The Application of Operant Conditioning Techniques in a Secondary Classroom Essay Example for Free

The Application of Operant Conditioning Techniques in a Secondary Classroom Essay The Application Of Operant Conditioning Techniques In A Secondary Classroom Background A plethora of Studies have reported the effectiveness of operant conditioning techniques in altering the behavior of children in a number of different situations. There has been many studies in which teacher-supplied consequences have had effects on preschool and elementary school children in a regular classroom, but almost none in the secondary schooling classrooms. The results of these studies were that in smaller classrooms, students’ behavior improved with consequences given by the teacher. McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman now take a look at the effects of these consequences on a larger scale. This study sought to take an entire class of secondary school students and apply teacher-supplied consequences for misbehavior to discover if the behavior of the students improved. Methods The subjects consisted of 51 students ranging in age from 16-19 years, who all had similar I. Q. s and economic backgrounds. The experimental group consisted of 25 students (12 boys and 13 girls), Where as the control group consisted of 26 students (13 boys and 13 girls). Also, The experimental class was 70 minutes long and the control class was 60 minutes long. The teacher was a 23-year-old female who held a bachelors degree in education. She had one year’s experience in teaching secondary level English. The basic design of the experiment was a pretest-posttest control group design combined with the use of a multiple baseline technique in the experimental class. The behaviors chosen to be targeted were Inappropriate talking and turning around due to the fact that these behaviors had a high rate of occurrence. Inappropriate talking was classified as any vocal behavior portrayed by a student without the teacher’s permission. Also, any vocal behavior required that the student raise his or her hand before speaking, unless engaged in a group discussion. Inappropriate turning around was classified as any turning-around behavior in which the student turned more than 90 degrees away from the front of the room. An exception to this was when a student was required to turn around to distribute papers to their classmates as directed by the teacher. The observations were recorded for the experimental class using a sequentially numbered, 70-box table for each behavior. The observations of the control class were recorded using a similar, 60-box table. If either of the target behaviors occurred during any minute interval of time, it was recorded by placing a check mark in the corresponding box for that interval. Any further occurrences of the target behavior during the same time interval were not recorded. Thus, each time interval represented whether or not the behavior had occurred during the time interval opposed to the number of occurrences. A daily quantified measurement of each behavior was obtained by dividing the number of checked time intervals by the total number of intervals in that class period, which gave us a percentage of intervals in which the behavior occurred at least once. The baseline condition lasted for 28 days in which the teacher was asked to behave in her usual manner. The Average reliability for talking behavior was 90. 49% in the experimental class, and 89. 49% in the control class. Average reliability for turning behavior was 94. 27% in the experimental class and 90. 98 in the control class. Also, two aspects of the teacher’s behavior were recorded. The average reliability for teacher reprimand behavior was 92. 78% in the experimental class and 94. 84% in the control class. Average reliability for teacher praise behavior was 98. 85% in the experimental class and 97. 65% in the control class. The first experimental condition began in the experimental class on the 28th day. The teacher was to attempt to disapprove of all instances of inappropriate talking behavior whenever they occurred in a direct and verbal manner. The teacher was also asked not to threaten students with or apply other consequences such as keeping them after class or sending them to the office. In addition to these guidelines, the teacher was also asked to praise the entire class with remarks like â€Å"thank you for being so cooperative today†. The second experimental condition took place after the first one had been in effect in the experimental class for 26 days and had markedly reduced talking behavior. In this condition, the contingent social consequences for talking behavior were continued as well as implementing the same system of consequences for turning behavior. Results Inappropriate talking behavior during the baseline condition in the experimental class and the control class yielded similar results (25. 3% in the experimental class, and 23. 81% in the control class). On day 28 when the first experimental condition was implemented, inappropriate talking behavior immediately reduced. This decrease continued as time went on and finally stabilized at a level below 5%. At the same time, the control class continued to portray its previous level of inappropriate talking behavior. Inappropriate turning behavior during the baseline condition in the experimental class and control class was slowly increasing (15. 13% in the experimental class, and 14. 45% in the control class). On day 54 when the second experimental condition was implemented, the inappropriate turning behavior also began to decrease. This behavior continued to decrease during the remaining days of the study. The number of times the teacher reprimanded students for inappropriate behavior during the baseline period were 25. 76% in the experimental class and 22. 23% in the control class. During the first experimental condition, the teacher disapproved an average of 93. 33% of inappropriate talking behavior. During the second experimental condition, the teacher disapproved an average of 95. 0 % of inappropriate turning behavior. Conclusions The results clearly portray that by the teacher’s actions of praise and disapproval, she was able to reduce the amount of inappropriate talking behavior as well as the amount of inappropriate turning behavior. In reprimanding the students in a more direct manner, using names and calling the students out for misbehaving, the teacher was able to make a deeper impact on the student for his or her actions. Also, in taking away consequences such as staying after class, the teacher removed fear from the tudents and instead implemented proper behavior. The teacher also used praise to decrease the amount of inappropriate behavior of her students. She would say things like â€Å"what a great class today† or â€Å"you guys were on your best behavior today† to make the students feel good about being on their best behavior.

