Standard procedures로 훈련받은 비둘기: 2,000회에서 5,000회 오류.
정서적 반응 차이:
T&E(Trial and Error, 시행착오) 방식의 훈련을 받은 비둘기들만 S ∆ 앞에서 정서적 반응을 보임.
Errorless approach로 훈련받은 비둘기들은 SD(red disk)가 나타날 때까지 차분함을 유지함.
타 종으로의 확장성:
이러한 발견은 다양한 종에 걸쳐 폭넓게 재현됨.
Powers, Cheney, & Agostino (1970)의 연구: 미취학 아동을 대상으로 색상 변별 학습을 진행한 결과, errorless learning procedures를 사용한 집단이 표준 절차를 사용한 집단보다 더 빨리 배웠고 오류가 적었으며, 학습 과정을 더 즐거워함.
긍정적 강화(positive reinforcement) 교육에서의 오류(error)에 대한 통념
Roth는 돌고래를 대상으로 한 연구에서 유사한 결과를 보고함(Pierce & Cheney, 2013 인용).
오늘날 우리는 positive reinforcement(긍정적 강화)를 활용한 수많은 교육 protocols(프로토콜)에 둘러싸여 있음.
그럼에도 불구하고, 반려견이 의도적으로 ‘실수(error)’를 하도록 상황을 조성해야 한다는 고정관념이 여전히 지속됨.
이러한 고정관념을 지지하는 근거들:
"the dog needs to know when they are wrong so that they can focus on what is required" (개는 무엇이 요구되는지 집중할 수 있도록 자신이 언제 틀렸는지 알아야 한다)
"we are building resilience" (우리는 회복탄력성을 기르고 있다)
"this teaches a dog impulse control" (이것은 개에게 충동 조절을 가르친다)
위와 같은 사고방식이 training(훈련)의 기저에 깔려 있다면, 올바른 선택에 대해 reinforcement(강화)를 추가한다 하더라도 그것은 결코 positive learning(긍정적 학습)이 아님.
커리큘럼 내에 ‘틀리는 상황’이 의도적으로 포함되는 순간, 우리는 학습자를 실패하게 만드는 것임.
물론, 그런 방식의 학습도 효과적이고 잊히지 않으며 평생 지속될 수는 있으나, 그에 따르는 ‘대가(cost)’가 있음.
‘오류 함정(error-trap)’이 학습자에게 미치는 대가(cost)
가장 큰 대가는 가르치는 사람에 대한 ‘불신(mistrust)’임.
새로운 lesson(레슨)을 마주했을 때 학습자는 가장 먼저 "what is the trap?" (함정이 무엇이지?)이라고 자문할 수 있음.
이는 부정적인 시각이며, 새로운 것을 발견하고 탐구하려는 의지를 꺾고 주저하게 만들 가능성이 큼.
만약 학습자가 가르치는 사람이 오직 성공할 수 있도록 상황을 만들어준다고 믿는다면, 학습자는 열정과 기대감을 가지고 학습에 임하게 됨.
우리 모두는 ‘오류 함정(error-trap)’에 의해 상처받은 경험이 있음.
가르치는 사람이 의도했든 아니든, 이 방식은 우리를 ‘조심스러운 학습자(cautious learners)’로 만듦.
학습에 대한 이러한 접근 방식에 더해, 문제를 해결하지 못할 경우 ‘좌절감(frustration)’을 경험하게 되며, 이는 ‘분노(rage)’로까지 고조될 수 있음.
비유: "If you have ever used a computer connected to a printer you have experienced this." (프린터가 연결된 컴퓨터를 사용해 본 적이 있다면, 여러분도 이런 경험을 해봤을 것이다.)
결과적으로, 그것은 결코 좋은 경험이 아님.
커뮤니티 참여 및 의견 공유 안내
Connect and Share 기능에 대한 언급: "Sounds like a biscuit" (과자 이름처럼 들린다) — (해당 기능의 명칭에 대한 유머러스한 반응).
Comment(댓글): 이 섹션에 작성된 댓글은 다른 Setters(세터/참여자)들에게만 공개됨.
Community Setters(커뮤니티 세터)는 열정, 경험, 지식, 그리고 반려견을 가진 사람들임.
같은 열정을 가진 사람들이 모이면 학습의 효과가 폭발적으로 증가함.
Comment 이상의 것(비디오 링크, 개인 작성 기사 등)을 공유하고 싶다면 웹사이트 하단의 Get In Touch를 통해 직접 연락 바람.
