Insights on Behavioral Management from Animal Research

A Teaching Aside

The other day my wife and I were reminiscing about our time doing animal research and she was describing my animals’ behaviors while running different experiments. We looked at each other and she suggested the following blog post would be fun to write.

I thought it would be interesting to explain a bit of background on why I approach behavioral management of students the way I do. I seem to have somewhat of a unique perspective because my background focused on rodent AND human behavior. This means I actually spent 15ish years of my life doing the type of research that many of the behavioral methods used in classrooms and ABA are actually based on, particularly as related to reward schedules.

My Research Life

When I was an undergraduate student, I started to work in a rat behavior laboratory as part of a work study program. I ended up spending almost 8 years there. What we were interested in were the roles of different parts of the brain for learning and memory. However, I am actually going to focus on a more mundane part of rodent (and mouse) training: acclimatizing the rats to dealing with humans, other rats, and new situations.

Before we allowed any student to start a behavioral experiment with a rat, they were required to spend 5 days handling the rat and feeding it Froot Loops for 15 minutes a day. To do this, there was a very simple shaping process. We started by moving the rat’s cage over to the table the new student researcher was sitting at. Step one/Day one was having the researcher reach into the rat’s cage and put their hand in the cage away from the rat. The rat was allowed to come over and sniff the researcher’s hand and cuddle up to the warmth. Step two/Day two was the researcher reaching into the cage and gently grabbing the rat around the midsection, lifting the rat an inch or so, and then letting the rat go. Step three/Day three involved picking the rat out of the cage and placing it on a lab coat on the researcher’s lap. The researcher then kept contact with the rat with at least one hand and basically pet the rat for 15 minutes. Step four/Day four was identical to Day three. Step five/Day five involved the researcher picking up the rat and walking around while holding the rat and petting it. Note: The same process works for mice!

We found over time that this was an essential step to the success of our research program. If anyone skipped this habituation stage, then the rat would never perform optimally during the experiment. The rats would be impulsive and show a tendency to attack or try to attempt an escape from the researcher. These rats would react poorly (i.e., flip out) when they were touched and would react negatively to noises in lab. Out of curiosity, we quantify this by looking at the mazes and tables after unhabituated rats were finished, the mazes had significantly more rat droppings that stunk something awful and the droppings were not as solid as normal. There was also increased amounts of urine on the mazes as well. We concluded that unhabituated rats were stressed and unable to meet expectations during the behavioral tasks.

I distinctly remember that others in lab were always trying to figure out why my rats were always so smart. They also wondered why I would often perch a rat on my shoulder like a parrot and walk around with a rat nuzzling into my neck. I think it was always a shock when I explained that I had smart rats because they were not anxious or stressed out – in more anthropomorphic terms – they trusted me. At least that was until I had to use aversive stimuli as part of my research. But we will get to that later.

Trust translates into motivation

We had three types of behavioral experiments: 1. Experiments that used Froot Loop rewards to motivate behavior. 2. Experiments that used a rat’s natural tendency to explore their environment as intrinsic motivation. And 3. Experiments that used aversive stimulus to condition fear (the shocks were the same experience as touching a 9-Volt battery to your tongue – it was aversive but not painful).

Interestingly, the first two types of experiments, those relying on either positive reinforcement (Froot Loops) or intrinsic reward/motivation (exploration) required the researcher to develop a good relationship with the rat. That is, the 5 day habituation protocol (I called it habituation or snuggle training) was required in order for rats to perform optimally during the tasks. If that period was skipped, even control rats (those that did not have any experimental manipulation done to them) had a very hard time learning the tasks. However, if we helped the rats to trust us, then they were able to do remarkable things.

With trust, we were able to motivate rats to jump across an increasingly large gap between tables, learned to tell the difference between things that were extremely similar, wait a rather long amount of time to respond for reward, and learn rather complicated rules. If interested, here are a few links to some of my more interesting behavioral experiments that required rats to learn using rewards (Click Here and scroll down to “Behavioral Dissociation of Brain Function”). If you clicked any of those links you have guessed that these rats were required to put forth a fair amount of effort to accomplish these tasks. Often times we would watch them and feel a weird sense of pride in the rat stopping at a decision point and looking back and forth before acting – they were thinking. They were working hard. And they were rewarded with Froot Loops for their hard work.

For rats that were part of these first 2 types of experiments wherein the rats either engaged in intrinsically rewarding behavior (exploring) or I rewarded them, there were never any issues with rats trying to escape from the maze or their home cage, brutal self-injury, or attacking other rats, etc. I asked my wife if she had this same experience and she said she did, her rats were sweethearts that never tried to even bite her. But my wife and I were fastidious about giving each and every rat those first 5 days of habituation and in giving them individualized attention while we were weighing and feeding them. The rats treated us as friends.

Distrust translates into … ?

