Sarah BennettEDUF 7130 Dr. Chambers Fall 2011Exam 1

1. Choose one of the three major epistemological traditions discussed in Chapter 1, and briefly discuss in your own words its position on the nature of reality and knowledge. What implications would this perspective have in terms of learning and instructional goals? In other words, imagine you are a firm believer in this theoretical viewpoint: how do you think this perspective might impact your instructional objectives as a teacher (or manager or administrator or counselor)? What learning objectives would you develop for your learners, based on this perspective? Explain with a specific example. (4 pts—roughly 1 page or less)

A few classes back, I read an Engel and Randall study, which was based on an

experimental research design, where children were asked to do a science experiment with

a teacher. The ultimate observation was whether or not the teacher allowed the student to

deviate from the task by asking questions, adding new steps to the experiment, and so on.

Of the thirty or so teachers that were observed, a couple of them surprisingly did not

allow any deviation in the experiment at all.

While this was not a study of the epistemological traditions these teachers

followed during instruction, while studying objectivism, I was reminded of the responses

these teachers had to their students. Because objectivists believe that reality and

knowledge is absolute, I tend to think that these teachers felt that the students should stick

to the experiment, because the results they receive are the absolute truth. There is no

room for variation, because the laws of physics, in this case, will rule the experiment and

in turn, the outcome. When students deviate from teachers that follow this tradition, they

are impacted by the teacher’s instructional objective and may be rerouted back to the

task, because they must realize the truth of the experiment.

The learning objectives that these teachers expected of their students are that they

will gain knowledge through experience. While deviating from the task will improve

their knowledge, I felt that in this case, if the teacher could not explain the truth behind

the experiment, they best avoid it all together and stick to the reality they know. In this

restricted environment, the teachers were unable to certify the truth of the experiment

beyond the information the researchers provided. The result was that students were kept

from actually experimenting. The teachers that allowed deviation, on the other hand,

were more open to changing their frame of reference, as seen in an interpretivist tradition.

2) Choose a topic related to education and/or your own profession and give a detailed original example (i.e., not one that was discussed in the text or by another student) of how the principles of classical conditioning (not operant conditioning), developed by Pavlov and Watson, could be utilized effectively (i.e., assume you are the “instructor” in this learning situation). Be sure to include in your example a brief explanation of how each of the 4 components of classical conditioning would play a role, identifying these components in your example. Note: if you posted something similar in one of your reflective posts, it is OK to use the same example for this response. (4 pts—roughly 1 page)

In my post, I referred to test anxiety, and how because students are conditioned

from an early age to fear tests such as the SAT, they will often go through life fearing all

tests, regardless of their actual need to be fearful. As part of my job, I am responsible for

proctoring placement exams to new students. In order to allow students to alleviate the

stress they feel prior to the test, I will first explain why it is they have this fear.

In the first stage of classical conditioning, the student is exposed to a stimulus

from the environment; in this case, a third grade math test is placed on their desk. This

test is the unconditioned stimulus. Automatically the result is fear, or the unconditioned

response. Because of the emphasis placed on this test (I’m thinking of the timed

multiplication tests I had in school) the automatic response to the test is fear. Now, and

throughout life, every time I hear the word test and the same goes for many of my

students, fear is provoked, even if it should not be. The conditioned stimulus, which is

the placement test, which originally would have been neutral- for there is no reason to

fear this test, provokes a conditioned response, which is anxiety.

As an administrator, I must try to alleviate this anxiety in order to get accurate

results on the test. What a student needs to realize is that regardless of the test results,

they are getting into our college. The test is just analyzing what they already know.

There should be no fear; there is no such thing as failing, as there was on that third grade

multiplication test. One way I can ensure that I get accurate results is by counter

conditioning the learned or conditioned response. This has to be done over a period of

time, but at least I can initiate the process in hopes of reconditioning a student’s view of

tests. If I say- “here’s a test, but it is not really a test; it is fun and easy,” which would be

a positive unconditioned stimulus, and then give them the test, or conditioned stimulus, I

would hope that the result would a positive response (conditioned response) to the word

test. If instructors were to associate fun things with tests, I believe there would be less

anxiety, and in turn more accurate results of student’s knowledge.

