Combining Behavioral and Cognitive Learning Approaches

[Shaw Qin]

During my tutoring experience at Mrs. Talbot’s 8th-grade algebra class, most, if not all, reinforcers I observed have been positive reinforcements. Among them, one thing I found especially interesting was my (perhaps unintentional) reinforcement role as a tutor. During individual- or group-work sessions, my primary role was to answer students’ questions and suggest they revisit a problem if they made a mistake. However, to spot students’ mistakes, I needed to scan each question to see if the answer was correct, so I ended up marking each correct answer with a star using my green correcting pen. After that, many students were eager to make sure that I starred each of their correct answers and made some celebratory poses when I marked as accurate a response that took them an especially long time to figure out. From a behavioral perspective, these students were producing responses (working on problems and getting the right answer) for the positive reinforcement (a star beside their response as a symbol of correctness).

Coincidentally, the schedule of my reinforcement corresponds with the variable-ratio schedule, the supposedly most sustaining schedule of reinforcement. At first, I could frequently mark students’ correct answers because the worksheets had fewer questions. However, as the criteria I needed to check for correct answers increased (e.g., showing great work), it became increasingly difficult to mark every answer. Therefore, I would only star answers for questions that I previously worked on with other students. However, it was difficult to judge whether the students’ working on each question to get the correct answer has increased over the weeks. My subjective feeling is that students are no more likely to display the conditioned behavior because of my reinforcement than when I started tutoring. However, students’ likelihood of displaying this behavior may also be affected by many different factors, some established way before I entered the classroom. Hence, it might not be constructive trying to assess the influence of my reinforcement.

As for the cognitive approach to learning, I observed Mrs. Talbot utilizing surprise to induce disequilibrium that invited students’ constructive learning. Before Mrs. Talbot introduced the concept of a solution to an equation, she asked the students to write their understanding on the worksheet and discuss it with each other. When the discussion ended, Mrs. Talbot summarized a few students’ thoughts she heard (“an answer”) and declared that they were wrong! Mimicking a brain explosion with her hands over her head, Mrs. Talbot suggested that the students were surprised as they should. The correct definition includes the solution should be verified as the only correct answer that makes the two sides of the equation equal. Therefore, to confirm that the answer students wrote down was the solution, they should always check their work. Through this process, students first constructed their own meaning of the solution based on their existing knowledge. Then they were confronted with the actual meaning introduced by Mrs. Talbot, and finally (supposedly) adapted their previous knowledge to include the verification aspect of the solution. To describe the learning process, I am a combination of cognitivist and behaviorist. I would describe the initial process of learning content knowledge as cognitive, using a Piagetian adaption framework as described above. However, I find behaviorism accurate in describing the practice and retention of knowledge. For the example of solving equations, Mrs. Talbot emphasized the importance of checking the accuracy of the solution by writing “Check” besides many equation problems, serving as discriminative stimuli that cued students to check their solution. If students displayed the response, they would receive stars in practice worksheets or points on exams as reinforcers.

Because I missed tutoring last Thursday and Friday, I began tutoring at Mrs. Rose’s 7th-grade math at the second half of the 6th period this week. One significant difference I found between the two classes was the use of technology. Mrs. Rose’s students used iPads for classwork every time I was there, while Mrs. Talbot’s class only used iPads once. I couldn’t understand why Mrs. Rose’s class used iPads because the students were practicing the order of operations with old-school operation problems like this that could be easily done with paper and pencil:

I don’t see the rationale of using technology like this (instead of educational games or supplementary videos) except to enable students to use it for leisure. Indeed, I saw two students watching a YouTube video without hiding toward the end of the class. In contrast, Mrs. Talbot only asked the students to take out their iPads once to make sure they downloaded a chapter of their algebra textbook to have a copy when they went home to do the textbook homework.

• This topic was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by Shaw Qin.

[Chisom Oguh]

I am also questioning the use of the students’ iPads in class. When the students are going to learn new content, Ms. Hebs has them download a presentation to follow along with her on the SmartBoard. Not only do they use their iPads to take notes, but they also use them as a calculator which makes it easier to solve fractions. I do see the benefits of using this technology (having access to the textbook without having to carry it, having your notes on you at all times, etc), but sometimes the students use them to distract themselves. I’ve even seen students play around with the camera, snapping photos of their classmates or taking selfies (I accidentally photo-bombed one). Adding on, since the iPads are personalized (as in students have changed the wallpaper), this makes it even easier for them to get distracted by them.

[Author]

Posts