Applying Classroom Rules and Procedures
Implementing classroom rules and procedures comprehensively into a classroom is best effected through a combination of positive and negative reinforcement Stage and Quiroz (1997). When students don't follow these rules consistently, it leads to behavior that detracts and distracts from learning, such as an increased number of interruptions, lack of attention during critical points of instruction, or unnecessary conflict among students. For the best effective procedures and enforcement, the focus should always be on preventative maintenance(positive reinforcement), for, as the truism goes, a stitch in time saves nine. Unfortunately, today's society often focuses on negative reinforcement, and as a result positive reinforcement is under or improperly utilized. Therefor, I will try to spend much of this post focusing on positive reinforcement, as we instinctively tend to have a better understanding of and experience with negative reinforcement, even if it is often improperly implemented. While I will also spend some time discussing negative reinforcement, I'll try and focus on when and how this reinforcement is used ineffectively, which often results in students creating avoidance strategies rather than properly modifying their behavior. We all know that the motivations for modifying our behavior are most broadly classified as either extrinsic or intrinsic, with intrinsic being the most powerful and effective of the two, and it seems apparent to me that most negative reinforcement tends to be extrinsic motivation, whereas positive reinforcement has a greater chance of being associated with intrinsic motivation. If we look closely at the research, we can see that there are many instances where researchers discover that positive motivation can have a negative effect on student learning. (Mader, 2009) I would propose that in each of these studies, this is because the positive reinforcement as it was used, was done in such a way that it created an extrinsic motivation. It seems obvious to me that positive and negative reinforcement needs to be done in light of the types of motivation that it is creating, and any reinforcement, whether it is positive or negative, can be useful, but only when it results in intrinsic motivation. My online research appears to support this position, as the abstract for the journal article meta study "Relationship between Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation for Learning" by Jovanovic & Matejevic iterates this exact idea. Unfortunately, due to it being behind an Elsevier I was unable to read the full research, but the abstract makes the exact same connection I did.
What I found most interesting in my reading and research about positive reinforcement is how it can be done in extremely ineffective ways- in fact it can be performed so poorly that it creates the opposite results due to a reliance on extrinsic motivation. (Mader 2009) In order to create intrinsic motivation, we need to focus on three key human needs- competence, autonomy, and personal connection, as defined by Deci and Ryan in their Self-determination Theory. In order to model our positive reinforcement properly, all we have to do is check to see if we are meeting at least one of those three goals, and all three if possible. This explains why some positive reinforcements, such as promising material rewards for students if they meet certain benchmarks as Roland Fryer did from 2007-2010 tended to be ineffective. Perhaps if Fryer had followed the idea of creating this intrinsic motivation by having the person responsible for giving the money to the student be a close friend or advisor(and even by allowing a percentage share of the reward to go to the advisor as well), by allowing the students to choose a subject they wanted to improve in, allowing them to set the benchmarks required in order to reach the goal of a monetary reward, and finally by requiring the students to demonstrate as a final project the evolution of their competence, he may have seen entirely different results. As it was, he and others who performed similar experiments only saw short term, temporary gains, exactly the kind of gains we expect to see considering he was creating extrinsic motivation. These ideas tie in nicely with our previous units looking at creating high expectations. These high expectations of teachers tend to be reflected in the students sense of self-worth, an obvious and easily tapped source of intrinsic motivation. This means that every time a student does something correctly, they should NOT be rewarded, as correct behavior is EXPECTED. Simple, minor acknowledgements as suggested in "The Art and Science of Teaching" are more than accptable- nonverbal smiles, nods of the head, etc. Note how even the examples used in the book all point out exceptional behavior, as seen on page 136 for the first example; "For example, if students have done a particularly good job..." (my emphasis). Another consideration for giving positive reinforcement would be public vs private acknowledgement- we should take into consideration the personal preferences of the students- perhaps an overly shy student wouldn't appreciate public praise of their efforts, which might actually cause the opposite intended effect. I personally prefer to send E-mails to the parents acknowledging good behavior, or exceptional scores on tests. In my previous Math exam, in one of my classes none of my students performed very well, so I emailed the top three students, explaining to the parents how most students performed quite poorly, and assuring them that their child was one of the best. I did this solely because all the students performed below expectations but I didn't want to discourage them, especially those who tried their hardest. I also emailed a few other students who normally struggle during class, but clearly put a lot of work into preparing for the exam. The goal of these emails was again focused on creating resilient students- students who even though they performed poorly, were given encouragement to get back on that horse. These emails were written to emphasize the students growing competence and my relationship with them, fulfilling two of the self-determination criteria. (I'd attach an example email, but since I was fired, my work email was revoked, so I don't have access)