3) Consider the following situation:

15-year-old Hunter constantly misbehaves in class. There is not a day that goes by when he is not up out of his seat goofing off, or making crude jokes in response to Ms. Jacobsen’s questions and comments, etc. On Tuesday, Hunter gets up to “sharpen his pencil” and goes over to the windowsill where the sharpener is. Well, when Ms. Jacobsen looks up for a moment, he is caught throwing books out the 3rd floor window at the students walking outside, hitting one of the students and injuring her. This is the last straw. Ms. Jacobsen sends Hunter to the principal’s office and he is promptly suspended

from school for 2 days. When Hunter returns on Friday, Ms. Jacobsen asks Hunter whether he is ready to “act like a decent young man should”…. he responds that he is, although it is clear from the tone of his voice that his attitude has not changed. Later that day, as Ms. Jacobsen turns to write on the chalkboard, Hunter lights off a firecracker in the middle of class. Once again he is punished for this serious offense with another 2 day suspension.

a) Analyze this situation in terms of behaviorist principles of operant conditioning. What is causing Hunter’s behavior to persist, in spite of the harsh punishments? *Be sure to use specific components/assumptions/arguments from operant conditioning in explaining Hunter’s behavior. (3 pts—roughly ½ page or less)

First, this situation sounds vaguely familiar, Dr. Chambers! Hunter’s behavior is

continuing because he probably enjoys not only the attention, but two days out of school.

The teacher is trying to decrease his behavior by using punishment, and removing class

time. In reality, she is positively reinforcing his behavior. He enjoys being out of school

because he can watch MTV and rob the local convenience store. The consequence is that

he will continue to act out because his suspension is added (positive) to make the

behavior more likely to happen (reinforcement.)

b) Develop a specific plan for behavior modification for Hunter, to help get him back on track. Be sure to go step-by-step through the 5 steps of behavior modification discussed in the text, and include in your response examples of at least three of the following operant conditioning concepts: shaping, chaining, discrimination learning, negative reinforcement, response cost, punishment (either presentation or removal) and/or extinction. Be very specific about the behavior that you are going to change/modify, and/or the behavior(s) that you will attempt to train and maintain. Once the new behavior is learned, be sure to discuss specifically how you will maintain the behavior in terms of the type of reinforcement schedule utilized (noting why you chose this particular reinforcement schedule). (8 pts—roughly 2 pages)

In order to end Hunter’s behavior, the teacher must realize that suspension is not

what he needs to change this behavior. Step one in planning behavior modification is

setting a behavioral goal. The first goal is getting Hunter to stop being destructive in

class and the second goal is for Ms. Jacobsen to find a more realistic punishment. She is

not doing enough to control her classroom, while he is doing too much to disturb it. The

classroom must be observed to better identify the triggers of Hunter’s behavior, at which

time realistic intervention can be identified. So, maybe Ms. Jacobsen can set a realistic

goal of reducing Hunter’s joking and crude behavior, while she can try alternative

methods of punishment, reinforcement or even trying to teach him new behavior.

The second step in this plan is to determine appropriate reinforcers. One thing

Ms. Jacobsen may want to consider is using a response cost. By leaving Hunter in the

classroom and removing something she has given him, he may be less likely to act out.

In order for this “fine” to be retracted, she must determine how to reward him for good

behavior. If he goes from morning until lunch without offending another student, he will

receive a conditioned reinforcer, such as play money to buy a pass for ten extra points on

a final exam from her class store. If he does not make it to lunch, she will use a response

cost to make him pay back the money he has earned due to his bad behavior. While this

may be more likely to work for younger students, I must first say that his mentality seems

like that of a younger student. If there is no recourse, Ms. Jacobsen and Hunter’s

classmates could try praising him for good behavior, a form of social reinforcement.

These steps will also be helping Ms. Jacobsen change her behaviors of awarding

repercussions for Hunter’s behavior that are not working.

