Download Operant Conditioning and Gamification

OPERANT CONDINITONING AND GAMIFICATION IN
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
____________________
PRESENTED TO
DR. RICHARD LEYDA
TALBOT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
BIOLA UNIVERSITY
_____________________
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE
TTCE 523: TEACHING MINISTRY
_____________________
by
Don Joel
November 19, 2013
Outline
Introduction
I.
History of Behavior Modification
A.
Historical Roots of Association of Ideas
B.
Modern History of Classical Conditioning
II.
Operant Conditioning Overview
III.
Gamification in the Classroom
IV.
Biblical Integration
V.
Ministry Application
Conclusion
Introduction
“I think he finally may have fallen asleep,” I say hopefully to my wife as we
settle down to watch a movie. Not thirty seconds later our bedroom door opens and
in comes our 3 year-old son, “Mom, I need a drink of water.” With the gruffness of a
lead blocker making a path for the quarterback I jump up and swoop up my son,
bringing him back to his room saying, “I have had enough of your games.” His reply
was simply, “What game?”
The Pervasiveness of Games
Today’s culture is filled with game and gaming references; it is in our
language and our traditions; some gaming concept can be found in just about
everything we look at around us. “The gamer generation is part of a society used to
collecting airline mileage points and open table dining points in the same way they
collected gold stars in kindergarten” (Sheldon, 2012). I would say that the gamer
generation actually spans several classic generations, from the boomers to the
millennial and beyond.
Our language is filled with gaming terms, both in positive and negative
connotations. One such example is “gaming the system.” This phrase is said to
mean that you are operating within the established guidelines, but you are
manipulating the system for your own personal gain and enjoyment. On the other
side we tell people that need to improve at doing something that they have to “pick
up their game” or “get in the game.” Another use is “you have to play the game,”
telling someone that they may have to abandon their own morals and do what is
necessary (McGonigal, 2011).
The idea of gaming is everywhere around us and we are growing more and
more accustomed to it. The number of loyalty cards in my wallet has seemed to
grow exponentially over the last few years. The idea of getting points for something
is one of the best motivators today. This isn’t just found in shopping. One study
showed that, “programs involving the point system successfully modified verbal
behavior, bathroom tidiness, punctuality, homework preparation, and poor
grammar,” amongst pre-delinquent boys (Philips, 1971).
What is a Game?
Since games are so pervasive and various, if we are to use them to
understand human behavior it is important that we have an agreed upon definition.
Jane McGonigal says, “When you strip away the genre differences and the
technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a
feedback system, and voluntary participation.” (McGonigal, 2011). Kapp, quoting
Raph Koster, adds a few more elements in his definition. “A game is a system in
which players engage in an abstract challenge, defined by rules, interactivity, and
feedback, that results in a quantifiable outcome often eliciting an emotional
response” (Kapp, 2012).
It is my view that gamification, “the concept of applying game-design
thinking to non-game applications to make them more fun and engaging”
(Gamification, n.d.), is an evolutionary step for the idea of operant conditioning.
Operant Conditioning is “a process in which the frequency of occurrence of a bit of
behavior is modified by the consequences of the behavior.” (Reynolds, 1968). In
order for this to be established we will need to understand operant conditioning and
gamification, and the benefits of using these techniques in the Christian Education
classroom.
History of Behavior Modification
As my wife lay sleeping next to me, I turned on the television to watch a
show. The noise doesn’t seem to rile her so I relax for a while and enjoy the latest
episode of Hawaii 5-0. About 20 minutes into the episode a baby on the show begins
to cry. My wife instinctively jumps up to run to one of our three children. My wife
has shown signs of classic conditioning in the style of Pavlov. To better understand
the concept of classical conditioning we need to trace its roots through the
association theorists.
Historical Roots of Association of Ideas
“Associationism is the theory that the mind is composed of elements – usually
referred to as sensations and ideas – which are organized by means of various
associations” (Boeree, 2000). One of the earliest philosophers to begin thinking in
this area was Aristotle. He built off of and changed ideas Plato was teaching.
Aristotle thought that learning comes from forming mental associations between
two objects. “For example, if one sees a boy standing on a bridge these two elements
are associated in the mind. Later if the observer thinks of the bridge, he will also
think of the boy” (Yount, 2010).
