Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 517–536 | Cite as

Conditioning Tendency Among Preschool and Primary School Children: Cross-Sectional Research

  • Kerem CoşkunEmail author
Article
  • 217 Downloads

Abstract

The present study aims to understand children’s behavior within classroom settings in terms of conditioning theories. It was designed based on grounded theory. Data were collected through participant observation and 98 children whose ages varied between 6 and 10 years were observed. Data were inductively analyzed. Findings indicated that kindergarteners and first graders tend toward classical conditioning and need more teacher control to adjust to classroom settings, whereas children aged from 9 to 10 years behave based on operant conditioning. It is proposed that differences in conditioning stem from teachers’ classroom management strategies, and cognitive development.

Keywords

Classical conditioning Operant conditioning Kindergarteners Primary school children Grounded theory 

Notes

Author Contributions

Reporting of the present study, data collection, literature review, data analysis were conducted by KC, author of the present study.

Funding

The present research did not receive any fund.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Competing interests

There is no competing interest.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,20(1), 137–153.Google Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,36(3), 387–403.Google Scholar
  4. Becraft, J. L., Borrero, J. C., Mendres-Smith, A. E., & Castillo, M. I. (2017). Decreasing excessive bids for attention in a simulated early education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education,26, 371–393.Google Scholar
  5. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist,41, 1069–1077.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J. (1988). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement: Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students. Educational Psychologist,23, 235–286.Google Scholar
  7. Camargo, S. P. H., Rispoli, M., Ganz, J., Hong, E. R., Davis, H., & Mason, R. (2016). Behaviorally based interventions for teaching social interaction skills to children with ASD in inclusive settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education,25(2), 223–248.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, N. R., Buskist, W., & Martin, G. N. (2000). Psychology: The science of behavior. Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Cheatham, J. M., Ozga, J. E., Peter, C. C. S., Mesches, G. A., & Owsiany, J. M. (2017). Increasing class participation in college classrooms with the good behavior game. Journal of Behavioral Education,26, 277–292.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Conklin, C. G., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2017). The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on students’ prosocial classroom behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(1), 75–100.Google Scholar
  12. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,13(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  13. Daly, E. J., Chafouleas, S. M., Persampieri, M., Bonfiglio, C. M., & LaFleur, K. (2004). Teaching phoneme segmenting and blending as critical early literacy skills: An experimental analysis of minimal textual repertoires. Journal of Behavioral Education,13(3), 165–178.Google Scholar
  14. DiPerna, J. C., Lei, P., & Reid, E. E. (2007). Kindergarten predictors of mathematical growth in the primary grades: An investigation using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten cohort. Journal of Educational Psychology,99(2), 369–379.Google Scholar
  15. Dulany, D. E. (1968). Awareness, rules, and propositional control: A confrontation with SR behavior theory. In T. R. Dixon, & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory (pp. 340–387). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Fawley, K. D., Stokes, T. F., Rainear, C. A., Rossi, J. L., & Budd, K. S. (2019). Universal TCIT ımproves teacher-child ınteractions and management of child behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09337-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, P. A., Schneider, K. A., Devine, B., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2019). Effects o error-contingent prompts depend on temporal arrangement of stimuli in symbolic matching to sample. Journal of Behavioral Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09338-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghirlanda, S., & Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour,66(1), 15–36.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces,35, 217–233.Google Scholar
  21. Hundziak, M., Maurer, R. A., & Watson, L. S. (2017). Operant conditioning in toilet training of severely retarded boys. In A. M. Graziano (Ed.), Behavior therapy with children (pp. 96–101). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kaufman, A., Baron, A., & Kopp, R. E. (1966). Some effects of instructions on human operant behavior. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements,1(11), 243–250.Google Scholar
  23. Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L. L., & Brock, L. (2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology,45(4), 958–972.Google Scholar
  24. King, S. A. (2016). Multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for students at risk for emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(4), 431–454.Google Scholar
