-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:17 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Classroom attendance and the fixed interval scallop
Rick Froman wrote: > >I know that we have discussed the fact that studying over the course > >of a semester is not actually on a fixed interval (even with the > >phenomenon of cramming being so common) because that would mean that > >the first response of studying after the test would be reinforced. > >However, is it correct to say that attendance in class might be on a > >fixed interval schedule if test dates are fixed in the syllabus? The > >reason I ask is because attendance records in my Intro class show the > >usual scalloping patterns: high attendance right before a test with > >large dropoffs afterward with attendance increasing again right > >before and through the next test <snip> > This clearly looks like a fixed interval pattern. Is this > >evidence that tests reinforce attendance behavior? Stephen writes: As Rick himself noted, this can't be fixed interval, because FI requires that the first response after the end of the interval is the one that's reinforced. So if the test date is reinforcing attendance, it would reinforce attendance at the first class after the test, not before. I reply: But you could look at the Fixed Interval as the first response made after reinforcement is available. Since the test is available on the day of the test, you could consider attendance at the test to be the first response made after the test was available. Stephen notes: Another objection to calling this FI is that FI involves a contingency: the application of the reinforcer depends on the occurrence of a prior designated response. No response, no reinforcer. But in the real world of the classroom, the test arrives come hell or high water, whether or not you're ready for it. I reply: Which would make it sound like an opportunity for the creation of a classically instead of operantly conditioned response. However, although the test is coming no matter what, you won't take it unless you are there. So your attendance does affect whether or not you will take the test. If a rat runs a maze for food, the food may be at the end of the maze but the rat won't get it if he doesn't get to the end of the maze. Stephen writes: A scallop is an interesting pattern of response which appears in a number of situations, especially behaviour when faced with a deadline. But while FI produces scallops (at least in rats), having a scallop doesn't mean it was produced by FI. I'd call it pseudo-FI or quasi-FI responding unless proven otherwise. I agree that a scalloped pattern of response is no guarantee that you are seeing the result of an FI schedule but I think there may be more FI characteristics in this example than you think. The relevance of this, as I noted in the original post, is that the students' behavior in my class does not seem to respond to the contingency that all of my classes are of equal importance (except for the tests) because I do not have review sessions so missing the first class after a test will lead to as much of a knowledge deficit as missing the one right before the next test. Maybe students are generalizing from their experiences in other classes that do have review sessions or maybe there are other reasons for that pattern. I don't think it is a stretch, however, to say that taking a test is a reinforcer for attendance on an FI schedule. Rick Rick Froman [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
