Clicker article from Karen Pryor

On my Mind: Paying Kids to Learn

Last week TIME magazine ran a cover story about paying kids cash money to get better grades.

The objections to cash ‘rewards’ for schooling have been around for a long time and can lead to tremendous political uproar. There are moral objections—children should do what’s expected of them without reward. There are philosophical, theoretical, religious, and of course financial objections.

Well, this fellow at Harvard, economist Roland Fryer Jr., decided the first thing to do was to find out if paying kids to do better in school actually worked or not. Forget all the existing studies and opinions. Forget those specific schools where reinforcers, large and small, are built into the system. According to TIME, Dr. Fryer “did something education researchers almost never do: he ran a randomized experiment.” (Just think about THAT for a minute. They opine stuff and put it into the schools and they don’t TEST it?)

Anyway, Fryer persuaded four cities—New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Dallas—to set up ways to pay some groups of kids to learn (while others just did the usual learning). The experiment involved 18,000 kids and a total of $6.3 million in payouts.

Fryer left the design of the programs up to the cities; he let them pick whatever they thought would work. The results, which he shared exclusively with TIME, “represent the largest study of financial incentives in the classroom and one of the more rigorous studies ever on anything in education policy.”

City planning

New York set up a program to pay fourth-through seventh-grade children for their test grades during the school year. For great results you could get as much as $50. The money went right into a savings account.

Chicago also paid for test scores during the year. Good scores could earn up to $2,000 per year, half of which went into a savings account payable on graduation.

Washington, D.C. had a complicated system in which high school students were paid $100 every two weeks by getting perfect marks in five different areas, including attendance and good behavior.

Dallas kept it simple. Second-graders got $2 every time they read a book and passed a little computer test on it.

Then the kids all took the national MCAS tests at the end of the year, to see if their scores had improved over those of control groups who got no money.

What happened

In New York and Chicago attendance improved, morale improved, grades improved, and the kids liked the program—but the MCAS test score improvement was zero. Nil. None. Nada.

Washington, D.C. showed distinct improvement in general behavior and, presumably as a result, some improvement in reading scores, enough so the chancellor was thrilled and extended the program after the experiment was over.

And 85% of the Dallas second graders improved their reading the equivalent of five full months of extra schooling, and continued to improve the year after that.

Why the differences? Clicker trainers could tell them…

In Chicago and New York, the event being reinforced—grades on tests—was an end result, not a behavior in itself. The money, too, accumulating in savings or paid out at graduation, was seriously delayed, functioning as a positive experience but not necessarily a reinforcer. Sort of a lure; gets you hopeful and moving, and in a good mood, but doesn’t actually teach you much. Kids loved the program, and wanted to earn more; they just didn’t know how.

In D.C., most of the five behaviors (coming to school, not fighting) were things that the kids could control, and could offer deliberately. $100 every two weeks was frequent enough to actually reinforce better behavior, and a global change in behavior enabled everybody to learn more. Standardized test scores in reading went up about three months’ worth, even though nothing else in the teaching or school changed.

And in Dallas? The behavior was a clear-cut operant behavior the children could already do: read a book and answer a quiz on screen. The payoff was connected to the task and was therefore a reinforcer. MCAS reading scores improved by five months. It was as if the kids had had another half year of schooling. And it cost Dallas about $14 a kid.

What of the 15% of Dallas children who did not earn pay and did not get better? Perhaps they were the ones that couldn’t really read yet, or at least not in English. They couldn’t earn reinforcement because they just didn’t have the behavior. TIME thought so too.

My take on it

Fryer is reported as saying he doesn’t really know why it worked best in Dallas, or why 15% of the Dallas kids didn’t learn. He does know, however, that they definitely have an answer to the question, does money work; done right, cash can make a huge difference.

How exhausting—four cities, 6 million dollars, 18,000 kids—and only one school system came up with an operant behavior and a timely reinforcer. And no one noticed those fundamental facts. Makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time, doesn’t it!

