EDU70203

PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING & TEACHING
 

REFLECTION 1

HOW CAN TEACHERS USE BEHAVIOURISM WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM IN THEIR MAINSTREAM CLASSROOM? DOES IT ALSO WORK FOR NORMAL DEVELOPING CHILDREN?

Children and youths with autism spectrum disorders are a particularly special group who has spark the interest of many over the recent years. Kindergarten and schools are now evolving into an ‘inclusive’ school to accommodate the rising number of children who are diagnosed with this disability. These children and youths with a combined limitation in their social interaction, sensory, learning, behaviour, language and speech makes it a challenging task for teachers to help them adapt into their classroom. The uniqueness of this disability has been a fertile ground for the emergence of various interventions such as Relationship Development Intervention (RDI), Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and the most well known and common therapy - Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA; Anderson & Romanczyk, 1999; Schloss & Smith, 1998). This reflection zooms in specifically on the usefulness of ABA and behaviourism and how, if it can be used in a mainstream classroom.

ABA as itself is a generic term for a widely used scientific method of behaviour modification. However, within the circle of Autism, a particular technique from ABA is used known as the Discrete Trial Teaching (DTT) which stems from the learning theory of behaviourism. As the term suggests, DTT focuses on discrete trials where a teacher cues a behaviour, prompts the appropriate response and provides a reinforcement. Based on the findings of famous behaviourist such as Pavlov and Skinner, all behaviours are caused by an external stimuli, when learners are provided with the right reinforcement, the desired behaviour will be performed. Prompts are removed when a child is able to perform the appropriate response, and based on the behaviourists’ point of view, learning has taken place. This form of intervention usually takes place on a one-to-one basis at home, supported peer play and regular in class support in a mainstream education classroom.

In my classroom of 21 year 4 children - one being a boy diagnosed with Autism, two children who comes from a challenging learning background and a whole other children with different range of abilities, disabilities and needs, I found that using behaviourism in class particularly useful as a means to control how much work my learners are able to produce. Firstly, I would group my learners into three groups, a low ability group, mid ability group and a high ability group. Each group will have different task to complete that are based on the same topics. Most of the time it would be paired work and at other times it would be individual work. Paired work is much prefered as they work faster and can compete with other pairs in their groups. While they are completing their tasks, I am able to focus my attention on one group at a time. Using reinforcers such as group points or even individual merits help regulate their behaviour to keep them motivated to complete a task. I find that this is even more useful when done in pairs as if one loses focus, the other would help motivate and remind them to keep trying on their tasks.

As for my learner with autism, the classroom is set in a way to minimise his distraction. For example, because he has a fascination with glue sticks, rather than placing them in the same pot of stationeries on the table, all glue sticks are kept in a drawer away from his view. Before starting a topic with him, I would always ask him if there is an activity he would like to do for that day. It could either be reading on the iPad reading app, or going to the gym room for some sensory exercises. That would then be his reinforcement for the lesson. I will then spend 5 to 10 minutes revising the previous topic with him, and introduce a new component to him. If we have already learned one step word problems the last few lessons, this lesson we would learn two step word problems. I would try out a question with him and then allow him some space to try to work on the task independently. When he is done with his task, he would receive his reward that he has chosen.

One of the challenges of using this method in classroom especially for a learner with autism is the issue of his own personal self-motivation. If he is only learning through reinforcements, am I blindly feeding him with information without challenging him to be an independent enquirer? The same could be applied to the normal developing learners. I find that no doubt the work has been produced, there is little to no way for me to judge if they have truly understood what they have done if I am a full fledged behaviourist teacher. Ultimately, yes reinforcements and behaviourism is useful in my classroom setting not only with learners with Autism but also with the normal developing learners. However it is also important that as teachers we try out different approach not only to fit the needs of our learners to best of our abilities but also to assure that our learners achieve their learning targets.

References

Anderson, S. R, & Romanczyk, R. G. (1999). Early intervention for young children with autism Continuum-based behavioural model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 162-173

Schloss, P J, & Smith, M. A. (1998). Applied behaviour analysis in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

REFLECTION 2

TEACHER-LED OR STUDENT-LED - HOW IT AFFECTED MY TEACHING?

Coming from a government school in Malaysia, we have always been seated on a specific desk, usually next to an opposite gender to prevent us from chit chatting away, with the teacher's desk right in front of the classroom. There were minimal to no group discussions and teachers always expect pin-drop silence when she or he is speaking. Homework were given everyday and is to be handed in the next day. If I were to describe my learning journey as a young learner, it would be a boring and stressful one. Do not get me wrong, going to school was fun, we get to meet our friends and play fun games that young kids do not play this days; the learning was the less fun part of school. After attending the lecture about teacher-led and student-led classroom, I cannot help but to immediately identify my primary (and secondary) classroom as a teacher-led classroom.