John Locke was like Aristotle in that he rejected Plato’s view that humans
were born with pre-existing ideas and context.
“Rather he held that human beings are born with minds able to process sense
data from the world, yet devoid of content, like a blank slate. Experience
with the world writes on this slate, this ‘tabula rasa,’ to create understanding
and personality …. More apropos than the blank writing slate of the
seventeenth century, we might say that Locke’s view of the mind is analogous
to a contemporary calculator. This instrument has many built-in functions,
but nothing in its memory stores when it is turned on” (Yount, 2010).
“Another important contributions to John Locke was his view that not all
associations of ideas would be the same for all people even though they may be
present in the environment at the same time” (Anthony, 2013). The differences
made in associations was a result of previous held associations, experiences, or
other ideas that made the two people different.
For the next 150 years or so theorist after theorist continued to build upon
the association construct, each adding their own take to the theory. David Hume
added that ideas had a gentle force that pulled them together. Johann Herbart
contributed the idea of “aperception,” learning the new based on the old. Finally
John Mill developed his four Laws of Association of Ideas as illustrated in figure 1
(Anthony, 2013).
Similarity: Similar events tend to be brought together.
Contiguity: Elements experienced together or conceived in close
contiguity tend to be thought of together.
Frequency: Practice aids retention.
Inseparability: Some associations are such that we can’t
conceive of some things apart from others.
Figure 1. Laws of Association of Ideas
Modern History of Classical Conditioning
“At the dawn of the previous century, two scientists … independently began
their search to discover how the environment produces long-lasting changes in
behavior” (Donahue & Vegas, 2011). These two scientist were Ivan Pavlov and
Edward Thorndike. The two were working on the same concept and wanted to
explain that the complex came from the result of the simple. They followed in the
footsteps of Charles Darwin in this effect (Donahue & Vegas, 2011). The two varied
in methodology. Pavlov’s research followed the idea that an outside stimulus can
trigger a conditioned response, while Thorndike would get the desired response by
having the subject solve “puzzle boxes” (Anthony, 2013).
Pavlov’s “experiments involved measuring dog salivation rates under
differing conditions” (Yount, 2010). What he discovered was that an unconditioned
stimulus would elicit an unconditioned response and that the subject could be
trained to respond similarly to a neutral stimulus (Donahue & Vegas, 2011). My
wife is now trained to respond to the sound of a baby crying by jumping up and
reacting.
Thorndike concluded from his experiments that there are the Laws of
Learning. The first law is that the student learns best when brought into a state of
readiness. The second is that the more a student repeats the lesson the more the
bonds are strengthened between stimulus and response. Lastly, the effect greatly
influences learning, or in other words the more a student enjoys the task the more
they will do it again and thus learn through repetition.
Operant Conditioning
“The implications of the difference between Pavlov’s and Thorndike’s
procedures were not fully appreciated until the work of B.F. Skinner” (Donahue &
Vegas, 2011). Skinner noted that there were two types of learning: Respondent
Conditioning and Operant Conditioning. He saw respondent conditioning to be in
line with classical conditioning, which was what Pavlov was developing, and
operant conditioning as more in line with Thorndike. The main differences between
the two is that classical conditioning was an involuntary response on part of the
subject, whereas operant conditioning was a voluntary response where the subject
learned by operating with the system (Anthony, 2013).
Skinner wanted to control the environment of his subjects – rats and pigeons
– so he used an enclosure, called a “Skinner box.”
The boxes used with rats had a metal lever and a food dispenser. With each
press of the lever, a rat received a food pellet. The boxes used with the
pigeons had a disk, which the birds pecked for the same result” (Yount, 2010).
Skinner turned the model of stimulus and response upside down, saying that
getting a reinforcing (positive) stimulus when a subject did a voluntary action
(response) increased the chances of this action occurring again.
Skinner also found that operant conditioning is found even where there is no
direct correlation to response and stimulus. He found that when a subject, in this
case a pigeon, was brought into the Skinner Box that was rigged to drop food at a
consistent interval the subject would begin to demonstrate repeatable behaviors
before the food would drop.
“One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making
two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its
head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a ‘tossing’
response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it
repeatedly” (Skinner, 1968).