Step three is selecting procedures for changing behaviors. Ms. Jacobsen must

weigh how quickly she needs a response from Hunter, and how it will affect her other

students. If response cost does not work, and his behavior is not reduced, she may want

to consider extinction, and completely ignore him, however this may cause further chaos

in the class, and more people getting hurt should it not work. While I think trying to

teach Hunter new behaviors could force her to take time from other students, I feel the

most appropriate behavior management principle that Ms. Jacobsen can use is to continue

to use punishment, but adjust her means of doing so. Since she was providing him with

what was meant to be a punishment, but rather was a reward, she can use what he does

not like to reinforce good behavior. Let’s say Hunter likes attention and hates writing

assignments. Ms. Jacobsen could exempt Hunter from an additional assignment for good

behavior, which would be negative reinforcement, or Hunter could be rewarded with a

daily Hunter joke time each day before class ends if he refrains from jokes all day, which

would be positive reinforcement.

The fourth step is implementing procedures and recording results. Ms. Jacobsen

needs to set a start date and observe Hunter’s behavior. In order to see accurate results,

she needs to make notes on the frequency, triggers and times that he acts out. This leads

to the final step, evaluating his progress and making revisions. If Hunter’s bad actions

were reduced because Ms. Jacobsen was able to teach him new and better behavior, she

needs to set a response pattern in order to maintain this new, good behavior. After all, it

is an experiment.

Since this is behavior modification, I would suggest either a fixed or variable ratio

reinforcement schedule. Having an interval schedule would not be as productive, as it is

reaching good behavior Ms. Jacobsen is rewarding, and because his behavior is

unpredictable, there is not a fixed time that she would either regularly or irregularly want

to reward him. A fixed ratio schedule would provide regular reinforcement. Every day

that Hunter is good, he tells a clean joke. Every day he tells a clean joke, he is awarded

the opportunity to do it again the following day based on his behavior on that coming

day. The consistent reward will keep Hunter on his feet for awhile, and allow him an

outlet for his need for attention. After a while, a variable ratio schedule may be needed.

Based on Hunter’s good behavior, he could irregularly exempt writing assignments, not

all of them, but for continuous good behavior, he is every now and again exempt. Of

course he could not exempt all writing assignments, but if he did not know when to

expect the reward, he could be more likely to steadily act like an adult, which is Ms.

Jacobsen’s ultimate goal. Hopefully by this point all goals will be reached; Ms. Jacobsen

has changed her behavior and found new ways to deal with Hunter, and Hunter has

stopped being disruptive and destructive.

4) Imagine you are in a position of assisting someone in a “learning situation” in your own profession (i.e., counseling, teaching, recruiting, coaching, serving as an administrator, etc.). Develop an original example, based on Atkinson and Shiffrin’s model of cognitive information processing, where you describe precisely what is being learned and how you will assist the learner in remembering the information. Be sure to briefly describe the characteristics (i.e., capacity, duration) of each of the three memory structures, as well as the important cognitive processes involved in moving information from one memory structure to the next, within the context of your example. Also, be sure to also include in your response accurate examples of all of the following information processing concepts: automaticity, encoding, chunking, metacognition, and interference (as it relates to forgetting). Please note that all parts of this response should be in essay format. (10 pts—roughly 2 pages)

As a recruiter, I must consistently tell prospective students about the programs

available to them and our admission process. According to Atkinson and Shiffrin’s three

store model of memory, the cognitive information that I relay to these individuals is

processed through three stages before it is embedded in their memory. The first stage,

sensory memory, is primarily visual and auditory and holds a huge amount of data, while

only for a fraction of a second. Standing before a display with pictures and program

descriptions, I welcome prospective students and give them an overview of our school. I

can immediately see that automaticity is occurring in most of them, or the habitual

implementation of doing something from memory, as the potential students are already

filling out an information card and pocketing free giveaways. It is habit to them, to

without even thinking to grab free items and fill out a card that says “fill me out.” Often

it is second nature, as it is obvious to me they have no idea of what they are signing up.

