Fifteen Call-Outs in Forty Minutes
In a Class 11 classroom of 52 students in Silchar, a student named Farhan calls out answers without raising his hand about 15 times in a 40-minute period. The teacher's response is to stop the lesson and reprimand him for 30–60 seconds each time, which the class finds entertaining. Farhan has been sent to the corridor four times this month; he returns and the calling out continues. Meanwhile Priya, who raises her hand, is rarely called on because the teacher wants to finish the syllabus. The teacher says: 'I have punished him repeatedly, so he must be a slow learner with no motivation.' A colleague suggests ignoring Farhan completely, or giving him a token for every 10 minutes in which he does not call out, but the teacher worries that ignoring will look like approval to the other 51 students.
1. Analyse the reprimands and the corridor exclusions using operant conditioning. What consequence is Farhan actually receiving, and what is happening to the teacher's behaviour?
Read the worked answer
Map each event onto operant contingencies.
For Farhan:
- Calling out → the teacher stops the lesson, reprimands him for 30–60 seconds, and the class finds it entertaining. That is positive reinforcement: a consequence is added - attention, laughter, a break from work - and the behaviour rises to about 15 times in 40 minutes.
- Being sent to the corridor removes him from instruction and from the task, so the calling out is also maintained by escape, that is, negative reinforcement. He returns and the behaviour resumes, which shows nothing has been suppressed.
For the teacher:
- The reprimand ends the noise for the moment. That temporary relief negatively reinforces the teacher's reprimanding: the behaviour that removes an aversive event is strengthened, which is why she keeps doing it despite no long-term effect.
Why the punishment fails: it is not immediate and consistent, it is not strong enough to outweigh the attention gained, it tells Farhan what not to do without supplying an alternative, and the audience of 51 students turns the reprimand into a reward. Punishment typically suppresses behaviour only temporarily and can create avoidance of the teacher and the subject.
Conclusion: the data describe a behaviour maintained by attention and escape, not a learning deficit. The 'slow learner' inference is unsupported by the evidence the teacher actually has.
2. Design a four-week plan based on reinforcement principles: state the baseline, the target behaviour, the schedule and how you would check whether it worked.
Read the worked answer
Four-week plan.
Baseline (days 1–3): tally call-outs and hand-raises per 40-minute period without changing anything, so the baseline is comparable with later weeks.
Target: increase hand-raising followed by being called on; reduce call-outs.
Programme:
- DRA (differential reinforcement of an alternative behaviour): every hand-raise gets a response. This is the crucial step, because Priya's hand-raising is currently unrewarded and therefore extinguishing.
- Extinction of call-outs: no reprimand, no eye contact, no corridor; continue the lesson. Tell the class in advance, and expect an extinction burst around days 4–7 when call-outs briefly rise - the teacher must not give in then.
- Schedules: begin with continuous reinforcement (every hand-raise is called on) to establish the behaviour, then shift to a variable-interval schedule (call on the first hand raised, on average every three minutes) so hand-raising persists without constant reward.
- Shaping if needed: reinforce sitting with a hand partly raised, then a full raise, then waiting to be named.
- Premack principle: the final five minutes of free discussion is available only if the lesson ran without call-outs.
Monitoring: plot call-outs and hand-raises per day on a simple line graph and compare week 4 with baseline; also check the class-wide effect, since other students may imitate Priya once she is reinforced (vicarious reinforcement). If call-outs have not fallen by week 4, reassess rather than escalate punishment.
3. What would a social learning theorist add to this plan, and what ethical limits must the teacher respect?
Read the worked answer
What Bandura's theory adds:
- Modelling. Students learn by watching what happens to others. At present they see Priya's hand-raising go unrewarded and Farhan's calling out win attention, so the class is being taught that calling out pays. Reinforcing Priya is therefore a class-level intervention, not just hers.
- Vicarious reinforcement and punishment. Consequences seen happening to a peer change behaviour about as effectively as direct consequences, which is exactly why the public reprimand backfires.
- Self-efficacy and self-regulation. Farhan needs a credible success experience - a lesson in which he raises his hand five times and is called on - to revise his self-label. The teacher should also model the wanted behaviour: waiting, pausing, raising her own hand.
Ethical limits:
- No humiliation and no physical punishment; the reprimand has already made him a spectacle.
- Ignoring must not become neglect: he must still be called on whenever he raises his hand, and any separate academic difficulty must be assessed on its own evidence.
- Exclusion to the corridor deprives him of teaching time and should stop.
- The plan should be explained to Farhan and, because he is a minor, to his parents; information about him should stay confidential rather than circulate in the staff room.
- If call-outs persist after four weeks of consistent reinforcement, the next step is an assessment for an underlying difficulty, not a stronger punishment. The teacher's worry about looking permissive is best answered by making the new rule public and applying it to everyone.