These as well as many other responses were demonstrated by the pigeons placed in
the boxes. These phantom responses demonstrate that operant conditioning can
lead to “superstition.” “A few accidental connections between a ritual and favorable
consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behavior in spite of many
unreinforced instances” (Skinner, 1968).
Despite the accidental responses that are conditioned, Skinner found that by
controlling the stimulus outcomes could be predicted, and behaviors could be
modified. These stimuli came in four forms: positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, presentation (positive) punishment, and removal (negative)
punishment (Yount, 2010). It may be helpful to think in mathematical terms when
looking at the words positive and negative (see Figure 2).
Positive Reinforcement: This is the addition of a pleasurable stimulus.
Negative Reinforcement: This is the removal of an unpleasant stimulus.
Positive Punishment: The addition of an unpleasant stimulus.
Negative Punishment: The subtraction of a pleasurable stimulus.
Figure 2 – Types of Consequences
For the rest of this paper we will assume that behavior modification is the
praxis of operant conditioning. This is to say that I acknowledge that there are
other systems that have validity, but as we delve into gamification we will see that
it marries nicely with operant conditioning. Before we can look at gamification
however, we still need to look at examples of behavior modification in the classroom.
One study shows that using rules, praise and ignoring can and will cause
behavior to change in elementary school kids. The study alternated the use of
techniques shown by two elementary school teachers on students who had
demonstrated a high frequency of problem behavior (Madsen Jr., Becker, &
Thomas, 1971).
Cliff showed little change until Mrs. A started praising Appropriate Behavior,
except to get worse during the Ignore phase. He was often doing no academic
work, talking to peers, and just fiddling away his time. It took considerable
effort by Mrs. A to catch Cliff showing praiseworthy behavior. As the use of
praise continued, Cliff worked harder on his assigned tasks, learned to ignore
other children who were misbehaving, and would raise his hand to get
teacher’s attention. He participated more in class discussions. He was moved
up to the fastest arithmetic group. (Madsen Jr., Becker, & Thomas, 1971).
The changes in this student were remarkable, and show the power that praise for
good behavior can have on changing the behavior of the students. Cliff wasn’t the
only student to display changes because of praise. “After just two days in the ‘praise’
phase, Frank was observed to clean his desk quietly and quickly after completing a
handwriting assignment” (Madsen Jr., Becker, & Thomas, 1971). Finally, Stan was
changed from a “sullen, morose, muttering, angry individual into a boy whose smile
seems to cover his whole face” (Madsen Jr., Becker, & Thomas, 1971).
This study showed that deviant behavior was reinforced because the teacher
focused on the student only when the deviant behavior was occurring; by flipping
the scenario we find that focusing on the appropriate behavior reinforces that
behavior and negates the deviant. The problem that arises with just simple praise
behavior modification is that it is hard to place value on praise. “Are two ‘thank
yous’ as potent as one smile? Are Monday smiles as good as Friday smiles?”
(Ackerman, 1972).
The difficulty of assessing and tracking worth in praise leads the teacher to
what is called a token economy. These tokens can be anything from points to poker
chips. “The use of token reinforcement leads to the rapid acceleration of agreeable
student behavior, and to the effective reinforcement of that behavior by the teacher”
(Ackerman, 1972).
Frank Logan takes this idea of token economy and enhances it by bringing it
from the realm of reward and reinforcement to the idea of incentive. “A condition of
reinforcement is simply the empirical relation between the response and the
reward. ‘Incentive’ is a hypothetical concept referring to what might popularly be
described as the subject’s expectation of reward” (Logan, 1960).
Gamification in the Classroom
Gamification is the next evolutionary step that combines the Operant
Conditioning techniques of reward and consequences, praise giving, token
economies, and incentives to continue to modify the participants in the system.
The internet is full of tons of fun games and information and it is also filled
with some very insightful pages and videos as well. Penny Arcade is a web comic
that often makes me LOL, laugh out loud. They also have a video series called
Extra Credit, where they “take a deeper look at games; how they are made, what
they mean and how we can make them better” (Penny Arcade, 2013). In Season 2,
episode 15 they cover gamifying education, where they state that one of the major
flaws in education is that students systemically walk into a class feeling like they
have an A+ (Penny Arcade, 2013).
This feeling of having the best grade you can get when viewed through an
operant lens means that the only reinforcement they are receiving is negative
punishment. Their grade can only go down with every assignment, depending on
how badly they did. This leads to students viewing the classroom as a place of
failure.