A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence Essay -- Biology Essa

A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence Primates and cetacean have been considered by some to be extremely intelligent creatures, second only to humans. Their exalted status in the animal kingdom has lead to their involvement in many experiments which hope to gain a better understanding of the basis of human intelligence. These experiments coupled with analysis of primate and cetaceans brain structure has lead to many theories as to the development of intelligence as a trait. Although these theories seem to be sound, there is some controversy over the degree to which non-human studies can be used to infer about the structure of human intelligence. By many of the physical methods of comparing intelligence, such as measuring the brain size to body size ratio, cetacean surpass non-human primates and even rival human beings. For example dolphins have a cerebral cortex which is about 40% larger a human being's. Their cortex is also stratified in much the same way as a humans(1). The frontal lobe of dolphins is also developed to a level comparable to humans. In addition the parietal lobe of dolphins which "makes sense of the senses" is larger than the human parietal and frontal lobes combined (1). The similarities do not end there, most cetaceans have large and well developed temporal lobes which contain sections equivalent to Broca's and Wernicke's areas in humans (1). Another major difference between primate and cetacean brains is that the primate brain favors the motor cortex, while "the cetaceans greatly favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)" (1). In the final measure of brain complexity, neural density ... ...hat the have a similar brain structure; behavior is way to species specific to be studied without the common thread of the brain. The study of non-human primates and dolphins has lead to many profound questions as to the nature of intelligence. And thought the answers provided to date have been disputed, the questions are not any less worth of being asked. But in order to get beyond the disputes, researchers must be willing to shed there antrocentric view of intelligence and accept that it is an trait which can evolve like any other trait. When this is done it may be finally possible to recognize the remarkable abilities that some many people seem to find in animals as evidence of animal intelligence not lesser human intelligence. Internet Sources: http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol2/Primate.html http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/history.htm A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence Essay -- Biology Essa A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence Primates and cetacean have been considered by some to be extremely intelligent creatures, second only to humans. Their exalted status in the animal kingdom has lead to their involvement in many experiments which hope to gain a better understanding of the basis of human intelligence. These experiments coupled with analysis of primate and cetaceans brain structure has lead to many theories as to the development of intelligence as a trait. Although these theories seem to be sound, there is some controversy over the degree to which non-human studies can be used to infer about the structure of human intelligence. By many of the physical methods of comparing intelligence, such as measuring the brain size to body size ratio, cetacean surpass non-human primates and even rival human beings. For example dolphins have a cerebral cortex which is about 40% larger a human being's. Their cortex is also stratified in much the same way as a humans(1). The frontal lobe of dolphins is also developed to a level comparable to humans. In addition the parietal lobe of dolphins which "makes sense of the senses" is larger than the human parietal and frontal lobes combined (1). The similarities do not end there, most cetaceans have large and well developed temporal lobes which contain sections equivalent to Broca's and Wernicke's areas in humans (1). Another major difference between primate and cetacean brains is that the primate brain favors the motor cortex, while "the cetaceans greatly favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)" (1). In the final measure of brain complexity, neural density ... ...hat the have a similar brain structure; behavior is way to species specific to be studied without the common thread of the brain. The study of non-human primates and dolphins has lead to many profound questions as to the nature of intelligence. And thought the answers provided to date have been disputed, the questions are not any less worth of being asked. But in order to get beyond the disputes, researchers must be willing to shed there antrocentric view of intelligence and accept that it is an trait which can evolve like any other trait. When this is done it may be finally possible to recognize the remarkable abilities that some many people seem to find in animals as evidence of animal intelligence not lesser human intelligence. Internet Sources: http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol2/Primate.html http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/history.htm