There is one gentleman in particular that I will use as reference. Of all of the things that I

say to him, maybe a few words will stick, in this case “welding, salary and job security.”

They sparked his interest into wanting to learn more. Generally having selective

attention, a small amount of information from my presentation is routed from any

prospective student’s sensory memory to their short term or working memory.

This is the second stage, working memory, which is small and only holds

approximately five to seven items at a time. The potential student could not recall the

number of programs we have or my name, but the words “welding, salary and job

security” passed into this stage because of encoding, which linked these thoughts to

something more memorable. “My father was a welder; I have to have a salary in excess

of $30,000, my wife says, to afford our mortgage; and I have always been told by the

media that welding is a field that is versatile and has good job security.” These are all

things that triggered his memory and allowed him to encode those four words with what I

was relaying to him.

In order to remember these four words so that he may ask me specific questions

regarding them, the potential student can apply a process called chunking, which will

transfer the information from working memory to long term memory. By chunking, the

student will say “WS JS” in their mind, which refer to “welding, salary and job security,”

but also happen to be the initials of his two son’s names. Thanks to chunking and

encoding, the information is moving along into the third store, long term memory, where

it should stay forever.

Now that he has told me his three concerns, I know the information has been

transferred to his long term memory, and I can proceed with the next set of information-

the admission process. Without that, he will never know what to do with the four words

or ideas that have sunk into the third store. Since this is an older gentleman that I refer to

in this example, he is a perfect example of metacognition. I say to him, “I may want to

write this down for you,” but at the same time, since he appears to be very aware of his

memorization capabilities, he reaches into his pocket for a tablet and pencil to take notes.

As I begin to tell him the admissions process, he jots it down, step by step.

As I watch him take notes I am fearful of interference, which causes forgetting. I

see that he is very interested in our welding program, but I am afraid that the four words

that made him interested in our program, “welding, salary and job security,” may be the

words that interfere with the new information he must process on admission to the

college. He must be responsible for recounting all of the information, so I make note to

call and remind him of the admission material he needs a few days later. One week later,

and since I have the information card that he willfully filled out, out of habit, or

automaticity at the beginning of my presentation, I have the means to follow up with him

and remind him of the deadlines fast approaching. He remembers to collect the

information, comes in and applies, is registered for classes, and success, we have one

more student, thanks to Atkinson and Shiffrin’s three store model of memory.

5) Briefly discuss at least two of the concepts/arguments/research findings from the extra reading on the “The Mind’s Journey” that you found particularly interesting. What exactly is involved in the “journey from novice to expert,” in terms of specific cognitive processes? What implications do these concepts have for “best practices” in the learning environment? Explain. (5 pts—roughly 1 page)

About a week ago, my fiancé and I were atop a Ferris Wheel at Wild Adventures,

and I said to him, “would you vote for a president that was an expert chess player, in

hopes that his strategies in foreign policy are as accurate as his strategies in chess?”

Thank goodness he said no, but I then explained the article “The Mind’s Journey,” as it

related to the journey to becoming an expert in whatever your heart’s desire. Based on

the research of psychologists and scientists in the 1950’s, they found that they could

relate humans to computers, and all it takes is the knowledge of how humans solve

problems to advance from novice to expert. This theory can then be related to reading

comprehension, chess playing, tic-tac-toe, or even physics. During the study, the

researchers analyzed people thinking aloud to determine the differences in the minds of

experts and novices. In the chess example, the players use chunking, which we learned

about in the CIP theory, to remember chunks of moves. It is not that experts can play ten

steps ahead of a novice, they just have small chunks of mastered moves in their memory

that they can use two to three at a time. My fiancé and I both found this very refreshing.

Another example from the article is that of “reciprocal teaching,” which is seen

through cognitive science and in affect metacognitive strategies. Through this teaching

style, a group of students were able to enhance their reading comprehension skills. Since

the ways they problem solved were analyzed, they were able to enter a remedial reading

program and excel at an enormous rate. What was amazing was after the class, the

students also advanced in the readings in his science and social studies classes. The

“summarize, analyze, clarify and predict” method, I believe, can be incorporated into any

subject at any level, making once novices, become experts. The implication, however, is

incorporation into schools. Because of strict educational policies, stringent teacher

guidelines and large classes, there seem to be not enough resources to implement a theory

like this on a large scale.