Another area that often is felt as a place of failure is exercise. This is seen all
the time: people get motivated and begin to work out, but since they don’t see the
results they were expecting they fail, and then they stop. Besides that just getting
the motivation to get up and moving is difficult. Rachel didn’t like to run, “until she
downloaded Zombies, Run! The mobile application changed everything” (Kapp,
2012). This application changed the way she looked at running. Instead of work
and pain, it became a game of survival and resource management. The app tracks
her movement and gives feedback and points within the system to help her build
her survival camp (Kapp, 2012).
Turning the idea of running and working out from an idea of weight loss and
muscle building to a more tangible points system and storyline made it more
engaging and the get off the couch behavior became modified. Wouldn’t it be the
same then for the classroom?
The next example doesn’t come from a gamification book, although many
examples like it are shown in them, but from Ackerman’s book on operant
conditioning techniques for the classroom. One teacher established a reward
system where everyone started off with zero snoopy cards. They would then receive
these tokens and be able to use different amounts of them for different privileges.
One card is worth a drink from the fountain, 10 cards will get you 15 minutes of free
time, while 36 gets you no homework for half a day and you still get an A
(Ackerman, 1972). “Teachers report that students hoard Snoopy Cards and seldom
turn them in for the backup reinforcement” (Ackerman, 1972).
Ultimately happy students are more productive than sad or frustrated
students. Using the techniques of gamification as operant conditioning we can
modify the attitudes of students and thus get them to produce better work. This
idea is called “Happiness Hacking” (McGonigal, 2011).
So if we put this all together we can come up with a solution to our classroom
as a place of failure scenario. Lee Sheldon opens his class on the first day by
greeting his class with, “Good morning. You all have an F” (Sheldon, 2012). After
this he goes on to explain that his class is about getting experience points and the
more experience points the students have the higher grade they will receive. The
good thing about this set-up is that he didn’t even have to change the way he graded
(Sheldon, 2012). The students earned points and worked harder than ever to
achieve the highest level possible.
Biblical Integration
When thinking about behavior modification or gamification it is important for
us as Christian educators to make sure it is in line with scripture. I believe that the
Bible is full of examples that lead us in this same general direction. The epistles
are full of praise for the members of the churches that have done well. 1
Corinthians 15:17-18 says “17I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus
and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part.
18For
they
have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men.” This is a
prime example of using praise to elicit a changed behavior in others.
Another idea from gamification is starting at the bottom and working your
way up, ie. Sheldon’s “You all have an F welcome.” This allows the participant to
feel successes in progression instead of failures and setbacks. This is also part of
the biblical idea of growth. Hebrews 5:12-14 says
12For
though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for
someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you
have come to need milk and not solid food. 13For everyone who partakes only
of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
14But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses
trained to discern good and evil.”
We can see here that when you become a believer you start at ground zero as
a newborn surviving off of pure spiritual milk, and as you progress you are
supposed to grow and begin to find nourishment on solid food. It seems here that
the leaders that were to have become able to discern good and evil hadn’t actually
reached that level and needed more training. If instead we said that every believer
comes in at Saint Level and by making mistakes loses rank we would set up a
system that people wouldn’t want to pass on.
A very integral part of gamification is incentives – not just any incentives,
but the right incentives, the kind of incentives that build the expectation of reward.
These incentives aren’t necessarily money, or a better grade, but as with the snoopy
cards a system that has the potential to be used. Jesus talks about this kind of
incentive in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says in Matthew 6:19-21,
19"Do
not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where
thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart
will be also.
Jesus talks about the treasure of our heart. This treasure is worth much more than
any amount of money, but yet it is a treasure that we can store up for ourselves in
Heaven. We must put our focus on the right treasure, and when we do the rewards
are amazing.
According to Kapp’s definition of game it should result “in a quantifiable
outcome often eliciting an emotional response” (Kapp, 2012). The Bible itself should
fulfill this requirement, however the specific anticipation of the end game is seen
clearly in Revelation. Revelation 22:12 says, “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My
reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” When
the Lord comes he will come quickly and the reward (incentive) will be with Him.
We know that faith is the means to salvation, but also that faith should lead to
works. These works are what helps us store up the right kind of treasures.
