Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

While it might be an interesting question to explore, the manner in which one could replicate Fudge et

al’s (2008) study of interventions based on the different ages, and/or needs of other students, it is
worrisome because it assumes that the intervention is actually something that is desirable, necessary
and perhaps even best practice. While this concern may seem to circumvent this week’s question, and
the objectives of the course, it really doesn’t as this is a course on the application of learning theories
and any theory, or application thereof, in respect to learning should presumably have an outcome that is
in the best interest of the students. I really wonder if such an intervention, as illustrated in this study, is
in the best of the students and not within the interest of the teacher so as to alleviate the stressors due
to a seemingly chaotic classroom. This study, and its questionable purpose, reminds me—although to
an extent of lesser significance--of how they once addressed problematic behavior by means of
medication, or psycho-surgery, within mental health care institutions and to a lesser degree, institutions
of education. Whose interests do these interventions serve?

Transitions are a part of the working life of all adults and young people need to know how to transition
smoothly from one activity to the other so that they can make the time spent in each activity as
meaningful and productive as possible. Long chaotic transitions certainly cut into valuable learning
time, but isn’t the answer to this problem found within making students aware of the value of learning
(i.e. changing their thinking instead of their behavior) and not by manipulating their behavior by
teaching them how to respond to an intervention that they will never experience again outside of the
school environment? All the students are learning, in this study, is that quiet, non-disruptive, time –
seemingly of any duration--between activities is desirable for the teacher and that consequences exist if
one does not listen to authority: they are not learning that all time within an educational institution is
valuable and could also be purposeful and within their best interests. If instructional time was deemed
as valuable wouldn’t the researchers also have noted, not only on task behavior (OT), but shorter
transitional times because of the intervention as well? Fudge et al note that they didn’t record, or
account, for the duration of transitions: “Although the results suggest transitions were more efficient,
no actual transition duration data were collected” (pg. 589). The purpose of this study becomes more
dubious, when the author admits that there was no measure taken to address how these interventions
actually impacted academic achievement. Fudge et al. have stated: “Because time spent transitioning
reduces time available for teaching and learning, longitudinal studies are needed to determine if CWS
procedures can enhance academic skills” (pg. 590).

Through our course readings, this week, we are told that Behaviorism addresses behavior, but does not
address the underlying thinking that is responsible for the behavior. If one were to approach the
behavior from the perspective that students perhaps think that transitional time is without value, one
could perhaps begin to address the problematic behavior, in the student’s best interest, by changing
their thinking such that students view all time within school as having value and then perhaps could the
students act in a manner that would reflect this view. After all, students don’t have any difficultly
transitioning from one ride to another in an amusement park or from the bench to the field in a soccer
game because they see the time at the far end of the transition as having value.

Just as there may be inherent concerns within the purpose of research, so too can there be concerns
within the overarching purpose of individual student’s behavior within a group. Group rewards can
encourage an individual to illicit certain behavior as many students “model” themselves after those that
are most rewarded for the desired behavior; furthermore, because the need to belong is so powerful for
people, many students may apply themselves more, or seek extra help, so that they do not disappoint
their group (this would be an example of “negative reinforcement” as a lack of belonging would be
removed if they produced the response that is desirable to the group). However, teachers need to be
aware of what behavior is most desired and how it is rewarded. Many times students are rewarded by
their peers by exhibiting behavior that is not desirable to the teacher’s objectives. Such examples can
be illustrated when someone is teased by a student and that student is rewarded with laughter from
their peers. Of course, a collective group of individuals, can impact behavior in both negative and
positive manners and perhaps it is the job of the teacher to, as best as possible, insure that the
individual can only be rewarded for positive behavior.

Sources:

Fudge, D. L., Skinner, C. H., Williams, J. L., Cowden, D., Clark, J., & Bliss, S. L. (2008). Increasing on-task
behavior in every student in a second-grade classroom during transitions: Validating the color wheel
system. Journal of School Psychology, 46(5), 575-592.

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and
technology.

White, E. (2010). Classroom Observation. Youtube, retrieved May 25, 2017


from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY3t2sijb4M&feature=related

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi