Shivamogga classroom log: extinction, spontaneous recovery and a plan to detain talkers
The Education lecturer at a PU college in Shivamogga has kept a two-week log of his own class while teaching the Learning unit.
(a) Meera used to answer several times a period. From the second week he stopped calling on her and began praising three other students instead. Her answering has fallen from about six times a period to almost none. (b) In the first period after the Dasara break she answered four times, then went quiet again. (c) The class settles within about 40 seconds of his switching off the ceiling fan and standing at the door; on days he forgets, settling takes ten minutes. (d) Suresh, who is otherwise capable, fills his record book only in the week he knows the lecturer will sign it; in other weeks it stays blank. (e) Two boys at the back keep up a conversation. The lecturer wants to detain them for 30 minutes after college each time, and also wants to cancel the whole class's practical period so that classmates pressurise them.
He asks the department head whether his reading of the class is "scientifically sound".
1. Identify the learning process operating in (a) to (d), justifying each identification and stating one practical implication for the lecturer.
Read the worked answer
(a) Operant extinction. The behaviour (answering) was previously maintained by attention and is now on an extinction schedule; the decline is a function of the consequence, not of lost ability. Implication: Meera has learned not to participate, not that she is wrong. If participation is a goal, attention must be restored deliberately and immediately, otherwise the lecturer has quietly removed a fluent student from class discussion.
(b) Spontaneous recovery. The temporary return after an interval is the textbook signature of extinction rather than forgetting. Implication: expect the reappearance and respond consistently; intermittent reinforcement during recovery makes the behaviour far more resistant to extinction afterwards.
(c) Stimulus control (and classical conditioning). The fan click and the lecturer's position at the door have become discriminative stimuli signalling "instruction begins"; the settling is an operant under stimulus control, and there is also a conditioned emotional/attentional response. Implication: cues work only if used consistently - the ten-minute days are the price of the inconsistent days. Use the same cue sequence every period.
(d) Fixed-interval reinforcement. One reinforcer (signature) is available at a fixed weekly interval, producing the characteristic pause-after-reinforcement then acceleration near the deadline. Implication: this trains deadline-chasing, not regular work. Brief immediate checks after each section, on a variable schedule, produce steadier work and greater resistance to extinction.
2. Evaluate the lecturer's two punitive plans for the talking pair using operant principles. What would you advise instead?
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis of the plans
- Detention is positive punishment: an aversive stimulus added after the behaviour. Punishment can suppress behaviour, but it does not teach the expected behaviour - the boys may simply talk elsewhere, or stop attending.
- The contingency is delayed. The detention comes hours later; delayed punishment is a weak contingency, so the boys may not connect it to the talking at all.
- Cancelling the class's practical period is collective punishment. It is unjust (it punishes uninvolved students), it invites bullying and peer pressure, and it corrodes the lecturer's authority. It also destroys a valued activity that could have been used as a reinforcer.
- Side effects: escape/avoidance of the lecturer and the subject, aggression, and a damaged teacher–student relationship - all well documented in the punishment literature.
Better design
- Reinforce an incompatible behaviour (DRA): give the pair a legitimate talk role - scribe, materials manager, reporter - so talking is channelled rather than suppressed.
- Reinforce the target: catch and name on-task behaviour frequently, on a variable schedule (high rate, resistant to extinction).
- Use proximity and private correction as the first response; make rules explicit and apply them consistently.
- Keep punishment as a last resort, immediate, brief, proportionate, explained, and always paired with a route to the desired behaviour.
The head should say plainly: the lecturer's reading of (a)–(d) is sound, but the punishment plan contradicts the same theory it is based on.
3. Design a reinforcement plan for Suresh's record book and for class participation, naming the schedules you choose and why.
Read the worked answer
Suresh's record book
Problem: a single fixed-interval signature produces deadline behaviour.
Plan:
- Continuous reinforcement for the first two weeks: check and initial after every completed section, with a specific comment ("units 1–3 complete, examples missing").
- Then thin to a variable-interval/variable-ratio mix: checks at unpredictable times, averaging two per week, with an occasional bonus for work submitted early.
- Add a Premack-style link: completed record book → choice of practical task.
- Fade the signature to a weekly summary so the behaviour is maintained by the work's own utility (feedback and marks), not only by the lecturer's pen.
Why: intermittent schedules build persistence; immediate feedback makes the contingency learnable.
Class participation
Plan: variable-ratio reinforcement - the class earns a point for good answers, and the number of answers required per point varies (2, 4, 3, 6, 5...). Exchange points for a chosen activity (a debate, a film on a topic, a lab demonstration).
Why: variable ratio gives a high, steady rate with strong resistance to extinction, unlike fixed interval. Pair it with specific praise for the quality of the answer, so the intrinsic interest in the subject grows alongside the token system, and withdraw the tokens gradually once participation is established.