Well, good for Dr. Fryer and TIME magazine. Maybe SOMEONE besides us clicker trainers will read the story and go “Oh. I see why that worked. Let’s get it going in our school.”

Our town. Our city. Our state. Our planet.

Happy clicking,

 

E-NEWSLETTER

23 APRIL 2010

EDUCATION - LAPDESK HANDOVER

We are delighted that on Friday 16 April, 120 lapdesks (valued at approximately R10 200) were handed over to the Rise and Shine Learning Centre in Alexandra for use by their 4-6 year old learners. Mrs Denise Williams (Senior Administrator) and Dr Jan Moll (Veterinarian) handed over the lapdesks to Mrs Bongiwe Mbewe (School Principal) on behalf of the sponsors, Eli Lilly and Elanco.

The Learning Centre has 150 children ranging from 9 months to 6 years old and there is not a single desk. It is hoped that the lapdesks will help to enhance the learning experience of the children which is providing a very good educational foundation. Dave Thorpe and Michelle Moll from the N SPCA were accompanied by Angela Jennett and Candice Segal, welfare educators for Sandton SPCA. Brenda Nel who had identified the needy school on behalf of the N SPCA's Education Unit also accompanied us, and was the official photographer.

Eli Lilly also provided cool drinks and snacks for the children who clearly thought this was really great and who, during the proceedings, were taught an interactive vibey song about animals.

 

WILDLIFE UNIT

The Wildlife Unit is undertaking inspections in the Western Cape this week. Facilities to be inspected include zoos, rehabilitation centres, sanctuaries, elephant-back safari operations and reptile facilities. This forms part of the Wildlife Unit's proactive monitoring function to ensure the wellbeing of captive wildlife .

 

The poetry of the earth is never dead. ~John Keats

CARTE BLANCHE CONSUMER

As you know, the SPCA movement opposes the trade of animals over the Internet. Carte Blanche's consumer programme on Thursday 15 April featured this issue and highlighted current scams. If you missed the programme, the transcript is on www.carteblanche.co.za .

 

"DOGS WANTED" ADVERTISEMENTS

We have been alerted to advertisements in publications from people who want to buy adult dogs of particular large breeds. We are aware and advise that the dogs are indeed sourced to be sold on as security dogs. We have evidence that the dogs are sent to other parts of Africa. The whole operation is legal which is why we reiterate once again: - please do not give pets away.

 

Once an animal has been handed over, it is too late to seek redress especially if there is a signed "receipt" for an amount of money given to the owner for the dog. We have been asked to "look into" the matter. We have. The operations will stop when people stop handing over pets. Things are not always as they seem and individuals who want to take an animal are not always truthful.

 

ART WORK

This is a strange request to our readers but in the past you have always come up with innovative and helpful ideas. We have received some original oil paintings as part of a deceased estate. Experts we have consulted have come up with no information on the artist Dieu Donne but tell us the works are competent yet unknown. They are oil paintings of South African scenes plus two watercolours of South African flowers. All framed. If one of you can assist us to sell them or if you have an idea that would assist us to sell them, please let us know. Many thanks

Until next time

With best regards

Chris Kuch

POISONED CUES - TIPS FOR CLICKER TRAINING

Note from Lou

Stubborn, confused, or avoidance?

A super article devised to make you think!

Taken from one of the Karen Pryor sites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Poisoned Cues: The Case of the Stubborn Dog

By Rebecca Lynch on 04/01/2010

Filed in - Cues and Cueing

When I arrived at my client’s house last week, she was very excited to show me how well her dog Missy was doing with hand targeting. “Watch this!” Megan said as she gathered her clicker and treats. Missy was at full attention in front of her. Megan gave the cue, “touch,” and presented her hand. Missy took one look at her hand, ducked her head, and sat down to scratch. Megan tried again. Missy began sniffing the ground. Megan’s face dropped. “We’ve been practicing all week for you. Missy knows how to touch. Why is she being so stubborn?”

Was Missy being stubborn?