A parable my parents told me really drives home the problems inherent with negative reinforcement. A man has a dog who lives indoors, and this pair were great friends. Occasionally the dog would make mistakes, and he would be punished, usually through some sort of physical abuse. This man loved his steak, and so one day, when they were both eating at the dinner table, the man with his steak, the dog with his dog food, the doorbell rang. The man, unthinking, gets up and goes to answer. The second the man leaves the room, the dog leaps up on the table and eats his steak. The man comes back, and upon seeing his steak gone, immediately beats the dog. Due to how the man has taught the dog, this cycle would only continue. The problem with negative reinforcement is that it doesn't teach corrective behaviors- the subject, whether its a dog or a student, only learns that the teacher doesn't like something, and so rather than changing their behavior, they seek to hide it from the figure of authority. If the man had given his dog positive reinforcement, such as leaving the room, quickly returning, and rewarding the dog with a piece of steak for not trying to get on the dinner table, gradually lengthening the time he was out of the room, he w he might have experienced much more success. At the risk of comparing students to dogs, it seems intuitive to me that negative reinforcement is mostly a waste of time- all you teach them is not to jump on the table when you are around to see them do it. Considering my weak with-it-ness, my ability to see when students are exhibiting behaviors I don't like when focusing on individuals is quite poor. While I do plan on improving this ability, I believe that I can reduce the overall need for this particular skill if I focus more effort on modeling and rewarding positive behavior- thus, even when the master leaves the room, the dogs won't feel the urge to eat his steak. (I don't know why, but I'm beginning to love this analogy- maybe because I enjoy a good steak, or maybe because children's reactions tend to be as predictable as a dogs? Hmmm...) Clearly, the man had taught the dog using extrinsic motivation, and as soon as that extrinsic factor was gone,(the man leaving the room), the bad behavior returned. By making the dog feel good about its actions or lack of action with the positive reinforcement, the motivation to be a "good boy" remains even when the man leaves the room. Clearly, punishment does not teach more appropriate ways of responding, and is more likely to lead to an overall increase in negative behavior, which is supported by a number of studies. (Australian Psychological Society, 1995). This is not to say that negative reinforcement cannot be effective, but rather that it should be used in conjunction with positive reinforcement. One example I have of using this is sometimes in class I'll notice a disruption in class, so I'll walk over to the student and ask him to observe his surroundings. My goal in asking for this observation is to nudge the student into realizing how their behavior is different from everyone else's. I'll often ask them to reflect on their behavior and consider why I've decided to come over and talk to them. Then, I'll ask the student to model their behavior after one of the other students, asking them to focus on just doing that for the duration of the activity. This is often the extent of my negative reinforcement, so I am determined to add new techniques to my repertoire. Joseph Degeling has some good advice for utilizing negative reinforcement:
1. The punishment should never be chosen in the moment: they should be selected and explained to the classroom prior to the punishment – say at the start of the week, or when you set your class rules. This way our emotions are less likely to influence our reactions. (This is exactly my problem occasionally with negative reinforcement; the absolute worst of my students will get me emotionally agitated, which causes me to keep a closer eye on them during the class. This in turn leads to me noticing more issues with their behavior, and I'm afraid that it appears to the student as if I am "picking" on him, because I tend to be more sensitive to his disruptions than others. By giving myself a "cooling off" period, I'll be able to reflect better on my reactions and separate emotion from my actions.)
2. A punishment that is too severe is likely to be less effective: a careful balance must be maintained. (Zero tolerance policies such as those seen in the 90's in which their punishments aren't connected to the crimes have been shown to be completely ineffective)
3. Punishments that remove a positive reinforcer for a short period of time can be effective (such as losing computer time, or having to sit out for a short time at recess or lunch).(This is one I can get behind, and definitely don't use often enough. What I need to do is create privlidges in the first place, often I make the mistake of treating them as if they are natural. For example, during lunch, a fellow teacher has a policy where students are silent for the first 30 minutes, and can talk during the last 30 minutes. I allowed my students to go crazy doing whatever they want during the lunch period, which means that it appears to be a punishment when I make them have a silent lunch, as opposed to removing a privilege.)
4. Punishments that are restitutional are effective in correcting behavioural difficulties: an example would be picking up all the rubbish in the classroom if the student has been caught throwing paper around at other students (Little & Akin-Little, 2008). (This is also mentioned in the art of teaching, but is referred to as "over-correcting". I don't like that term however, and prefer restitution.