Dbq †Crime and Punishment Essay

Law is good. Man, in his needs, has different motivations for law in society. His secular needs require striving for justice, social stability, and punishment. However, in the area of religious influence, law should promote morality so that believers can get close to God or be separated and condemned by God. As man and society evolves, the purpose of law has remained the same – to punish and deter. Faith is a guarantee for happiness. If one lives a proper life of morality then rewards await. According to the Old Testament (1), God desires a harsh but structured code of conduct for man. Man is inherently a selfish and savage creature. Boundaries are necessary in order for society to function lawfully and logically. This negative behavior can be influenced by ultimate punishments – capital punishment and condemnation. The POV for the Old Testament is one of tone. The feeling expressed is one of caution. The book of Laviticus stresses behavior and how people must be sure that they follow good conduct in order to please God. If this behavior goes against morality, then hell and punishment awaits. Also, stated by Ashoka (4), peace and harmony in life can be achieved through proper justice – even for the guilty. Hope and reassurance can be displayed, when, judging others, no prejudice is displayed – bias against color, religion, status, etc†¦ God doesn’t. The POV from Ashoka reflects an authorial nature. He believes his rule should bring harmony and peace to his kingdom. Since he is a Buddhist, he will naturally stress Buddhist ideology in his reign – law, military, economic, etc†¦ Man uses the law to better himself and society. According to the code of Hammurabi (2), Hammurabi emphasizes the power of the court system when dealing with punishment or justice. When people trust their government to provide fairness and security through legal and political processes and actions, then those people and their nation will be strong – economically, culturally, etc†¦ Han Fei Tzu (3) states that the law applies to everyone. Punishing the rich and noble, as well as common people, shows equality in a  society and creates trust between the people and their government. If biasness is involved with punishment, the people will demand for justice because of the need for fairness and equality in a strong political and social society. Also, according to the Twelve Tables (5), people should take the time to negotiate – in the judicial system – in order to resolve issues in a civilized manner. All citizens are entitled to a fair and just trial, no matter ones social status. Government creates penalties in varying degrees to match the severities of crime to appear just to society. According to Tahema (6), be good and you will do good in society; be bad and you will be punished. Decent behavior is obvious in its actions and rewards. Following what is right leads to obvious rewards – physical happiness, social success (job), etc†¦ In addition, Beccaria(7) states that punishment should fit the crime – law should deter. Fear is a strong motivator; it can direct action and words when it comes to how you think and feel. If one’s afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing, then one will consider the consequences of their behavior beforehand. Plus, according to John Mill (8), the death penalty is appropriate in some places. The most severe crime of man is punishable by the ultimate penalty – the death penalty. For justice to prevail, for the worst of crimes, the judicial system still is burdened of proving the intent of character of the defendant. The POV from Mill is one of tone. He displays viciousness in his feelings about the death penalty. Mill is not afraid to play God and judge others not worthy to live. His attitude may be more about revenge than justice. Sometimes justice calls for blood. Based on these documents from reliable sources varied through time periods, there has been no significant change over time in the purpose of law. Hammurabi implemented the use of a court system to rule on the legality and punishment of a crime. Also, later in history, the Twelve Tables describe how a court trail works and to negotiate on problems. As time progresses, the secular and religious motivations have gone through no significant changes. A good outside source would be a Supreme Court justice of the Supreme Court in the early 1900’s. Because of his experience dealing with the legality and punishment of laws his whole career, we would understand why man strives for justice and whether or not someone deserves punishment. His determination to achieve social stability requires him to inflict the death penalty upon the citizens of his own nation, while also trying to interpret the law in accordance with the society in his time period. In conclusion, law is good. Man’s needs have different motivations for law in society. His secular needs require striving for justice, social stability, and punishment. However, in the area of religious influence, law should promote morality so that believers can get close to God or be separated and condemned by God. As man and society evolves, the purpose of law has remained the same – to punish and deter.