She had been excited to participate in the training up until the moment she heard the cue. She was fully focused on Megan and anxiously awaiting the opportunity to perform. But the moment she was given the cue, she changed her mind. And although scratching and sniffing seemed to Megan an act of defiance, I knew that Missy was actually giving stress signals. Missy was worried about touching Megan’s hand. Why was Missy worried? Just the week before, Missy was running from across the room to place her nose in Megan’s hand. What had happened?

I decided to watch Megan and Missy work together. Megan called Missy to her and asked her to sit. Missy happily placed her rear on the floor. Megan clicked, praised her dog with a pat on the head, and then gave her a treat. I had my answer. What we had was a case of a poisoned cue.

What are poisoned cues?

A cue is the “green light” that tells the dog it’s time to do a behavior. A cue can be anything that the animal can perceive: verbal, visual, environmental, a scent, a sound, or a touch. A cue can be trained—the word “sit” is a common verbal cue that means “put your rear on the ground.” Or, a cue can simply be learned from association—when I scrape the bottom of my ice cream bowl, my dogs perceive that as the cue to get up and make sad, starving, dog faces so I will let them lick the bowl.

As Karen Pryor describes in her newest book, Reaching the Animal Mind, a poisoned cue occurs when a dog associates unpleasant things with a cue. Because of these unpleasant associations, the dog will either hesitate to perform the behavior or not do it at all. We humans think of unpleasant as a reprimand or scolding, or painful, like a jerk on a prong collar. But what we think is unpleasant and what the dog thinks is unpleasant are often different. A slight tug on the leash, pulling on our dog’s collar, leaning over the dog, or, in Missy’s case, a pat on the head, can all be unpleasant.

People pat their dogs on the head every day. How can this possibly be unpleasant?

Take a moment and look around the room. Are you all alone? If you are, or if nobody’s looking, pat yourself on the forehead just above your eyes, as if you were patting a dog. Now imagine if it were somebody else’s hand. Here are these big fingers heading straight for your eyeballs and then moving around! The pat itself doesn’t feel very good, either! How would you feel if your boss patted you on the forehead every time you did something right at work? Would you start to avoid your boss? Avoid doing good things at work? Avoid work?

Once Missy realized that her owner was going to follow the nose touch with a pat on the head, Missy decided to avoid the pat by avoiding the nose touch. She was not being stubborn; she just didn’t want to be touched in that way. Poor Megan loves her dog and thought she was rewarding her dog. It was just a simple case of miscommunication.

Poisoned cues are more common than you think and are often the culprit when a dog is thought to be stubborn.

When cues go wrong

Poisoned cues are more common than you think and are often the culprit when a dog is thought to be stubborn. One of the most common cues to be poisoned is “come.” We frequently call our dogs, and then do unpleasant things to them. We call them and give them a bath. We call them and put them in their crates. We call them when they are studying the various aromas of the Great Outdoors and then make them come in where it is boring. Dogs are very smart and live their lives by the mantra “What’s in it for me?” They quickly learn that “come” equals unpleasant things. If coming to you is not more rewarding than the cool stuff outside, many dogs are going to run the other way.

Poisoned cues can be very subtle, too. Do you punctuate the cue “sit” with a light tug on the leash? Do you say your dog’s name when you are upset with him? I once had a client who frequently scolded her puppy, Sammy, using his name. She had not yet learned how to teach alternative behaviors or supervise her puppy, and was a frustrated new puppy owner. When we began training, I wanted to teach Sammy to make eye contact with his owner when she said his name. We started by clicking and rewarding when Sammy offered eye contact. Sammy was enjoying the training and doing very well at making eye contact. Then we added the cue: his name. The moment Sammy heard his name, he ran and hid under the couch. Poor Sammy thought he was in trouble every time he heard his name because of the many times he had heard, “Sammy, NO!”

