Activity 7.5

In the article, Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Don’t Work, Pink discusses the negative effects of rewards and punishments. In her opinion, giving rewards and punishments often “give rise to cheating, addicting, and dangerously myopic thinking” and in fact, “they can give us less of what we want-and more of what we don’t want.” (p. 2) Pink’s explanation for rewards having an ill effect is that they diminish intrinsic motivation and transforms an interesting task into drudgery.  On the flip side, Pink does explain that rewards can be effective when the activity is routine and uninteresting. (p. 62)

I can see how Pink’s opinion about rewards and punishments aligns with the social cognitive perspective. This theory focuses on the impact that self-efficacy plays on students’ motivation to learn. Instead of providing rewards or punishments to improve motivation and self-efficacy, Pajares discusses the teacher’s role to “improve the competence and confidence of the students in their charge. They can accomplish this by working to improve their students’ emotional states and to correct their faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors), improve students’ academic skills and self-regulatory practices (behavior), and alter the school and classroom structures that may work to undermine student success (environmental factors).” (p. 340-341) In addition, Pink advises, “praise and positive feedback are much less corrosive than cash and trophies.” (p. 67   ), Therefore, teachers should value and consider nontangible rewards.

 

Pink’s article doesn’t align with the Behaviorists Theory which argues that through reinforcements we can modify behavior and motivation. Pink discusses an experiment which looks at the effects of rewards on performance. In this study, researchers found that “higher incentives led to worse performance.” (p. 40) This is contrary to the Behaviors idea of behavior modification.

I believe that Pink would say that failure to learn is due to failure to motivate students. Failed motivation is done by making learning boring, redundant, and providing rewards for activities that students already enjoy. Each theorists would say that failure to learn is due to a different foundational component of their learning theory.

In my opinion, the recipe for success differs with every student. But teachers should learn their student’s personal, environmental and behavior factors. Determine each individual student’s interests and dislikes. Aim to cultivate a relationship with the student and strengthen their self-efficacy. Provide meaningful rewards to students for routine activities and take time to offer non-tangible rewards.  Just like any recipe, you can add to or leave out any ingredient to adjust the flavor of success.
Questions I still have:
1. What causes a person to have a fixed or growth mindset and what role does nature and nurture play in this?
2. Can a person's mindset be changed? For example, can a person with a growth mindset develop a fixed mindset or would this only be considered a moment of weakness or defeat? On the other hand, can a person with a fixed mindset develop a growth mindset? I think a lot of people have fear of failure. What happens when a person gets over their fears of failing in a particular area? Could they then be considered to have a growth mindset?
3. Can students have high self-efficacy despite certain environmental factors such as parents that are negative, unsupportive and emotionally abusive?  

Activity 7.4

Activity 7.3

There are a few misconceptions in regards to the social cognitive theory, which Bandura discusses in his article, But What About the Gigantic Elephant in the Room. The first misconception of this theory is that, “modeling, constructed as imitation, could only produce response mimicry.” (p. 2) In reality, modeling involves students abstracting information and reproducing it to “generate new versions of the behavior that go beyond what they have seen and heard.” (, p. 2)

The next misconception deals with the scope of modeling. The critics argue that modeling doesn’t build cognitive skills because, “thought processes are covert and are not adequately modeled actions, which are the end-products of the cognitive operations” (p. 2) This notion is incorrect as cognitive skills can be observed and models verbalize their reasoning strategies.

The third misconception argues, “Modeling is antithetical to creativity.” (p. 3) However, Bandura argues that diverse modeling allows innovativeness and new characteristics which “differ from the original sources.” (p. 3)    

Another misconception, pertains to the Bobo Doll experiment on transmitting forms of aggression through social modeling. Research shows that the exposure to modeled aggression, “ can teach novel aggressive styles of conduct; weaken restrains over interpersonal aggression by legitimizing, glamorizing, and trivializing violent conduct; desensitize and habituate viewers to human cruelty; and shape public images of reality by how it represents social and power relations and the norms and structures of societies. (Bandura, p. 3) Bandura explains that the Bobo Dolls were designed to clarify observational learning and not to teach aggression.

A key point made in the article is, “the social cognitive theory is founded on an agentic perspective toward human self-development, adaption and change. To be an agent is to influence the course of events by one’s actions.” (p. 4) According to this theory, people contribute to their life circumstances rather than just being products of them. To summarize, when providing modeling to learners, students take what they’ve viewed, contribute and expand upon it, and in doing so demonstrate their cognitive abilities.

I personally agree and connect with Bandura’s social cognitive theory of social modeling. As an educator, it’s imperative to model instruction to young students to aid in their comprehension. I always begin a lesson by modeling a basic component of the content, scaffold instruction for students to perform the task and then increase the content rigor and observe the students independently apply these concepts. At first students are mimicking the modeling what they’ve observed, but upon further practice the students develop and contribute their own understanding to the content.

I've found that social modeling opens the door of understanding to students that struggle to grasp concepts, are too shy to ask questions and would otherwise be inattentive. Students also love when they get to perform modeling for their friends or the class and "pretend" they are the teacher. It's exciting to see students enjoy learning and anticipate when it's their turn to model what they've learned.