When I started teaching at Garden International School (GIS) as a learning assistant a year and a half ago, I was amazed by how participative students were in their own learning. They were not afraid to ask questions, participate in discussion and speak to teacher when they stumble upon a challenging task. I wished I attended a school just like GIS - learning is not only fun, but it is learner friendly. Of course now I know what really made a difference between GIS and my school was the balance between student-led and teacher-led environment.

Before I knew the term teacher-led and student-led, my personal goal as a learning assistant to a learner with Autism that I still hold close until today is to always have a bond with my learners. Special need or not, I always find ways to connect with them, be it through games or just simply checking-in on their progress - academic and at times personal growth. I find that my learners listen and learn better when it comes to having a teacher who understands them. A recent pilot study at a Avans University in the Netherlands, showed that handing the lead to students raises grades, increases attendance and enhances overall student engagement. The experiment began with the finance department, whose lecturers had decided radical action was needed to improve a typical attendance rate of just 50% in each class, and the poor exam performance as a result.Of course, after I learned the term teacher-led and student-led, I thought to myself "I am a full fledged student-led teacher!".

Before elaborate further, let me first explain that I am a personal learning assistant who is responsible solely for the learning of one learner in school. Outside of school, I also take on students to guide them with homework and extra learning. All of these are done on a one-to-one basis. Even before I was in GIS, I practiced ABA therapy (refer to this blog link to understand what ABA is) with children with Autism also on a one-to-one structure. Being in a one-to-one environment gives me the time I need to be a student centered teacher. The two main things I am able to do is to tweak and curate personalized worksheet for my learners and break down difficult skills into smaller achievable goals.

As I venture deeper into this debate of being teacher led or student-led, I realised that even though I believe in student-led teaching, I find that there are challenges I am facing or will face in the future because of the way I teach. One of the main challenge I face is to find the balance between giving my learners a chance to talk and make decisions and my turn as a teacher to teach and instruct. How do I give them enough control and at the same retain their respect for me as a teacher? In this case, I usually always start the session with a fun activity or even by giving them 5 minutes to do an activity they like just to get into a good mood. I also end the lesson with having a few minutes to feedback each other. I find that ending my session with a quick run through over the mistakes and what has been done well, it encourage my learners to be participative in their learning. They are more aware of areas that need amendments and what needs to be completed. This is a very important skill especially for my special need learner to encourage independence so my role as a personal learning assistant can fade off.

The other challenge I will have to face in the future is adapting my teaching style in a classroom setting. In a class of 20 students or more, is it possible to still be a student-led teacher and simultaneously finish teaching the syllabus I need to cover? The debate of teacher led or student led teaching will be a never ending one. Though one thing I realised, there will not be a right answer when it comes to teaching. Due to circumstances and limitations, teachers will have to tweak and modify their teaching to not only tailor to the need on their students but also to comply to certain rules and guidelines set by the education ministry.

REFLECTION 3

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS AFFECTING COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Early childhood is not only a period of physical growth, but it is also a prime period where cognitive development takes place. Cognitive abilities include a few complex tasks such as memory, reasoning, thinking and problem solving which continues to develop and mature throughout childhood. This reflection aims to layout the four factors influencing a child’s cognitive development; sociocultural factors, biological factor, gene-environment factor and language factors.  

The first factor contributing to a child’s cognitive development is sociocultural factors. Modern day researchers emphasize that Vygotsky’s (1978) main idea of his theories are on the belief that development of a child’s cognitive ability should be studied in the social and cultural context that surrounds the child (Bjorklund, 2012). Vygotsky (1978) claims that infants are born with a few elementary mental processes such as attention, perception and memory. As the child matures, these mental processes transforms into what Vygotsky termed as higher mental functions such as problem solving and methods of thinking (Bjorklund, 2012). It is the cultural differences that will affect the higher mental processes which come from the interaction between a child and a more competent member of society. Not to forget, culture also transmit its beliefs and values which teaches a child not only how to think but what to think. Take for example children who are brought up in an information-age society will learn to remember by taking notes more effectively compared to preliterate-age children who might have learn to remember a chore by tying a string around their finger. In addition, Vygotsky (1978) explained the difference between what a child can perform with and without help of a more skilled partner using the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that following a more skilled partner would help the child to develop the ability to perform certain task without any aid. Brown & Campione (1996) indeed showed that a child’s ability can be improved with guidance from a more skilled partner. The zone of proximal development is seen as a scaffolding process, where appropriate assistances are provided. Scaffolding is thought to give learners a ‘boost’ to achieve a particular task. With the benefit of scaffolding a task can be mastered and scaffolding is no longer needed as learners are able to complete the task on their own. From this, we are able to see how culture transmits its way of thinking to a child and with the help of a more skilled partner, how a child is able to complete a task.  

