part of the development process, Russian psychologist Lev Semionovich Vygotsky believed that “intellectual development can be understood only in terms of the historical and cultural contexts children experience” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Vygotsky also believed that the signs in one’s culture assist in their development (Slavin, 2012). Whereas Piaget argued that development precedes learning, Vygotsky’s “theory suggests that learning precedes development” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Like Piaget, Vygotsky broke down his theory into stages. In the first stage of development, children learn that “actions and sounds have meaning” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Eventually, children learn self-regulation, the ability to use these meanings to think for themselves. Next, children practice and, then, begin to use the signs “to think and solve problems without the help of others” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Instead of first reaching the proper stage to master communication, Vygotsky asserted that children first “mastering cultural communication systems and then learning to use these systems to regulate our own thought processes” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). For Vygotsky’s theory,  children should be able to work with others to complete a task before completing it individually; he termed this the zone of proximal development. He also favored the idea of scaffolding and cooperative learning environments, arguing that children can work together and accomplish a task collaboratively before accomplishing the same task autonomously.

Regardless of the theory one subscribes to, there is no question that language and literacy development for children is essential to their success. Slavin (2012) states, “Development of language and literacy is a key objective to teaching” (p. 44).

Reflection:

After completing the reading and thinking about my experiences, I have conflicting views on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Rather than subscribing completely to one or the other, I tend to think that we develop as a result of a mixture of both theories. I agree with Piaget that children must have a certain cognitive capacity to perform some tasks. For example, there are simply some things that my 2-year-old cannot grasp, no matter how much I teach him. I also agree with Piaget that these abilities come at different times for everyone; no two people are created alike. However, I find myself agreeing with Vygotsky’s notions that our environment helps develop some of our abilities. I definitely think that the situations in which I put my 2-year-old help him develop at a faster speed. For example, he goes to a babysitter each day with children who are 3 and 4 years old. My nephew, who is only a few weeks younger than my son, goes to a daycare with children his exact age. My son speaks in 4 word sentences while my nephew speaks in sentences of mostly 2 words. Now, my nephew is also already potty-trained, and my son is not even close to being potty-trained. The difference? My nephew has an older brother, and he watches him. I don’t think that one of the two is smarter than the other or at a different cognitive stage; I simply think they are observant and imitate what they see. However, neither of them could solve a math problem at this stage no matter how much they tried; they simply aren’t at the stage of development.

I do think that teachers should use these theories to help them better understand the children in their classrooms. However, I can see that it may be a problem if a teacher subscribes or strongly believes in one of the theories over the other. Sometimes, belief in something that is too strong, no matter what it is, can have negative effects. Since I teach high school kids, these concepts don’t really impact how I run my classroom. All of my students are fully developed cognitively by the time they reach me, even though they are still developing skills for sure. If I have a student not grasping a certain skill, this information would help me think back to how the student thinks, and this may help me better understand him/her.

These ideas definitely make me think about early education a little differently. While I had heard of these concepts prior to this reading, I didn’t know about them in depth. No matter which theory one subscribes to, I think we can all agree with many of Slavin’s ideas at the end of the chapter on the importance of language and literacy. There is no doubt that parents play an integral role in the cognitive development of children; they must talk to them and read to them early and often.

Reference:

Slavin, Robert E. (2012). Educational Psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.