Rudolf Hess, Nazi Who Claimed to Be Bringing Peace Offer

Rudolf Hess was a top Nazi official and close associate of Adolph Hitler who shocked the world in the spring of 1941 by flying a small plane to Scotland, parachuting to the ground, and claiming when captured that he was delivering a peace proposal from Germany. His arrival was met with astonishment and skepticism, and he spent the rest of the war in captivity. Fast Facts: Rudolph Hess Birth: April 26, 1894, Alexandria, Egypt.Death: August 17, 1987, Spandau Prison, Berlin, Germany.Known for: High-ranking Nazi who flew to Scotland in 1941, claiming to bring a peace proposal. Close Hitler Associate There has always been considerable debate about Hesss mission. The British concluded he had no authority to negotiate peace, and questions about his motivations and even his sanity persisted. There was no doubt that Hess had been a longtime associate of Hitler. He had joined the Nazi movement when it was a tiny fringe group on the edge of German society and during Hitlers rise to power he became a trusted aide. At the time of his flight to Scotland, he was widely known to the outside world as a trusted member of Hitlers inner circle. Hess was ultimately convicted at the Nuremberg Trials, and would outlive the other Nazi war criminals who were convicted alongside him. Serving a life term in grim Spandau Prison in West Berlin, he ultimately became the prisons sole inmate for the last two decades of his life. Even his death in 1987 was controversial. By official account, he had committed suicide by hanging himself at the age of 93. Yet rumors of foul play circulated and still persist. After his death the German government had to deal with his grave in a family plot in Bavaria becoming a pilgrimage site for modern day Nazis. Early Career Hess was born as Walter Richard Rudolf Hess in Cairo, Egypt, on April 26, 1894. His father was a German merchant based in Egypt, and Hess was educated at a German school in Alexandria and later at schools in Germany and Switzerland. He embarked on a business career which was quickly interrupted by the outbreak of war in Europe when he was 20 years old. In World War I Hess served in a Bavarian infantry unit and eventually trained as a pilot. When the war ended with Germanys defeat Hess was embittered. Like many other disgruntled German veterans, his deep disillusionment led him to radical political movements. Hess became an early adherent of the Nazi Party, and forged a close association with the partys rising star, Hitler. Hess served as Hitlers secretary and bodyguard in the early 1920s. After the abortive coup in 1923 in Munich, which became famous as the Beer Hall Putsch, Hess was imprisoned with Hitler. During this period Hitler dictated to Hess part of what became his notorious book Mein Kampf. As the Nazis rose to power, Hess was given important posts by Hitler. In 1932 he was appointed head of the partys central commission. In the following years he continued being promoted, and his role in the top Nazi leadership was evident. A front-page headline in the New York Times in the summer of 1934 referred to his likely position as Hitlers closest subordinate and successor: Hitler Understudy Likely To Be Hess. In 1941, Hess was officially known as the third most powerful Nazi, after only Hitler and Herman Goering. In reality his power had probably faded, yet he was still in close contact with Hitler. As Hess hatched his plan to fly out of Germany, Operation Sea Lion, Hitlers plan to invade England the previous year had been postponed. Hitler was turning his attention eastward and making plans to invade Russia. Flight to Scotland On May 10, 1941, a farmer in Scotland discovered a German flier, wrapped in a parachute, on his land. The flier, whose Messerschmitt fighter plane had crashed nearby, first claimed to be an ordinary military pilot, giving his name as Alfred Horn. He was taken into custody by the British military. Hess, posing as Horn, told his captors he was a friend of the Duke of Hamilton, a British aristocrat and noted aviator who had attended the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The Germans, or at least Hess, seemed to believe the Duke could help broker a peace deal. While detained in a hospital shortly after his capture, Hess got to meet the Duke of Hamilton and revealed his true identity. The Duke immediately contacted Prime Minister Winston Churchill and informed him that he had met Hess years earlier and