Finally, when implementing reinforcement, I need to be more aware of how most of the student's actions aren't personal. Often we are in the mindset of when a student misbehaves, they are doing it intentionally, to make us angry. The Atlantic article about resilience titled "How Kids Really Succeed" reminds us that often the problem is one of upbringing and background, in that the presence of stress in a child's environment can drastically affect their ability to control themselves. "With the neurobiological research in mind, it’s easy to see that kind of behavior—refusing to do what adults tell you to do, basically—as an expression not of a bad attitude or a defiant personality but of a poorly regulated stress-response system. Talking back and acting up in class are, at least in part, symptoms of a child’s inability to control impulses, de-escalate confrontations, and manage anger and other strong feelings—the whole stew of self-regulation issues that can usually be traced to impaired executive-function development in early childhood." In summation, reinforcement needs to take into consideration a few key things; the home environment and personality(shy or not) of the child, the type of motivation the reinforcement is creating, and its consistency and fairness across the student body.
I'll try to follow this flowchart in the future to continually reinforce students.
An example for where positive and negative reinforcement can be used effectively:
Andrew turns to the class, and after a short warm up discussing some major points of Pygmalion, asks them to discuss the impact of poverty on one's morality. On the board, he writes a few questions, such as "Is morality universal?" "What does Alfred Doolittle mean when he says he can't afford morals?" As the students are discussing, Andrew walks around the room. Hearing one group vigorously debating whether or not morality is universal, he walks up to the group, smiles, and adds an extra question for them to consider. "Well, if morality is universal, what does that mean when we consider cultural relativism? Consider the Aztec culture who sacrificed young maidens to supplicant the gods for rain, or honor killings among the Iranians. Consider what that would mean considering religion." Finished adding his two cents, he continues to walk around the room. Two students are sitting together in the back, and Andrew notices that they are not discussing the proper topic. He walks near them, but doesn't look directly at them. Soon, their discussion returns to the topic at hand. However, Andrew wants to see if they return to their conversation, so he lingers about halfway into the classroom with his back turned. Sure enough, he hears laughter soon. Immediately, he turns, walks over to the group, and quietly says, "gentlemen, this is the second time you have been doing something other than what I asked. This is your last warning, you'd best make good use of it. Throughout the class, he makes it clear to those students he is paying attention to their actions through eye contact, but no further disruptions are made. As the students are leaving the class, he takes a moment to thank them for getting back on track, and wishes them a good day.
Sanson, A., Montgomery, B., Gault, U., Gridley, H., Thomson, D. (1996), Punishment and behaviour change : An Australian Psychological Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 31(3), 157-165.
Mader, C. E. (2009) “I will never teach the old way again”: Classroom management and external incentives. Theory into practice, 48, pp 147-155.
Noguera, P., A. (2003). Schools, Prisons and Social Implications of Punishment: rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into practice, 42, pp341-350.
Degeling , J. ( 2012). Positive Reinforcement in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.josephdegeling.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Positive-Reinforcement-in-the-classroom.pdf.
Tough, P. (2017). How Kids Learn Resilience. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/how-kids-really-succeed/480744/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
What I found most interesting in my reading and research about positive reinforcement is how it can be done in extremely ineffective ways- in fact it can be performed so poorly that it creates the opposite results due to a reliance on extrinsic motivation. (Mader 2009) In order to create intrinsic motivation, we need to focus on three key human needs- competence, autonomy, and personal connection, as defined by Deci and Ryan in their Self-determination Theory. In order to model our positive reinforcement properly, all we have to do is check to see if we are meeting at least one of those three goals, and all three if possible. This explains why some positive reinforcements, such as promising material rewards for students if they meet certain benchmarks as Roland Fryer did from 2007-2010 tended to be ineffective. Perhaps if Fryer had followed the idea of creating this intrinsic motivation by having the person responsible for giving the money to the student be a close friend or advisor(and even by allowing a percentage share of the reward to go to the advisor as well), by allowing the students to choose a subject they wanted to improve in, allowing them to set the benchmarks required in order to reach the goal of a monetary reward, and finally by requiring the students to demonstrate as a final project the evolution of their competence, he may have seen entirely different results. As it was, he and others who performed similar experiments only saw short term, temporary gains, exactly the kind of gains we expect to see considering he was creating extrinsic motivation. These ideas tie in nicely with our previous units looking at creating high expectations. These high expectations of teachers tend to be reflected in the students sense of self-worth, an obvious and easily tapped source of intrinsic motivation. This means that every time a student does something correctly, they should NOT be rewarded, as correct behavior is EXPECTED. Simple, minor