Secondly, biological factors itself plays an important role in a child’s cognitive development. Children with specific learning disabilities largely contribute to a child’s learning process. For example, Autistic children are impaired in social interaction and communication and constantly repeat their behaviour as there have difficulties in disengaging from an object and have no understanding of other’s mind (Kanner, 1943). According to the Theory of Mind (Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith, 1985), appreciating what others are thinking and their perspective is important in the development of children’s cognition. Without this ability, communication would be tough and we cannot understand children with Autism's intention. This is best illustrated using the Sally-Anne task, a task to test if children understand others have false beliefs. 4 year old children with Autism had a success rate of 20% whereas normal children have 80% of success (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985). Perner et al. (1989) found similar results when using the Smarties false-belief task on autistic children. In addition, low birth weight infants in northeast Brazil did show a lower IQ score and poor performance on dynamic balance and eye-hand coordination (Edmond & Bahl, 2006). However, after controlling social background of the children, low birth weight infants did not differ from appropriate birth weight infants (Edmond et al. 2006), which seems to suggest that sociocultural factors play a bigger role in children’s cognitive development.   

Thirdly, researchers such as Scarr and McCartney (1983) suggest that it is the genes that influence what environment one encounters. In a simple way of putting it, our genes drive our experiences. Looking at the genotype-environment theory, our environment still plays an important role in one’s cognitive development but it is the inherited genes that bring about the difference in what a person will experience in life.  Results from a study conducted by Scarr and Weinberg (1978) showed that biological unrelated siblings who were reared under the same roof produced moderately similar IQ levels in the years of their life. This reflects the influence of environment on IQ levels. However, when the IQ levels were measured again during the adolescent period of the biologically unrelated siblings, the correlation of the IQ was zero. Thus, this research supports the idea that environment does play a role on one’s cognitive development during the early years of their life but the influence of environment becomes lesser as the child matures. This due to the reason that children are increasingly available to select an environment which their most comfortable with and their choice of environment is determined by one’s genotype.  

Lastly, language is also an important factor in a child’s cognitive development. As children learn words, they are learning concepts as well. For example, when a child first learn the word ‘dog’ while pointing at the family dog, it does not mean that the child actually understand what a dog means. The child may call many other things dog such as cats, horses or even the father’s beard as it all contains similarity - fur and hair. This is known as overextending a word. This shows that a child does not only learn word for the word, but the concept as well. Hermer & Spelke (1994) also found that language further improve spatial reasoning. Before leaning spatial phrases such as ‘left’ or ‘right’ children have difficulties using visual landmarks in a hide and seek game. In addition, in a study conducted by Gordon (2004) showed that children who have limited way of expressing quantities (one, two and many) are poorer in their arithmetic performance. Gordon 2004) showed that adult speakers of two Amazonia languages (Piraha and Munduruku) who have no number words for more than five are poor when it comes to large numbered arithmetic calculation. However, Piraha children who learned Portuguese are able to perform well on large numbered arithmetic calculations. This suggests that language’s ability to represent numbers is responsible for the difference in numerical thinking which shows us how language affects one’s cognitive development.  

In conclusion, we can see that there are many different factors affecting a child’s cognitive development. Each factors have their contribution and no factors or theory should be better or worse compared to each other as it all have an equal contribution to understanding children’s cognitive development. It is also worth noting that cognition involves many processes such as learning, memory, perception and language which are hard to study. Cognitive development continues to be a nature versus nature debate. However, most experts recognise this as a false dichotomy and both nature and nurture, as seen in this essay plays an equally important role on the cognitive development of a child.  

References

Baron-Cohen, S, Leslie, A.M., & Frith, U, (1985) Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? Cognition, 21, 37-46.

Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bjorklund, David F. (2012). Children's thinking: cognitive development ad individual differences. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Edmond K, Bahl R: Optimal feeding of low birth weight infants: technical review. World Health Organization; 2006.

Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.

Hermer, L., & Spelke, S. S. (1994). A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Nature, 370, 57–59.

Kanner L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nerv. Child 2:217-50

Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M., and Leekam, S. R. (1989). Exploration of the autistic child's theory of mind: knowledge, belief, and communication. Child Dev. 60, 689–700. doi: 10.2307/1130734

Scarr, S., McCartney, K. (1983). How People Make Their Own Environments: A Theory of Genotype → Environment Effects. Child Development, 54 (2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1129703.

Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families. American Psychologist, 31, 726-739.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction Between. Learning and Development. In Gauvain &. Cole (Eds) Readings on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific.