In studying behaviorism, I am often
confused as to whether a consequence is positive or negative. This may be an
issue of perspective. In any consequence, there is a give and take, be it
physical or emotional. For example, when we talked in class about suspending
students, and how that can serve as reinforcement for undesired behavior, I
have to think whether it is negative reinforcement in taking away the time in school that the student dislikes or
positive reinforcement in giving the
student a vacation from school.
The phrase “change the environment, change
the behavior,” should be applied carefully in teaching. Environment undeniably
plays a role in shaping behavior. However, we should not be so ignorant as to
think that we can change all things about every student’s behavior by
manipulating their learning environment. We also need to take notice that the
possibility of modifying a student’s behavior through environmental changes
does not automatically justify that alteration. For example, altering a class
environment to be more conversation oriented could help students reinforce
positive social behavior in their interactions. On the other hand, adding more
rules to an environment may only make students frustrated and cause further
behavioral issues. It is important to interact with students as people, and not
as problems to be fixed.
I really like your point about treating students as people. I think that behaviorism treats children like animals that can be experimented on, which may be true, but as humans have feelings and are more complex than animals they should be treated with more respect and dignity.
ReplyDeleteI like your description of the big ideas, and especially that you describe both methods as a mechanisms of making connections.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right that it's a matter of perspective--that's why it's important to describe exactly which behavior you are targeting in a given situation and the stimulus you intend to affect it. One situation may be described in an endless number of ways, so you may pick out different behaviors in the situation, or different stimuli in the environment. As long as you are specific about what you are doing within your intervention (or what you see as the behavior/stimulus), you'll be fine (and I understand it's only one way of looking at it).
The example you bring up is particularly tricky. Typically I'd recommend you compare the consequence situation with the natural situation beforehand, but here, I think either explanation would be appropriate. Good thinking!
It's very true that teaching is complex and these theories can't be applied absolutely. They're only intended as tools for you to use when they're affective and lenses for interpreting a situation (when it's useful). I feel similarly to your statement about behaviorism treating students less like people (or more like animals, as Hannah said)--particularly in special education environments where it seems to be a main method of instruction. While I understand that sentiment, I've also looked at it a different way lately (while I've been training my dog!) The reason we use behaviorism methods in animals is because there is a total lack of communication. We can't use language to ask what's in their minds, and an MRI isn't always available. :) We can only communicate through external communication through behavior.... and it's very effective! It's true that, since we can communicate and 'get into the minds' of most students, behaviorism isn't necessarily needed, but it does add some clarity at times when students can't understand abstract ideas or communicate their thoughts clearly. By making everything concrete and visible in the external world, it's a different way of communicating. By giving someone a cookie after they've helped their partner, they will associate good feelings with that behavior--and that method of teaching is easier and takes less time than explaining WHY helping peers is important.... Just something to think about.