acknowledgements as suggested in "The Art and Science of Teaching" are more than accptable- nonverbal smiles, nods of the head, etc. Note how even the examples used in the book all point out exceptional behavior, as seen on page 136 for the first example; "For example, if students have done a particularly good job..." (my emphasis). Another consideration for giving positive reinforcement would be public vs private acknowledgement- we should take into consideration the personal preferences of the students- perhaps an overly shy student wouldn't appreciate public praise of their efforts, which might actually cause the opposite intended effect. I personally prefer to send E-mails to the parents acknowledging good behavior, or exceptional scores on tests. In my previous Math exam, in one of my classes none of my students performed very well, so I emailed the top three students, explaining to the parents how most students performed quite poorly, and assuring them that their child was one of the best. I did this solely because all the students performed below expectations but I didn't want to discourage them, especially those who tried their hardest. I also emailed a few other students who normally struggle during class, but clearly put a lot of work into preparing for the exam. The goal of these emails was again focused on creating resilient students- students who even though they performed poorly, were given encouragement to get back on that horse. These emails were written to emphasize the students growing competence and my relationship with them, fulfilling two of the self-determination criteria. (I'd attach an example email, but since I was fired, my work email was revoked, so I don't have access)
A parable my parents told me really drives home the problems inherent with negative reinforcement. A man has a dog who lives indoors, and this pair were great friends. Occasionally the dog would make mistakes, and he would be punished, usually through some sort of physical abuse. This man loved his steak, and so one day, when they were both eating at the dinner table, the man with his steak, the dog with his dog food, the doorbell rang. The man, unthinking, gets up and goes to answer. The second the man leaves the room, the dog leaps up on the table and eats his steak. The man comes back, and upon seeing his steak gone, immediately beats the dog. Due to how the man has taught the dog, this cycle would only continue. The problem with negative reinforcement is that it doesn't teach corrective behaviors- the subject, whether its a dog or a student, only learns that the teacher doesn't like something, and so rather than changing their behavior, they seek to hide it from the figure of authority. If the man had given his dog positive reinforcement, such as leaving the room, quickly returning, and rewarding the dog with a piece of steak for not trying to get on the dinner table, gradually lengthening the time he was out of the room, he w he might have experienced much more success. At the risk of comparing students to dogs, it seems intuitive to me that negative reinforcement is mostly a waste of time- all you teach them is not to jump on the table when you are around to see them do it. Considering my weak with-it-ness, my ability to see when students are exhibiting behaviors I don't like when focusing on individuals is quite poor. While I do plan on improving this ability, I believe that I can reduce the overall need for this particular skill if I focus more effort on modeling and rewarding positive behavior- thus, even when the master leaves the room, the dogs won't feel the urge to eat his steak. (I don't know why, but I'm beginning to love this analogy- maybe because I enjoy a good steak, or maybe because children's reactions tend to be as predictable as a dogs? Hmmm...) Clearly, the man had taught the dog using extrinsic motivation, and as soon as that extrinsic factor was gone,(the man leaving the room), the bad behavior returned. By making the dog feel good about its actions or lack of action with the positive reinforcement, the motivation to be a "good boy" remains even when the man leaves the room. Clearly, punishment does not teach more appropriate ways of responding, and is more likely to lead to an overall increase in negative behavior, which is supported by a number of studies. (Australian Psychological Society, 1995). This is not to say that negative reinforcement cannot be effective, but rather that it should be used in conjunction with positive reinforcement. One example I have of using this is sometimes in class I'll notice a disruption in class, so I'll walk over to the student and ask him to observe his surroundings. My goal in asking for this observation is to nudge the student into realizing how their behavior is different from everyone else's. I'll often ask them to reflect on their behavior and consider why I've decided to come over and talk to them. Then, I'll ask the student to model their behavior after one of the other students, asking them to focus on just doing that for the duration of the activity. This is often the extent of my negative reinforcement, so I am determined to add new techniques to my repertoire. Joseph Degeling has some good advice for utilizing negative reinforcement:
1. The punishment should never be chosen in the moment: they should be selected and explained to the classroom prior to the punishment – say at the start of the week, or when you set your class rules. This way our emotions are less likely to influence our reactions. (This is exactly my problem occasionally with negative reinforcement; the absolute worst of my students will get me emotionally agitated, which causes me to keep a closer eye on them during the class. This in turn leads to me noticing more issues with their behavior, and I'm afraid that it appears to the student as if I am "picking" on him, because I tend to be more sensitive to his disruptions than others. By giving myself a "cooling off" period, I'll be able to reflect better on my reactions and separate emotion from my actions.)