the man who had landed in Scotland was indeed the high-ranking Nazi. British authorities expressed astonishment as the peculiar story of Hesss arrival in Scotland made headlines around the world. The earliest dispatches about Hesss flight from Germany to Scotland were full of speculation about his purpose and motives. One theory in the early press accounts was that Hess feared a purge was coming of top Nazi officials and Hitler might be planning to have him killed. Another theory was that Hess had decided to abandon the Nazi cause and help the British. The official story which was ultimately put out by the British was that Hess claimed to be bringing a peace proposal. The British leadership did not take Hess seriously. In any event, less than a year after the Battle of Britain the British were in no mood to discuss peace with Hitler. The Nazi leadership, for its part, distanced itself from Hess and put out the story that he had been suffering from delusions. For the rest of the war Hess was held by the British. His mental state was often questioned. At one point he seemed to attempt suicide by jumping over the railing of a staircase, breaking a leg in the process. He seemed to spend most of his time staring into space and began to habitually complain that he believed his food was being poisoned. Decades of Captivity Following the end of World War II, Hess was put on trial at Nuremberg along with other leading Nazis. Throughout the ten months of the 1946 war crimes trial, Hess often seemed disoriented as he sat in the courtroom along with other high-ranking Nazis. At times he read a book. Often he stared into space, seeming to have no interest in what was happening around him. Rudolf Hess, with arms extended, at the Nuremberg Trial. Getty Images   On October 1, 1946, Hess was sentenced to life in prison. Twelve of the other Nazis on trial with him were sentenced to be hanged, and others received sentences of 10 to 20 years. Hess was the only Nazi leader to be sentenced to a life term. He escaped the death penalty mainly because his mental state was questionable and he had spent the bloodiest years of the Nazi terror locked up in England. Hess served his sentence in Spandau Prison in West Berlin. Other Nazi prisoners died in prison or were released as their terms ended, and from October 1, 1966, onward, Hess was Spandaus only prisoner. His family periodically sought to have him released, but their appeals were always refused. The Soviet Union, which had been a party to the Nuremberg trials, insisted that he serve every day of his life sentence. In prison, Hess was still mostly a mystery. His peculiar behavior continued, and it wasnt until the 1960s that he agreed to have monthly visits from family members. He was in the news at times when he was taken to a British military hospital in Germany for treatment of various ailments. Controversy After Death Hess died in prison on August 17, 1987, at the age of 93. It was revealed that he had strangled himself with an electrical cord. His jailers said he had left a note indicating a desire to kill himself. Rumors circulated that Hess had been murdered, supposedly because he had become a figure of fascination for neo-Nazis in Europe. The Allied powers released his body to his family, despite fears that his grave would become a shrine for Nazi sympathizers. At his funeral in a Bavarian graveyard in late August 1987 scuffles broke out. The New York Times reported that about 200 Nazi sympathizers, some dressed in Third Reich uniforms, scuffled with police. Hess was buried in a family plot and the site did become a gathering place for Nazis. In the summer of 2011, fed up with visits by Nazis, the cemetery administration exhumed Hesss remains. His body was then cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in an unknown location. Theories about Hesss flight to Scotland continue to emerge. In the early 1990s, files released from Russias KGB seemed to indicate that British intelligence officers had lured Hess to leave Germany. The Russian files included reports from the notorious mole Kim Philby. The official reason for Hesss flight remains as it was in 1941: Hess believed he could, on his own, make peace between Germany and Britain. Sources: Walter Richard Rudolf Hess. Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed., vol. 7, Gale, 2004, pp. 363-365. Gale Virtual Reference Library.Rudolf Hess Is Dead In Berlin; Last of Hitler Inner Circle. New York Times 18 August 1987. A1.