0 Comments (댓글 없음).
Submit a Comment (댓글 제출).
Cancel reply (답글 취소).
주의사항: 입력한 이메일 주소는 공개되지 않음. 필수 항목에는 * 표시가 되어 있음.
필수 입력 항목: Comment (댓글), Name (이름), Email (이메일), Website (웹사이트).
최종 제출: Submit Comment (댓글 제출) 버튼 클릭.
If there is a Setter pic here, then this is a Setters only page
Fade-In Protocol
Introduction and background information
first published June 2018
outline
The Fade-In protocol begins with teaching of a desired behaviour that is well reinforced and practised and then introducing a planned gradual event that may cause disruption to the desired behaviour.
It can be used in many different situations where there is a high risk of the learner making a significant error that can cause uncertainty and reduce confidence.
Main Project Page
Setters Home
Introduction
Author: KL
The origins of the protocol were first documented over 50 years ago, but it is not a well-known or frequently selected protocol. Susan Friedman explains the original experiment succinctly in her article Clearing the Path to Reinforcement with an Errorless Learning Mindset :
Terrace (1963) researched errorless learning with a successive discrimination task. In the traditional successive discrimination procedure (different than Terrace’s procedure), a pigeon, for example, is reinforced with food for pecking a disk on the wall of an operant chamber (called a key light or key) when it’s illuminated red. After many repetitions, when the pecking behavior in the presence of the red key is well established the color of the key changes to green and pecking is no longer reinforced. With the standard protocol then, the red light is the discriminative stimulus (SD) that cues pecking for food reinforcement, and the green light is the stimulus delta (S ∆) that signals the extinction condition, i.e., pecking will not produce food reinforcement. The red and green keys are then alternately presented with the corresponding reinforcement and extinction conditions in effect. After initially making many errors (due to response generalization), the correct differential response to key color gradually occurs (Pierce & Cheney, 2013).
Alternatively, Terrace used two procedures in his errorless discrimination training not typical of standard discrimination training. First, the S ∆ condition, the green key, was introduced very early in the program before pecking in the redlight condition was well established. Second, Terrace used a fading (i.e., fading in) procedure to present the green key at different values, gradually increasing brightness, wavelength and duration over the repetitions. These two procedures resulted in faster learning of the discrimination and very few errors. The pigeons trained with the errorless discrimination procedures made about 25 errors (i.e., pecking the green key light) compared to 2000 t
o 5000 errors made by the pigeons taught with standard procedures. Only those birds trained with T&E exhibited emotional responses in the presence of the S ∆. The pigeons trained with the errorless approach remained calm until the red disk, the SD, appeared.
These findings have been widely replicated across species. Powers, Cheney, & Agostino (1970) found that preschool children taught a color discrimination with errorless learning procedures learned faster and with fewer errors, and they enjoyed learning more than the children taught with standard procedures. Roth reported similar results with dolphins (as cited in Pierce & Cheney, 2013).
Even though today we are surrounded by many available protocols for teaching with positive reinforcement, there is still a persistence that a dog should be set-up to make an error. The reasons for this are extensive:
“the dog needs to know when they are wrong so that they can focus on what is required”
“we are building resilience”
“this teaches a dog impulse control”
With this mindset underpinning the training, adding reinforcement to correct choices does not make it positive learning. Any time being wrong is deliberately included in the curriculum we are failing our learners. Sure, learning may be effective, unforgotten and lifelong but at a cost.
The cost can be a mistrust in the teacher. When the learner is faced with a new lesson they may first ask “what is the trap?” This is a negative view and likely to cause hesitation and a resistance to discovery and exploration. If you think your teacher is only setting you up for success you approach with an enthusiasm and eagerness for the learning.
All of us have been damaged by the error-trap. Whether it was deliberate on part of the teacher or not, it makes us cautious learners.
In addition to this approach to learning we then experience frustration, that can escalate to rage, when we cannot solve the error. If you have ever used a computer connected to a printer you have experienced this. And it wasn’t good.
Connect and Share
sounds like a biscuit .......
Comment?
Comments made in this section are only on view to other Setters.
Community
Setters are folk who have passion, experience, knowledge and dogs.
When people with the same passion get together learning explodes.
More than a comment?
If you would like to add more than a comment, links to videos, your own article etc, please contact us direct - use the Get In Touch at the bottom of the page
0 Comments
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name