When shopping for trainers, be sure to inquire about their methods of training before you sign on for classes. There are many trainers who will train a dog using positive methods, but feel that once the dog “knows” the behavior it is fine to punish the dog for not performing the behavior. Unfortunately, each of the cues taught this way will be poisoned. Not only will your dog not want to respond to the cues, but the training will become a vicious cycle—cue, no behavior, punishment, cue, no behavior, more punishment.

Poisoned cues are fairly easy to fix. All you have to do is re-teach the behavior and add a new cue.

What to do with a poisoned cue

Now that you are looking for poisoned cues around every corner, here is some good news. Poisoned cues are fairly easy to fix. All you have to do is re-teach the behavior and add a new cue. It is very important to re-teach the behavior, as you cannot just transfer a poisoned cue to a new cue. Don’t worry—your dog will remember the behavior, so re-teaching will most likely happen pretty fast. Add that new cue and know that you have put your dog at ease by throwing out the poisoned cue. Be careful not to poison the new one!

Take some time to observe your dog in different circumstances. What is its body language like when relaxed, playing with you, playing with another dog, barking at the postman, walking through the park, getting a pat on the head, etc? What body language does your dog offer that can clue you in to its emotional state during these interactions? How high is the tail? Is it wagging slowly? Fast? How is your dog holding its ears? Is the dog licking its lips? Yawning?

As for Missy, Megan re-shaped the nose touch and taught Missy the cue “nose.” Megan’s bond with her dog is even stronger than before now that she is no longer patting her dog on the head. She has learned to watch Missy’s body language. Missy is once again happily touching Megan’s hand from across the room and enjoying every part of her training.

               

Choose your groomer carefully!

Poor Puppy Went For Hairdo And Was Strangled

Submitted by Jennifer White on April 7, 2010

Dog owner Alison King, dropped her Shih-tzu puppy Rosco off at the Clippers and Dippers salon for his first groom but got a call later that day saying “Sorry, he’s dead”.

Two shop workers held scared Rosco by the throat as he struggled and accidentally strangled him a court heard. The Sun Newspaper reports that they were conditionally discharged for 18 months after admitting causing unnecessary suffering. JPs in Telford, Shrops, said the dog’s agonising death was unintentional.

They were each ordered to pay £198 compensation to Alison and £500 costs. She said of her ordeal: “Rosco was a lovely dog but nervous. They should have abandoned the cut.”

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note From Lou –

If this can happen in the “pet loving” United Kingdom – what do you think happens here in SA???

I recently did a radio show (702 & Cape Talk) about grooming in SA, and was absolutely horrified at some of the callers horrific experiences, which ranged from dogs being cut and having to be rushed to the vet for stitches,  to dogs arriving home with broken limbs – or even internal bleeding - just horrendous!

Callers described the following (either witnessed or reported by someone else):-

 

Ø  Dogs being shaken (lifted by the scruff of the neck)

Ø  Dogs being hit and slapped, (usually across the face)

Ø  Dogs being washed in cold water – even on bitterly cold days!

Ø  Dogs being drugged without the owner’s consent

Ø  Dogs being muzzled without the owner’s consent

Ø  Dogs being dragged out of dog cages, upside down by the back legs

Ø  Sick dogs – and the fact not being reported to the owners

Ø  Owners getting the “wrong dog” back after collection and delivery!

Ø  Elderly dogs with arthritis or joint problems being forced to stand for long periods of time, in discomfort, and if moved being punished “because it must stand still”!

Ø  Owners asking for their dogs to be dipped or provided with some other external parasite protection, the parlour agreeing (& charging for a product), but not providing the dip/pour on – lies!

 

At many of the parlours, untrained staff seem to do most of the work. The “Professional” groomer’s seemed to spend their days driving the delivery van, leaving untrained staff to perform the work!

My own daughter did an apprenticeship at a parlour in Gauteng, and walked out after a month as she relayed to me, that if she saw another dog slapped across the face, (because it was being “naughty”) thrown in a dog crate, or dragged out by its back legs – she would not be responsible for her actions! Good for her – at least she had the guts to put her money where her mouth is! (must be a family trait!)