2. A punishment that is too severe is likely to be less effective: a careful balance must be maintained. (Zero tolerance policies such as those seen in the 90's in which their punishments aren't connected to the crimes have been shown to be completely ineffective)
3. Punishments that remove a positive reinforcer for a short period of time can be effective (such as losing computer time, or having to sit out for a short time at recess or lunch).(This is one I can get behind, and definitely don't use often enough. What I need to do is create privlidges in the first place, often I make the mistake of treating them as if they are natural. For example, during lunch, a fellow teacher has a policy where students are silent for the first 30 minutes, and can talk during the last 30 minutes. I allowed my students to go crazy doing whatever they want during the lunch period, which means that it appears to be a punishment when I make them have a silent lunch, as opposed to removing a privilege.)
4. Punishments that are restitutional are effective in correcting behavioural difficulties: an example would be picking up all the rubbish in the classroom if the student has been caught throwing paper around at other students (Little & Akin-Little, 2008). (This is also mentioned in the art of teaching, but is referred to as "over-correcting". I don't like that term however, and prefer restitution.
Finally, when implementing reinforcement, I need to be more aware of how most of the student's actions aren't personal. Often we are in the mindset of when a student misbehaves, they are doing it intentionally, to make us angry. The Atlantic article about resilience titled "How Kids Really Succeed" reminds us that often the problem is one of upbringing and background, in that the presence of stress in a child's environment can drastically affect their ability to control themselves. "With the neurobiological research in mind, it’s easy to see that kind of behavior—refusing to do what adults tell you to do, basically—as an expression not of a bad attitude or a defiant personality but of a poorly regulated stress-response system. Talking back and acting up in class are, at least in part, symptoms of a child’s inability to control impulses, de-escalate confrontations, and manage anger and other strong feelings—the whole stew of self-regulation issues that can usually be traced to impaired executive-function development in early childhood." In summation, reinforcement needs to take into consideration a few key things; the home environment and personality(shy or not) of the child, the type of motivation the reinforcement is creating, and its consistency and fairness across the student body.
I'll try to follow this flowchart in the future to continually reinforce students.
An example for where positive and negative reinforcement can be used effectively:
Andrew turns to the class, and after a short warm up discussing some major points of Pygmalion, asks them to discuss the impact of poverty on one's morality. On the board, he writes a few questions, such as "Is morality universal?" "What does Alfred Doolittle mean when he says he can't afford morals?" As the students are discussing, Andrew walks around the room. Hearing one group vigorously debating whether or not morality is universal, he walks up to the group, smiles, and adds an extra question for them to consider. "Well, if morality is universal, what does that mean when we consider cultural relativism? Consider the Aztec culture who sacrificed young maidens to supplicant the gods for rain, or honor killings among the Iranians. Consider what that would mean considering religion." Finished adding his two cents, he continues to walk around the room. Two students are sitting together in the back, and Andrew notices that they are not discussing the proper topic. He walks near them, but doesn't look directly at them. Soon, their discussion returns to the topic at hand. However, Andrew wants to see if they return to their conversation, so he lingers about halfway into the classroom with his back turned. Sure enough, he hears laughter soon. Immediately, he turns, walks over to the group, and quietly says, "gentlemen, this is the second time you have been doing something other than what I asked. This is your last warning, you'd best make good use of it. Throughout the class, he makes it clear to those students he is paying attention to their actions through eye contact, but no further disruptions are made. As the students are leaving the class, he takes a moment to thank them for getting back on track, and wishes them a good day.
Sanson, A., Montgomery, B., Gault, U., Gridley, H., Thomson, D. (1996), Punishment and behaviour change : An Australian Psychological Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 31(3), 157-165.
Mader, C. E. (2009) “I will never teach the old way again”: Classroom management and external incentives. Theory into practice, 48, pp 147-155.
Noguera, P., A. (2003). Schools, Prisons and Social Implications of Punishment: rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into practice, 42, pp341-350.
Degeling , J. ( 2012). Positive Reinforcement in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.josephdegeling.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Positive-Reinforcement-in-the-classroom.pdf.
Tough, P. (2017). How Kids Learn Resilience. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/how-kids-really-succeed/480744/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Comments
Post a Comment