Name of Student: Andres C.

Jakosalem lll Class Schedule: Wednesday 5-8pm

Module 7 Activity
Behaviorism: Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner

1. Think of a teacher that is most unforgettable to you in elementary or in high school.

2. What kinds of rewards and punishments did she/he apply in your class? For what student
behaviors were the rewards and punishments for?

Student Behavior Rewards/ Punishments

1. Distracting other students and Kick out of the class

3. Coming late in the class Write I will not do it again in 1 whole

3. As a future teacher, how will you use rewards in the learning process more effectively?

As a future teacher, I will see an increase in student interest and engagement in academic
learning thanks to the system, which encourages "observational learning" from the peers of
those students who have received rewards. Simple rewards encourage students to feel
successful, which fosters a good learning atmosphere and boosts motivation and wellbeing.
Learning becomes more efficient as a result. Moral improvements can inspire confidence. A
student with rising self-esteem is more inclined to strive for greater efforts and results. Their
potential to learn is increased since they are more likely to demonstrate a growth mentality
than a fixed mindset. These minor accomplishments will eventually have a positive impact on a
student's eagerness to learn. This results in quantifiable gains in behavior and academic
performance.
 Module 8 Activity
Neo Behaviorism: Tolman and Bandura

Direction.

1. Read the article about Bandura’s views on television and violence, Albert Bandura-Bing
Distinguished Lecture Series “The Power of Social Modeling: The Effects of Television
Violence” by Christine Van De Velde. (See article in the next page).

2. Make a Reaction Paper on Bandura’s Article.

3. Here are a few recommendations, which will help you to write a good reaction paper:
 Read the original article carefully and highlight the main ideas and points you want to
discuss;
 Describe your point of view and back it with additional information if needed. Use vivid
examples; and
 Use various sources to make your statement more argumentative.
 The Power of Social Modeling: The Effects of Television Violence
Bing Nursery School 1999

Dr. Albert Bandura, Bing Distinguished Lecture Series

Upon meeting Snow White at Disneyland, a preschooler said to her, "You're not Snow White, you
know." "Why do you say that?" asked Snow White. "Well," the child replied, "if you were real, you'd be
a cartoon." Such is the power of the media in shaping children's images of reality.

That power and its effects were the subject of a presentation by Dr. Albert Bandura, David Starr Jordan
Professor of Social Sciences in Psychology, at the annual Bing Nursery School Distinguished Lecture
Series, held on May 27 in Jordan Hall. Almost forty years ago, Dr. Bandura became a regular commuter
to Washington, D.C., testifying in Congress about the effects of televised violence on children.

In the famous "Bobo Doll" experiments, Bandura had shown that children, when exposed to televised
violence, exhibited the aggressive behavior they had observed - hitting, kicking, and using hostile
language. Believe it or not, this was considered heretical, particularly by the television industry. Prior to
that time, the prevailing theory was that televised violence drained aggressive impulses.

But Bandura demonstrated exposure to TV violence can produce at least four effects. First, it teaches
aggressive styles of conduct. Second, it weakens restraints against aggression by glamorizing violence.
When good triumphs over evil violently, viewers are even more strongly influenced. Third, it habituates
and desensitizes reactions to cruelty. And finally, it shapes our images of reality; for example, only 10%
of major crimes in society are violent, but on TV, 77% of major crimes are violent, which has the effect
of making people more fearful of becoming crime victims. "Children and adults today have unlimited
opportunities to learn the whole gamut of homicidal conduct from TV within the comfort of their
homes," notes Bandura.

So, once again, in the wake of the Littleton, Colorado, tragedy, Bandura is commuting to Washington,
D.C. to talk about violent role models and their effect on children's behavior. As he noted in his lecture,
events such as those that occurred in Littleton, have created a paradox. The fear of violence is rising
while, for the last seven years, crime rates have been falling. This, however, is not as irrational as it
appears. According to Bandura, there are three properties of violence that instill widespread fear and all
three were present in the Colorado incident.

First, there is unpredictability, no forewarning when or where violence might occur. The second property
is the gravity of the consequences; individuals are unwilling to risk being killed, raped or having their
child abducted, even if the probability is extremely low. Finally, there is the property of
uncontrollability, a perceived helplessness to exert control. When these properties are present, a single
incident can mar the quality of life in communities.
Bandura explained that historically there have been three explanations for aggression.

The "Instinct" theory asserts that people are by nature aggressive. There is no evidence of this, according
to Bandura. In fact, there is further historical evidence that societies change; for example, Sweden, which
evolved from an aggressive, fighting society to a pacific one. This theory, however, has popular appeal,
because it removes the onus of responsibility from people for their inhumanities to each other.

The "Drive" theory holds that frustration causes aggression. This theory is widely accepted even though
research findings dispute it, says Bandura. Frustration produces all kinds of reactions.

Finally, "Social Cognitive" theory posits that aversive experiences produce distress, causing emotional
arousal and resulting in aggression. Bandura notes, however, that people don't have to be distressed to
aggress. Much human aggression is prompted by the material and social benefits anticipated for that type
of behavior. Distress actually prompts all kinds of behavior, depending on how a person has learned to
deal with stress, and most people marshall their resources to overcome the source of distress.

The fact is that there is no single cause of aggression. Violent acts are a product of a constellation of
factors, such that a change in any one factor can result in the event not occurring. Therefore, if Eric
Harris had been accepted into the Marines, the Columbine High School shooting would not have
occurred. To assign an average weight to one particular influence, such as violence on television or
video games or current gun laws, reminds Bandura of the non-swimming statistician who drowned while
crossing a river that averaged two feet in depth.