What also horrified us both was that most of the establishments seem to be more interested in making money than the welfare or comfort of the dogs!

 

·         Don’t be fooled by a fancy set up. Many good parlours are more dog friendly than people friendly! Make sure that is the case!

·         My advice to you is check out all establishments first!

·         Ask for references

·         If they won’t let you “round the back” – LEAVE

·         If they won’t let you be present whilst they groom your dog – LEAVE

·         If you dog is fearful or has grooming “issues” find a groomer who specialises in these kinds of dogs

·         If your dog is very old, make sure that you put his comfort first and not subject him to having to stand in one position for long periods – check that the grooming is going to give him enough “time out” so that he is not uncomfortable!

·         If there is any hint of abuse in any form – report the groomer to the SPCA  - and check that an inspection is performed

 

 

To prevent this from happening start taking your pup to a groomer from an early age. Perform “play” baths (without water) first to get him used to the idea of being handled, and put in a bath.  Brush your pup regularly so that it does not become an “issue” Ideally this should all be undertaken at a good early puppy education group! Prevention is better than cure!

 

 

 

The Appliance of Dog Science

The Appliance of Dog Science

An article by Graham Thompson APBC

22nd February 2010

 

Why is a scientific approach to dog training important?

Who is right? The person that says they trained their dog with a couple of leash jerks and now the dog walks perfectly on the lead? Or the person that says they

trained dog with a couple of treats and now the dog walks perfectly on the lead?

 

Well, they are both right. They are describing what happened to them, and if we assume their description is accurate and they are not lying or exaggerating then

we cannot deny that each person’s method works.

 

But what does this tell us? There are two people using different approaches to training their dog and both methods worked. That is it.

 

There remains a burning question though. Which method should you or I or anyone else use to train a dog? Does the information we have help us? Yes -  it

certainly helps as it does show that it is possible to use two methods to train a dog. Apart from that, it does not tell us very much.

 

We need to consider what happened next. Did one dog bite the trainer a month later? Did one dog get fat after a month of training? Did one dog stop coming

back when called? Did one dog pester the owner for treats? Did one dog tend to do what it had learnt very well but was slower to learn new things? Did one dog

repeat what it had learnt and keenly work on new training experiences? Or most importantly from a welfare perspective, did one dog appear to be enjoying life

more than the other?

 

To get the answers to all these questions, we need to ask the trainer what happened next in the following months. Better still, we could ask lots of people

about the method they use and follow up their experiences over time.

 

Alternatively we could get two groups of dogs and use one method on one group and another on the other group. This is exactly what scientific research does.

 

More importantly having gathered some results, scientists are challenged by other scientists. Indeed that is exactly what science requires. If no scientist

ever challenged another scientific result then the results would be biased towards the view of the scientists that carried out the research, as humans are

easily tricked into seeing exactly what they want to see, as are the people that have trained their dog by any singular method. This is why it is important not

to trust just one person’s opinion.

 

So if we want to know the answer of the best way to train our dog, it seems that science is the best way of finding out. That does not mean other methods will

not work. There will always be people that find an approach that works for them. But science shows us which method is the best when we take everything into

account.

 

So what does science say about the best training methods? Broadly speaking it says using punishment such as jabs in the neck, leash jerks and prong collars do

sometimes work, but the problem is they don’t always work. Moreover, they tend to cause side effects such as increased aggression. There are also laws

regarding the welfare of animals which cannot be flouted under the banner of ‘training’. By contrast, reward based training methods are associated with

working most of the time - but not always - and do not tend to cause side effects such as more aggression and lastly, do not break the laws that protect

animals in our care.

 

So given the choice, why use a method that may cause more aggression unless you enjoy being bitten and are prepared to risk your dog biting other people or

children? Why put yourself at risk from prosecution? Is it really worth the risk when science shows that other methods are not associated with such problems.

 

Dogs don’t have a choice in how they are treated, but dog trainers and dog owners do.

 

Graham Thompson

 

Positive reinforcement - the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

Article by a member of the Ass of Pet Behaviour counsellers

Dominant dog theory will soon be but a whisper!

