Problem-Solving Instructions, Reinforcement and Punishment in Verbal Conditioning

1981 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Ladouceur ◽  
Léandre Bouchard

This study supports the importance of awareness in verbal conditioning using reinforcement and punishment. 50 subjects were required to say 240 words and the emission of human nouns was used as the target behavior. The presence of problem-solving instructions significantly improved subjects' performance for both of these procedures.

1969 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-197
Author(s):  
Roger E. Vogler ◽  
Ruth L. Ault

1979 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 755-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Ladouceur ◽  
Pierre Mercier ◽  
Michèle Barnabé

Additional support for the role of awareness in verbal conditioning experiments with 50 students is reported. The presence of problem-solving instructions was crucial in increasing subjects' performance.


1964 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-354
Author(s):  
Joseph B. Sidowski ◽  
Harold Naumoff

This experiment was designed to investigate the influence of pacing, problem-solving instructions, and hypothesis testing on the conditioning of plural verbal responses. Ss were assigned to a Paced or Nonpaced group. Within each of the above conditions, Ss were assigned to one of four instruction subgroups: Task, Nontask, Random, and Control. Ss in all groups were merely told to say words. E said “good” following plurals emitted by the Task and Nontask groups. The Task group was also instructed to make E say “good” as many times as possible. “Good” was presented randomly for the Random condition, and nothing was said by E during the control treatment. The results indicated a significant increase in the number of plurals emitted by the Task and Nontask groups over trials but no statistically significant pacing effects.


1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1187-1195
Author(s):  
John S. Kelly

Using a Taffel-type conditioning situation, female undergraduate Ss were reinforced with “good” for using activity verbs to compose sentences. One group received only typical (neutral) verbal-conditioning instructions; another group was given a problem-solving set following operant trials; a third group served as nonreinforced controls. Preconditioning verbal or nonverbal experience was introduced via a free-responding word-saying task, a written sentence-completion task, or an inkblot-perception task. Awareness was assessed via a postconditioning interview. Superior acquisition was found in groups exposed to previous verbal (oral or written) experience, while the inkblot-perception group did not differ from nonreinforced control Ss. Contrary to prediction, learning set failed to produce superior conditioning. Prior verbal experience led to an increased number of aware Ss, while the majority of Ss exposed to nonverbal prior experience failed to report awareness. It was suggested that Es attempt to control for prior experience of Ss in verbal operant conditioning research.


1991 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
GT Chiodo ◽  
WW Bullock ◽  
HR Creamer ◽  
DI Rosenstein
Keyword(s):  

1982 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-133
Author(s):  
A. D. Pellegrini

The paper explores the processes by which children use private speech to regulate their behaviors. The first part of the paper explores the ontological development of self-regulating private speech. The theories of Vygotsky and Luria are used to explain this development. The second part of the paper applies these theories to pedagogical settings. The process by which children are exposed to dialogue strategies that help them solve problems is outlined. The strategy has children posing and answering four questions: What is the problem? How will I solve it? Am I using the plan? How did it work? It is argued that this model helps children systematically mediate their problem solving processes.


1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shapiro ◽  
Nelson Moses

This article presents a practical and collegial model of problem solving that is based upon the literature in supervision and cognitive learning theory. The model and the procedures it generates are applied directly to supervisory interactions in the public school environment. Specific principles of supervision and related recommendations for collaborative problem solving are discussed. Implications for public school supervision are addressed in terms of continued professional growth of both supervisees and supervisors, interdisciplinary team functioning, and renewal and retention of public school personnel.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document