6) From the perspective of a person developing instruction, compare and contrast the implications of behavioral theory with cognitive information processing theory. Be sure to note any similarities and/or differences in the role of the instructor, the role of the learner, and specific instructional goals or outcomes of some type of instruction (based on an original example that you have *not* already used). Be sure to note what you perceive as any specific advantages and disadvantages (in your opinion) of each approach to instruction. Is there a practical way to combine these theories for effective instruction, in your opinion? Discuss. (Note: “instruction” can be loosely defined to include administrative and/or sports management, counseling, and other learning environments as well as traditional instruction. (7 pts—roughly 1 ½ pages)

As an academic advisor, I am always trying to get our students to

comprehend the idea of competitive entry programs. Based on the behavioral theories of

psychologists such as Skinner, the main implication I can see is that he did not believe

people were capable of thinking to learn. Since we cannot scientifically observe

thinking, and there is no way of studying it, it is not a measurable motive for a learning

outcome. While I agree that many of our students do not think, Skinner believed that in

the process of learning, we are only responding to our actions. In order to have a student

repeat an action, they must be rewarded, and if we want an action to desist, there must be

an aversive consequence. While this competitive entry idea is completely foreign to many

people that enter my office, Skinner’s theory of not thinking cannot explain how without

thought, some people can comprehend the admissions requirements, while some cannot.

The biggest implications of the CIP theory are personal variables such as

interference or forgetting. Perhaps these students have so many new ideas on their mind

that they are selective in what they are able to retain in their long term memory and what

they are not. Now things can get in the way of old things, bumping them out of their

memory, or the information I relay is in fact never encoded, and never learned at all.

Both theories have a lot of room for error and lack of retention of information, but what

they have in common is that learners must have prior knowledge in order to advance and

learn new things, and all learners must make a conscious effort to gain knowledge as

well.

With both theories there are similarities, and I as an instructor in the example

mentioned above must be willing to accommodate the needs of the student. Whether it is

helping them find information to relate a new theory to so it can transfer into the next

stage of memory, or by reinforcing their actions to motivate them into wanting to

continue learning, I must make an effort to apply my teachings to the specific needs of

the student. As a student, both theories have the similarity that the student must see a

reward in order to continue learning and retain information. Differences in instruction,

learning and outcomes can be seen as well in the clarity of the theories. While radical

behaviorism leaves us with questions as to how one person processes information

differently from another, and how much behaviors can vary from one person to the next,

the CIP theory identifies the variables that link behavior and the environment.

As an instructor, one must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each

approach. I find with students in my office, I am far more patient with those having

difficulties if they have good attitudes. I am willing to use the CIP theory and help them

retain the information in their long term memory. On the flip side, if a student is being

difficult, I turn to the radical behaviorism theories of Skinner, and begin analyzing how I

can either punish them, or reinforce their behavior. While using the CIP theory on the

difficult student may prove stressful, and the radical behaviorism theory on the well

behaved student, unnecessary, there are certainly advantages and disadvantages of either

theory.

And, then there are students which may require both methods, which can prove

very successful as well. Say a student is having difficulty comprehending these

competitive entry criteria I mentioned, specifically calculating GPA, I can combine the

methods and create the desired outcome. By strengthening operant behavior and cueing a

learned behavior, as seen in the radical behaviorism theory, I can assure a student that if

they know how to add and multiply, they can calculate their GPA. If they agree, but still

have difficulty, I can use the strategies of the CIP theory of chunking, and calculate

semester by semester, or rehearsal by repeating the calculations class by class, until they

see and remember the pattern of adding and multiplying, in hopes they can put it all

together to calculate their GPA. In this example, either theory could work alone, but with

the reinforcement of both, the students should have no trouble with the calculations.