The recent and huge popularity of TV shows such as Cesar Millan's Dog Whisperer has led to many believing in the outmoded theory of 'dominance' in dogs. The dogs' behaviour is often dealt on these shows by using harsh punishment techniques which are regularly copied by viewers. The results can be disastrous. As this recent case study shows, choosing kind methods, with expert help, can improve situations almost immediately and with little risk to families.

 

Yesterday I saw a case of a dog that had become extremely aggressive when anyone tried to put its lead on in the house. It belongs to a chap whose family and friends all have a part in caring for the dog. One of the friends is a very forthright lady who told me in no uncertain terms that she was a fan of one of those 'dog whisperers' and had applied all kinds of techniques because the dog was supposedly 'dominant'.  She felt that the family were all acting as 'pack leaders' in this way.

 

I would love to have taken a photo of the assembled people. One of them (the father) is still receiving hospital treatment for the dog's bite injuries to both his hands. The other three people all had smaller plasters/bandages and/or a lot of scarring to their hands and arms, all inflicted when attempting to deal with the dog using the TV show techniques recommended by the family friend.

 

The dog's situation was extremely serious. These repeated biting incidents had driven the family to the very edge. They loved their dog but could no longer tolerate its behaviour. Was there any chance of saving this dog?

 

  

The lady friend argued with everything I said because it contradicted the 'dominance' theory in which she firmly believed. Luckily the family are all very bright and have scientific backgrounds so when I explained the alternative view and backed it up with science, they started to listen. The dog was in fact afraid and was showing classic signs of fearful reaction. Confrontation of the kind the family had used so far had driven the dog to bite, repeatedly, in its efforts to avoid further punishment.

 

The icing on the cake was the work I did with the dog and a lead. I used a lead with integral collar and lots of cheese and within minutes the dog was offering to put his head in the collar.  The forthright lady went very quiet for a very long time. I then got each of the family members to do it, plus teaching some other self-control exercises for the dog, and it was highly successful.

 

I then asked the lady friend if she wanted a go.  She hesitated and then said, 'I am SO impressed.  I never thought the dog could behave that well. Yes, I'd love to have a go at that method'.

 

Result!

 

One by one, we change perceptions...

 

 

Sally Jones

Full Member, APBC

 

More On Cesar Millan!

Campaign to ban Cesar Millan’s The Dog Whisperer from Italian TV

22 October 2009

 

Members of the APBC have provided information and resources to concerned pet behaviour counsellors in Italy following the broadcast of The Dog Whisperer featuring Cesar Millan on Italian TV.

 

The Italian pet behaviour counsellor Laura Borromeo contacted members of the APBC after just three episodes of the controversial show were aired. She is developing a campaign that aims to educate the public that there are alternatives to Cesar Millan’s methods.

 

 

The Italian ASETRA web site represents the Society for the Ethological Studies of the Relationship between Animals and Humans and it is denouncing Millan’s methods with dogs: http://www.asetra.it/?Comunicati_Asetra

 

The Italian veterinary web site ANMVI is warning vets and owners about how dangerous and abusive Millan's approach is towards dogs. They announce that they are taking steps to stop the show from being broadcast: http://www.anmvioggi.it/10262/12-10-09/la-veterinaria-disapprova-il-metodo-millan

 

There has also been coverage in the local Italian newspapers too where the headline message is equally clear; “Stop Millan - the veterinarians say he is educating people in the wrong way.”

 

Laura Borromeo is taking advice from lawyers so that a strategy can lead to the program being prevented from being broadcast.

 

Dog owners, dog trainers, pet behaviour counsellors and vets all have a choice in how pets are treated. The APBC believes in promoting the best in pet behaviour and it is clear from experience and research that some of the methods used by Cesar Millan can lead to an increase in dog aggression and behaviour problems. That’s why the APBC chooses to use better ways to train pets. There is a choice.

 

Graham Thompson

APBC Provisional Member.