Reflective Journal Post #2

 

Description:

The focus of this week’s readings examined behavioral theories and their applications in education.  The experiments and findings of Pavlov and Skinner were discussed and used to explain how student behaviors, good or bad, are reinforced within the classroom environment. The role of consequences and their impact on subsequent behaviors were also examined.

 

Analysis:

          Pavlov’s research focused on instinctual behaviors and how instinctual responses to stimuli can be manipulated to provoke desired responses for unrelated stimuli. “Pavlov’s experiments showed that if a previously neutral stimulus is presented at the same time as an unconditioned stimulus, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus and gains power to prompt a response similar to that produced by the unconditioned stimulus” (Slavin, 2018, p.99).  In education, these insights should be considered when crafting classroom discipline policies and in handling discipline issues with students.  If we positively reward negative behaviors, then students learn quickly that they can get the attention or reward even when they do not display the encouraged behavior.  Skinner and his colleagues focused less on the instinctual behavioral response and instead designed controlled environments with consequences related to behavioral responses. Skinner’s method of operant conditioning uses “pleasant and unpleasant consequences to change behaviors” (Slavin, 2018, p.99). By rewarding positive behavior, it is encouraged, making the displayed behavior a more favorable option than the negative behavior. Simply put, “pleasurable consequences strengthen behaviors; unpleasant consequences weaken it” (Slavin, 2018, p.101).  It would seem logical when approaching classroom management and discipline, a combination of these theories in practice would be appropriate.

          The additional factor to consider in how students’ behaviors are conditioned is what other influences exist on their behavioral decision making. Children are exposed to television and other media outlets outside of the classroom that influence their decision making inside the classroom.  As shown in the Bandura and Social Learning Theory video, children that are exposed to aggressive acts are more likely to instinctively respond in more aggressive ways (The Curious Classroom, 2013). If students are exposed to verbal or physical aggression in their home life, their conditioned response will be similar. More often students who are exposed to environments or situations with verbal or physical aggression will lack the prosocial skills that are expected within the classroom. This can lead to poor decision making and discipline that further perpetuates bad behaviors. Developing students’ abilities to make positive behavior decisions for themselves and incorporating more positive reinforcements is needed to create productive learning space.

In the classroom, teachers must be intentional in their use of positive and negative reinforcers that influence behavioral decision making by students. Often students receive “praise, grades, or stars” as positive reinforcement for making good decisions (Slavin, 2018, p.101). Conversely, when bad decisions are made, students are often punished with negative reinforcers as “escapes from unpleasant situations” (Slavin, 2018, p.101).  These types of behavioral interventions must be carefully considered though. If a student is causing disruptions in class or behaving inappropriately, the punishment is typically a trip to an administrator or removal from the classroom environment.  If used inappropriately, this type of discipline strategy can positively reinforce those negative behaviors. If this behavior is properly anticipated and accommodated for, other intervention can be in place to better discourage the negative behavior or intervene prior to the disruption.

 

Reflection:

          I was told by a mentor many years ago that you should always catch children being good. As educators, if we can find opportunities to positively reinforce good behaviors when children are naturally doing them, they become more likely to default to these behaviors naturally. Whether these behaviors are driven by positive modeling of prosocial acts, instinct, or conditioning if we can positively reinforce good decision making, children are more likely to display the behaviors we reward. Building positive relationships with students allows teachers to better understand the driving forces behind negative behaviors which in turn allows us to respond more appropriately.

 

 

References

The Curious Classroom. (2013). Bandura and Social Learning Theory. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjTxQy_U3ac.

Slavin, R.E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12^th ed.). Pearson.

Reflective Journal Post #1

 

Description:

              Readings this week in EDAT 6115 explored different views on when and how children develop cognitively, how language and literacy develop, and the implications of developmental stages in education. The research and findings of Vygotski, Piaget, and Bronfenbrenner were also examined.

 Analysis:

              Piaget’s constructivist theory views cognitive development “as a process in which children actively build systems of meaning and understandings of reality through their experiences and interactions” (Slavin, 2018, p.26).  He defined stages of cognitive development (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational) that children progress through, providing benchmarks for cognitive growth often used by physicians, psychologists, and educators (Slavin, 2018, p. 26).  Piaget’s thoughts on cognitive development are deeply embedded in curriculum and instruction throughout education. Piaget’s theories have shaped our “developmentally appropriate education” structure and encouraged educators to focus on 1) how children think not just what they can do 2) creating inquiry-based and experiential learning environments 3) age-appropriate cognition and 4) differentiation for learning differences (Slavin, 2018, p. 32-33).  Piaget’s stages of cognitive development have historically been used to establish curriculum and performance expectations for students within the classroom.  For example, the adolescents in my classroom (aged 14-18) should easily be able to think abstractly and solve problems through experimentation since they have entered the formal operational stage (Slavin, 2018, p.27).  This task would be too advanced cognitively for students in earlier stages of Piaget’s framework who may lack the ability to think logically or abstractly. Criticisms of Piaget’s theories center around the idea that “development precedes learning” and that children develop in predictable, age-based stages progressively (Slavin, 2018, p.31).  Research has shown that when taught or exposed to higher level tasks, children often respond by being able to complete tasks in higher Piagetian stages (Slavin, 20188, p.32).

              Vygotsky’s theories about cognitive development focused more on the environmental context of learning. He proposed that cognitive development was more of an “outgrowth of social development through interaction with others and the environment” (Slavin, 2018, p. 42).  Vygotsky’s stages of development rely on the increasing ability of children to be self-regulate their response to signs in their environment. The most impactful of Vygotsky’s thoughts is his explanation of the zone of proximal development. Tasks within this zone are those that “a child cannot yet accomplish alone but could accomplish with that assistance of more competent peers or adults” (Slavin, 2018, p.34). Vygotsky’s influence on instructional strategies such as cooperative learning, scaffolding, and ability grouping. Like Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner linked cognitive development to the influence of environmental factors but expanded his focus to include all social and institutional influences. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological view of cognitive development emphasizes the “interconnectedness of the many factors that influence a child’s development” including the sociocultural factors that show “a more complete model of the          influences beyond biology” (Slavin, 2018, p.36).

              The understanding of how children cognitively develop is essential to educators, particularly those teaching language and literacy at young ages.  Whether biological or environmental, influences on cognitive development are important for teachers to understand and plan intentionally for.  Language and literacy are the cornerstones for further education as learning all other subjects requires a strong foundation in reading and comprehension. Creating environments in school and at home that emphasize the importance of language and literacy are critical for cognitive development and further academic success (Slavin, 2018, p. 38).

 Reflection:

              My own classroom is typically composed of high achieving, mostly gifted students ranging in age from 14 to 18. As a Biologist and educator, I am no stranger to the nature versus nurture argument that often arises when discussing cognitive development. I have seen just about every scenario in my 17 years in the classroom. I have had students that are cognitively further advanced at 14 than most are at 18. I have had students with ridiculous cognitive potential that cannot be successful because of environmental influences beyond their control. Regardless of what factors are shaping students’ cognitive development, it is our responsibility as educators to not only be able to identify where our students are but to also be able to differentiate for them to be successful. Identifying a students’ zone of proximal development, understanding their sociocultural influences, and intentionally differentiating for their cognitive abilities is all a part of being an effective educator. For me, understanding what tasks my students should be capable of doing allows me to prepare lessons that are engaging and challenging.  My goal is to always create lessons that provide the right balance of productive struggle for students and encourage a growth mindset.

 

Reference

Slavin, R.E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12^th ed.). Pearson.