  25. Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development,70(6), 1373–1400.Google Scholar
  26. Ledford, J. R., Zimmerman, K. N., Chazin, K. T., Patel, N. M., Morales, V. A., & Bennett, B. P. (2017). Coaching paraprofessionals to promote engagement and social interactions during small group activities. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(4), 410–432.Google Scholar
  27. Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (2011). Effects of a classwide interdependent group contingency designed to improve the behavior of an at-risk student. Journal of Behavioral Education,20(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
  28. Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology,50(5), 625–654.Google Scholar
  29. May, K. A. (1986). Writing and evaluating the grounded theory research report. In W. C. Chenitz & J. M. Swanson (Eds.), From practice to grounded theory (pp. 146–154). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. McDaniel, S. C., Bruhn, A. L., & Troughton, L. (2017). A brief social skills intervention to reduce challenging classroom behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M. H., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (1995). Constructions of survival and coping by women who have survived childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling Psychology,42(1), 24–33.Google Scholar
  33. Mowrer, O. H. (1939). A stimulus-response analysis of anxiety and its role as a reinforcing agent. Psychological Review,46(6), 553–565.Google Scholar
  34. O’Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann, R., Friston, K., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science,304(5669), 452–454.Google Scholar
  35. Panahon, C. J., & Martens, B. K. (2013). A comparison of noncontingent plus contingent reinforcement to contingent reinforcement alone on students’ academic performance. Journal of Behavioral Education,22(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
  36. Payne, S. W., Dozier, C. L., Briggs, A. M., & Newquist, M. H. (2017). An analysis of group-oriented contingencies and associated side effects in preschool children. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(1), 27–52.Google Scholar
  37. Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review,94(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  38. Powell, R., Honey, P., & Symbaluk, D. (2013). Introduction to learning and behavior. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  39. Radley, K. C., Dart, E. H., & O’Handley, R. D. (2016). The quiet classroom game: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement and reduce disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review,45(1), 93–108.Google Scholar
  40. Rich, S. E. H., Duhon, G. J., & Reynolds, J. (2017). Improving the generalization of computer-based math fluency building through the use of sufficient stimulus exemplars. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(2), 123–136.Google Scholar
  41. Rodriguez, B. J., & Anderson, C. M. (2014). Integrating a social behavior intervention during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,16, 234–245.Google Scholar
  42. Singh, K., Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., Courtney, C. G., & Payne, A. F. (2013). Can human autonomic classical conditioning occur without contingency awareness? The critical importance of the trial sequence. Biological Psychology,93(1), 197–205.Google Scholar
  43. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Some contributions of an experimental analysis of behavior to psychology as a whole. American Psychologist,8(2), 69–78.Google Scholar
  44. Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Skinner, B. F. (2013). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: BF Skinner Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research,17(10), 1372–1380.Google Scholar
  47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Timberlake, W. (2001). Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning. Behavioural Processes,54(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
  49. Vervliet, B., Baeyens, F., Van den Bergh, O., & Hermans, D. (2013). Extinction, generalization, and return of fear: A critical review of renewal research in humans. Biological Psychology,92(1), 51–58.Google Scholar
  50. Volpe, R. J., Mulé, C. M., Briesch, A. M., Joseph, L. M., & Burns, M. K. (2011). A comparison of two flashcard drill methods targeting word recognition. Journal of Behavioral Education,20(2), 117–137.Google Scholar
  51. Wagner, A. R. (1969). Stimulus selection and a modified continuity theory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,3, 1–41.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, S. (1987). Animal learning: Introduction to modern psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Watson, T. L., Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., Cazzell, S., Aspiranti, K. B., Moore, T., et al. (2016). Preventing disruptive behavior via classroom management: Validating the Color Wheel System in kindergarten classrooms. Behavior Modification,40(4), 518–540.Google Scholar
  54. Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Behaviourism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationArtvin Coruh UniversityArtvinTurkey

Personalised recommendations