Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 15, 2019, 03:52:53 am

Author Topic: Exam :)  (Read 6636 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nick

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Respect: +5
Exam :)
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2007, 02:12:14 pm »
0
Allowing them to sit their exam isn't positive reinforcement at all.

In that case, you'd have to think both examples would be correct.
Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) @ The University of Melbourne

Galelleo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2007, 02:14:25 pm »
0
I know, i understand why you think C. I just still think D is a better example because it clearly defines the aversive stimulus, and then shows how its taken away to provide a positive consequence.
Light a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.
Light a man ON fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.


Nick

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Respect: +5
Exam :)
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2007, 02:16:22 pm »
0
Thats true, but why wouldn't it say, "the girl says "I am sorry" after being forced to sit in the corner?
Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) @ The University of Melbourne

Galelleo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2007, 02:17:38 pm »
0
it says "making a child sit in the corner until they say "I am sorry""

but it is confusing, true... because it shows them ADDING the aversive stimulus (Suggesting punishment) and THEN shows them taking it away... i dont know :S
Light a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.
Light a man ON fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.


jeremykleeman

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +1
Exam :)
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2007, 02:18:38 pm »
0
Quote from: "Nick"
Allowing them to sit their exam isn't positive reinforcement at all.

In that case, you'd have to think both examples would be correct.


I disagree, the teacher is giving the student a second chance at their exam, which presumably the student wants to sit (doesn't matter why they want to - in this case to avoid failure). The important thing is the TEACHER is allowing the student a second chance, hence giving positive reinforcement to the student.

Nick

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Respect: +5
Exam :)
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2007, 02:18:55 pm »
0
Fair enough, it just seems way too much like punishment to me. Because the child has already experienced the negative consequences of her actions.
Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) @ The University of Melbourne

Galelleo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2007, 02:21:19 pm »
0
Quote from: "jeremykleeman"
Quote from: "Nick"
Allowing them to sit their exam isn't positive reinforcement at all.

In that case, you'd have to think both examples would be correct.


I disagree, the teacher is giving the student a second chance at their exam, which presumably the student wants to sit (doesn't matter why they want to - in this case to avoid failure). The important thing is the TEACHER is allowing the student a second chance, hence giving positive reinforcement to the student.


yeah, but the teacher is also removing the aversive stimulus of failing.

Quote from: "Nick"
Fair enough, it just seems way too much like punishment to me. Because the child has already experienced the negative consequences of her actions.


yes, but the childs actions are what remove the negatives.
it seems that the childs actions of apologising are more of an operant than the action of putting the child in the corner
Light a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.
Light a man ON fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.


Odette

  • Guest
Exam :)
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2007, 02:22:40 pm »
0
I don't care what you all think Qn 38 is D. :)
There no questions asked :P

jeremykleeman

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: +1
Exam :)
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2007, 02:23:40 pm »
0
Is it punishment when the desirable response (apologising) is strengthened?

Galelleo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2007, 02:24:12 pm »
0
nah, the response in question (misbehaviour) is weakened.
Light a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.
Light a man ON fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.


Timtasticle

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2007, 02:24:16 pm »
0
We don't know why the child is in the corner, so consequences for her previous actions are irrelevant.

The question is focusing on increasing behaviour - which is apologising for what the child has done wrong.

Nick

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Respect: +5
Exam :)
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2007, 02:25:11 pm »
0
Quote from: "jeremykleeman"
Quote from: "Nick"
Allowing them to sit their exam isn't positive reinforcement at all.

In that case, you'd have to think both examples would be correct.


I disagree, the teacher is giving the student a second chance at their exam, which presumably the student wants to sit (doesn't matter why they want to - in this case to avoid failure). The important thing is the TEACHER is allowing the student a second chance, hence giving positive reinforcement to the student.


Under your assumption that means that by positively reinforcing the student, they are going to INCREASE the likelihood of their behaviour occurring? So under that rule, you're suggesting that after receiving that so called "reinforcement", the student will continue to fail because they know they will be let off the hook each time?
Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) @ The University of Melbourne

positive_viv

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2007, 02:25:11 pm »
0
'Negative reinforcement is the removal or avoidance of an unpleasant stimulus.'

So, by the teacher allowing the student to sit an exam that gives them a passing grade, doesn't the student avoid failing i.e. the unpleasant stimulus?

That's kind of why I thought it was C.

But now I'm confused and I'm thinking it could probably be D as well. :/

Timtasticle

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 104
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2007, 02:28:51 pm »
0
This is hurting my head - we're not getting anywhere.

Anyone got another question to debate? :)

Galelleo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Respect: 0
Exam :)
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2007, 02:29:23 pm »
0
Quote from: "Nick"
Quote from: "jeremykleeman"
Quote from: "Nick"
Allowing them to sit their exam isn't positive reinforcement at all.

In that case, you'd have to think both examples would be correct.


I disagree, the teacher is giving the student a second chance at their exam, which presumably the student wants to sit (doesn't matter why they want to - in this case to avoid failure). The important thing is the TEACHER is allowing the student a second chance, hence giving positive reinforcement to the student.


Under your assumption that means that by positively reinforcing the student, they are going to INCREASE the likelihood of their behaviour occurring? So under that rule, you're suggesting that after receiving that so called "reinforcement", the student will continue to fail because they know they will be let off the hook each time?


lol, C and D are both probably ok answers.. well just have to see when the assessors report comes out lol
Light a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.
Light a man ON fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.