What one can be sure of, though, is that when a violent event occurs that stirs the public, the TV
networks will run their "dog and pony show." Television industry spokespeople divert attention from the
contributory influence of television and shift the blame to others "by invoking and flogging a single-
cause theory of violence that no one really propounds," says Bandura. In what he terms their "self-
exonerating sermonettes," it's not easy access to weapons, but lax enforcement of existing gun laws and
it's not TV or interactive media, but detached and deficient parenting." As a result, since no one is at
fault, they all get off scot-free. Sound familiar?

In addition, sensationalistic coverage of violent crimes tends to encourage imitative acts. In a television
drama, titled "The Doomsday Flight," an extortionist threatened airline officials with an altitude-
sensitive bomb that would explode if the airplane descended below 5,000 feet. Of course, the pilot
outwitted the extortionists by landing at an airport above 5,000 feet. Following the broadcast, there was
an eight-fold increase in extortion attempts using threats of altitude-sensitive bombs. As the program was
re-run in the United States and abroad, the same pattern occurred; as a result, Qantas Airlines paid
$560,000 to one extortionist and Western Airlines $25,000 to another. Adults, obviously, are equally
influenced by modeling. "These criminal acts would not have occurred if it were not for the televised
influence," notes Bandura. Of course, in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, we have
experienced threats and actual bombings by students who felt they had been marginalized and
disparaged, as a way of settling interpersonal grievances. Such copy cat incidences continue, according
to Bandura, "until the modeled style of conduct fades from public consciousness." This, of course,
cannot occur until the "dog and pony show" ends.
One of the questions frequently asked in the wake of the Littleton tragedy is how two seemingly
"normal" boys could have committed such an act. As a result of his work on violent role models,
Bandura began looking at that question. "Most violent acts and large-scale inhumanities are perpetrated
by people who, in other areas of their life and in other circumstances, are quite considerate in their
behavior," notes Bandura. "They inflict inhumanities on others by selectively disengaging moral self-
sanctions from their injurious conduct." According to Bandura, a "mechanism of moral disengagement"
occurs. He identified tactics such as euphemistic labeling (the TV industry calling violence "action and
adventure,") which lead to the minimizing of consequences (violence is a catharsis for kids), and result
in a displacement of responsibility (we're not personally responsible, society is sick.)

"Moral control," notes Bandura, "functions most strongly when people acknowledge that they are
contributors to harmful outcomes." His interest in this idea caused him to re-direct his research to look at
"efficacy beliefs." As human beings we must believe that our actions can produce desired effects, or
there is little incentive to act or persevere in the face of difficulties. This core belief that one has that
power plays a pivotal role in many areas of life. For example, children's beliefs in academic efficacy
determine their interests, motivation and accomplishments, and efficacy beliefs have equally important
roles in such areas as workplace productivity and individuals' health habits.

Bandura is currently researching efficacy in tandem with "pro-social" modeling. "Pro-social" modeling,
for example, tempers aggressiveness; restrained news coverage of violent events does not result in
copycat violence. Positive modeling can also foster cooperativeness, empathy, sharing, a panoply of
positive behavior. In fact, in another study, Bandura demonstrated the therapeutic power of modeling in
overcoming phobias. Working with young children at Bing who were phobic about dogs, he found that
the combination of modeling coping strategies and carefully guided mastery experiences was an
unusually powerful treatment. This therapy is now the treatment of choice for anxiety and phobic
reactions.

Events such as those in Littleton cannot be prevented, says Bandura, but we can work toward reducing
their likelihood. What he would like to see is each cultural subsystem take some responsibility for their
part in violent events - TV, interactive media, the gun industry, parents. In the case of television, he
believes strongly that the goal should be to create better programming, not to restrict material on
television. But we need a much greater public commitment to this for it to happen. "Electronic media can
be used to bring out the best in us or to bring out the worst in us," says Bandura. "The tragedy is not only
in violence, but in forfeiting the use of this powerful medium for human betterment and enlightenment."
 REACTION PAPER

“The Power of Social Modeling: The Effects of Television Violence” by Christine Van De Velde

This story has very much caught my interest. Bandura made a reasonable decision by
emphasizing the negative effects of violence on television. We would watch it with your kids,
with all the great and horrible stuff on television these days. I believe that the young people
would want to imitate what they see on television, which would be pretty dangerous. They're
not even conscious of it. Whether or not what they are seeing is accurate would be beyond
their comprehension. In addition to watching the news, children often watch cartoons like Tom
& Jerry. When you see these shows, you notice how vicious they are, and occasionally they
even copy them.

What they see on television sticks with them, and you'll observe those same violent
behavior patterns emulated in school. When they are angry or irritated, they would then punch
or hit a classmate in the face. They are incapable of recognize the consequences of what
they've done. The major consequence is not only physical but it also verbal. Also, when they
watch horror movies on TV, they strive to have nightmares or are frightened of sleeping alone.
Parental guidance is essential in this situation. Whenever it comes to what our children see on
television, it's important to keep an eye on them, providing guidance, and clarify to them the
possible negative effects of watching violent content. Impressionable children are delicate, and
as parents, it is your responsibility to safeguard them from the harmful effects of television.

Parents should give your responsibility to guide your kids toward a better future. It is
necessary that the government believes about enforcing laws against violence on television.
The creation of new technology that can filter out violent content from the shows that kids
watch should also be encouraged. Additionally, inappropriate sex and violence scenes can be
kept off. It's time to understand the dangers of viewing violence on television and to protect
our children from it.