Activity 7.2

An area of my life in which I hold strong self-efficacy is my ability to instruct children. As an adolescent, I worked with children, volunteered in classes and taught at camps. I was strongly influenced by my dad, who was an educator and I was encouraged by my own experiences with students.  My mentors and experiences built my foundation of confidence and passion for teaching children. Upon entering college, I knew I’d study education and use my skills to instruct children. Similarly, Pajare believes, “competent functioning requires harmony between self-beliefs on the one hand and possessed skills and knowledge on the other. Rather, it means that self-efficacy beliefs help to determine what people will do with the knowledge and skills they possess.” (p. 342) I had strong self-efficacy about teaching and possessed strong skills, which guided my beliefs and desire to become a teacher. On the other hand, I had weak self-efficacy and skills to be a doctor. Therefore, applying this same concept, my beliefs were guided that pursuing a medical degree wouldn’t be the right choice.

Activity 7.1

Behavior Factors:

·         Self-control and or self-discipline

·         Awareness and or alertness

·         Student’s attitude toward school, learning and teacher

·         Student’s self-respect and self-efficacy

·         Student’s feeling of acceptance by peers and teacher    

Personal Factors:

·         Cognitive abilities

·         Student’s strengths, weaknesses, skills, prior knowledge

Environmental Factors:

·         School and classroom environment

·         Home life including stability, nourishment, and shelter

·         Parents education and cognitive abilities

·         Parents attitude about content, school, teacher  

Behavior Factors directly influence a student’s personal factors when it comes to learning.  A student’s attitude toward school can negatively or positively influence his or her cognitive behaviors. For example, Sarah doesn’t like her math teacher and she performs poorly in math because she doesn’t listen, regularly misses class and doesn’t complete assignments.  Although, Sarah’s cognitive abilities are strong and she’s always been an excellent math student, her negative attitude toward her math teacher impedes her learning.  On the contrary, Sarah loves her new reading teacher and this positively influences her cognitive skills in reading. Sarah’s been an average reader but due to her positive attitude toward the reading teacher she’s now out performing her peers.

Similarly, environmental factors such as instability and nourishment can influence a student’s alertness or feeling of acceptance by his or her peers. Personal factors can also impact environmental factors by causing more tension in the classroom or at home. All three factors influence one another and inhibit or encourage the student’s ability to learn.  

Activity 6.5

I find Clay Shirky’s article, Why a leading professor of new media just banned technology use in class, interesting and relatable. In more recent years, I’ve found myself and others to be more inattentive and easily distracted. I connect this disengagement to Shirky’s statements, “Multi-tasking is cognitively exhausting” and “People often start multi-tasking because they believe it will help them get more done. Those gains never materialize; instead, efficiency is degraded.” Yes, technology does have its place, but it’s often pulling us in different directions and replacing deep meaning making opportunities with shallow ones. Thus, our quality of attention is diminished, our understanding disconnected and we are left in a cloud of second hand smoke, that permeates and fogs our minds. Paying attention is a constant effort, and technology use during instruction diverts the learners’ attention. Therefore, I agree with Shirky’s decision to ban technology in class, unless it’s required.

Activity 6.4

The marshmallow test is fascinating to me because it demonstrates the direct connection between self-regulation and future success. I believe that the students ability to self-regulate their attention, will focus during instruction, instead of follow every whim or distraction that floats into the room. Learning isn’t always immediately rewarding or enjoyable but it yields fruit, which takes patience, self-control and determination. Although, these qualities are hard to come by in a “drive-thru” and immediate self-gratifying culture, I’ve observed students deny themselves, only to be rewarded later.

One good example, is the “buck” system that I had in my classroom.  Students that stayed on blue every day were paid a dollar. The color blue meant that the student followed the rules, completed their work and attended school for the entire day. Students could earn extra money for answering questions in class, being kind or helpful to others, or staying on task. Every Friday, the class store was open and students could “buy” items such as candy, pencils, bouncy balls, and other fun toys. Two of the most expensive items at the store were lunch with the teacher which costs $40 and extra computer time which cost $30. I observed students buy from the store and this was my observation. Many students with only a dollar or two would rush over to buy their candy or toy every week. They immediately wanted their reward, always spent their money and sometimes went into debt because I charged them money when they needed to borrow a pencil or didn’t turn in their homework.  Other students used self-control and saved their money week after week.  These students had a goal in mind and focused on attaining their goal.  Interestingly, the students that exercised self-control were my highest achievers. They weren’t always from a higher socio-economic status, actually some of them were rather poor. However, these students were very determined, responsible, and self-regulators. 

My example of the “buck” system, reminds me a statement in Self-Control in School Age Children, “self-control is the voluntary regulation of attentional, emotional, and behavioral impulses when immediate temptations conflict with more enduringly valued goals.” (p. 200) Everyone has impulses, but it’s the people that exercise control over impulses, that will glean from the teacher’s instruction during distractions, stay up late to study on a Friday night, and be the first to person in the family to attend college.  Just as learning is the process of problem solving, successful learning is the process of self-regulation and self-denial.