Ultimately the judge at the end of the game is God. Matthew 7:24 says, “Therefore
everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a
wise man who built his house on the rock.”
At the very least we can say that Operant Conditioning and Gamification is
not against Biblical values, and more so I think I have clearly demonstrated that
there is some support for the techniques used. Of course as with all things the
system can be used in a wrong way and manipulated to be out of the will of God, but
when used in conjunction with sound doctrine and theology the techniques
described above would help all believers grow into the men and women God had
planned them to be.
Ministry Integration
How can these tools be used specifically for the purpose of growing disciples?
There are a couple of examples that I can think of that are already geared towards
the idea of gamification. The first is the whole concept of AWANA and the second is
percentage giving.
AWANA is already set up to earn achievement points by saying a certain
number of Bible verses. Once enough Bible verses have been said the student
receives a pin or a patch. The students also receive AWANA bucks that they can
use in the AWANA store for saying Bible verses and/or bringing friends. These
rewards are delayed for the most part since it may take several weeks to accomplish
the goals set. However, the students also work as a member of one of four color
teams to win the chance to have a piece of candy that night.
Another concept already in use in some churches is in the area of tithing.
One of the hardest spiritual disciplines to grasp as a new believer is the idea of
giving. Percentage giving says don’t worry about the 10 percent rule, just start
somewhere, anywhere. The congregant could start with one percent; the idea is
that is more than they were giving before. Then once a year a big push happens for
everyone to move up a step to the next percentage point. I think this idea could be
expanded upon to include more achievements along the way, aiding in the
progression to 10% and beyond.
Finally I would like to see some sort of church wide gamification happening
where people could earn levels and points much like in AWANA. I think this could
help people of all levels reach the next step in their growth. Challenges could be
established for each level, and the member wouldn’t be able to move to the next
level until the challenges were completed. This would be a way for a church to
innately build leadership as the congregants leveled up.
Conclusion
Gamification is the adding of game elements to a task to make it more fun
and engaging. I believe that in the age of computers, video games and
entertainment at our fingertips 24/7 it is imperative that we implement the
techniques of Operant Conditioning and Gamification in order to engage our
congregation and students more fully.
Depending on the level of gamification that you want to layer into your
classroom or congregation you can do one of the following: add points to tasks that
need to be completed, define badges/rewards to be given out after a criteria is met,
and/or allow the earning of badges to be tied to unlocking higher levels
(Gamification Education, n.d.).
When we give our classes or congregations the extrinsic incentives to move
up the ladder in levels, I believe the final outcome will be a boost in the intrinsic
motivation to do the same when the game elements are taken away.
References
Ackerman, J. M. (1972). Operant Conditioning techniques for the classroom teacher.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Anthony, D. M. (2013). Foundations of the teaching-learning process/teaching ministry.
Xanedu.
Boeree, D. C. (2000). Psychology: The beginnings. Retrieved from Geroge Boeree Homepage:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/psychbeginnings.html
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &
Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 380-392.
Donahue, J. W., & Vegas, R. (2011). Respondent (Pavolvian) conditioning. In W. W. Fisher,
C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 1734). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Gamification. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 16, 2013, from Gamification Wiki:
http://gamification.org/wiki/Gamification
Gamification Education. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 16, 2013, from Gamification Wiki:
http://gamification.org/education
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Logan, F. A. (1960). Incentive. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Madsen Jr., C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1971). Rules, praises, and ignoring:
Elements of elementary classroom control. In C. E. Pitts (Ed.). New York, NY:
Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can
Change the World. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Penny Arcade. (2013, 2 27). Retrieved 11 16, 2013, from PA TV: http://www.pennyarcade.com/patv/episode/gamifying-education
Philips, E. L. (1971). Token Reinforcement Procedures for "Pre-Deliquent" Boys. In C. E.
Pitts (Ed.), Operant Conditioning in the Classroom. New York, NY: Thomas Y.
Crowell Company.
Reynolds, G. S. (1968). A Primer of Operant Conditioning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
and Company.
Sheldon, L. (2012). The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game. Boston,
MA: Course Technology.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). 'Superstition' in the pigeon. In A. C. Catania (Ed.). New York, NY:
Scott, Foresman and Company.
Yount, W. R. (2010). Created to Learn. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.