When we had student researchers that neglected to handle the rats as we instructed, there was an entirely different profile. The rats were jumpy – as in they would jump out of the cages, the researcher’s hands, off mazes, etc. When people walked by the home cages, the rats cowered in the back of the cage and made anxious squeaking noises. These rats were notorious for biting researchers, so the students had to use thick gloves to handle them. These animals left diarrhea and urine all over the experimental apparatus. These rats tried to jump off the mazes to hide in corners. They attacked other rats and engaged in serious self-injury. In other words, these rats were treating humans as, for lack of a better word, predators. And they were doing what was necessary to intimidate us and to get us to back off.

Often times, I would have to step in and rehabilitate those rats. We had a strict policy in the research lab that rats were not to be put down for aggressive behaviors or in any other way “wasted”. So, tough rats came onto my docket, because I found out early that I had the patience and ability to work with the “tough” animals. My first approach was to do the 5 step habituation session. Even though I was bitten quite a few times during this process, I never got mad at the rat and I definitely never gave up on them. I let the rats realize I was not going to do anything bad to them. Most came around at this point. If there was a rat that did not come around with that shaping, I would more formally write a plan to tame the rat. This usually involved a lot of noncontingent reward. I would crush froot loops in my hands and let the rats eat out of my hand and lick the sugar dust off of me. This was irrespective to them biting me. I fulfilled one of their basic needs, and it worked.

This is not rats, but the corporal cuddling segments seem relevant to how I helped rats learn humans are not too bad…

What about that third kind of experiment … aversive

This is actually the point of this post. Fear conditioning sucks. Royally.

Here is a typical fear conditioning experimental protocol:

  • A rat is placed in a clear box with a metal rod floor and allowed to explore for 2-3 minutes.
  • At the end of this period, a 10 second tone comes on, and the last 2 seconds of this tone is paired with a shock. The shock is not painful, but it is rather unpleasant and super-duper scary.
  • Then there is silence for 1 minute and the tone begins
  • … and so on for 8-10 trials.
  • For the next 2 days the rat gets either put in the box in silence for 10 minutes or put in a new box with the tone for 10 minutes to see if they freeze or show fear across days.

Clearly, there is absolutely no rewarding component to this experiment. It is pure punishment, and used to study fear pathways and how fear responses develop. I think it goes without saying that these rats are not happy at the end of the experiment.

Well, these rats knew exactly who put them through this cough me. These rats would jump against the cage top and dislodge it to escape. They would aggressively self-mutilate to the point of actually amputating their own limbs!! They would posture and attack the side of the cage and lunge at me as I walked by. When I had to get a hold of them, it took all of my skill in handling rats to not get bitten. And many of them left me with scars on my hands I have to this day.

Many of these rats were loving and calm while running rewarded tasks. When I changed and started providing punishing stimulus, they changed. I did not change what I was doing with regards to giving them attention and calm touches – in fact I increased the noncontingent attention and rewards – but it was never enough. The fact that I was providing or administering punishment was enough to change the researcher-subject dynamic. I punished the rat, so the rat was going to defend itself. I was no longer associated with reward.

Let’s bring this back to the classroom

I am quickly becoming an outspoken critic of response cost and other behavioral management methods that amount to positive and negative punishment because they just do not work in my opinion. I hear over and over that if there are enough positives then the negatives of a level system are not that bad. I can tell you from experience in rat research (which all the ABA methods are fundamentally based on), there is no amount of reward I can give (including literal handfuls of Froot Loops in their home cage) that makes up for punishment. What I mean by that is that punishment is infinitely more salient than reward. So, we can give a million gold stars in a day, but all the kid is going to remember from the day that he was moved down from green to yellow.

These ideas are actually supported by research in classroom management by Robert Marzano among many others that demonstrate for “typical” kids there need to be at least 4-6 positive statements for every negative statement used in a classroom (and that is per child, not per class, so if you correct a student, you need to praise that student 6 times). For special education students, the research keeps expanding upon that number, requiring greater and greater numbers of positive interactions for any negative or aversive interaction (the last time I checked the research articles, it was 16:1 ratio). This clearly demonstrates just how influential any negative or punishing comments can be.

Negative systems hold kids back. It teaches them that they have to passively conform to adult demands or they get punished. Unfortunately, it also teaches them that the teacher is to be feared. Just like my rats, kids will fight back by yelling, screaming, punching, biting, spitting, running away, hiding, and so on. Kids cease to be kids and draw into an almost primal state of self-preservation. And it is not their fault. We did it to them. Just like I did my rats.

However, if one runs an exclusively positive classroom management system (which is very, very hard to do), then students will learn. Positive systems provide an atmosphere in which the students are capable of a great many things: 1. They trust teachers. 2. They try new things. 3. They feel safe enough to ask for help. 4. They accomplish what they thought was impossible. 5. They believe in themselves.

All of these capabilities combine to make learning a positive experience, and that should be our goal as teachers in the end.

How to mainstream special education students…

Why Haven’t They Done That Yet?

This is going to be a rather short post. In fact, this post exists only to solicit feedback from all of you that read this blog to help me improve something I have been working on.

So…What have I been up to?

A substantial portion of my special education teaching position is to help students in self-contained classrooms transition out to general education classrooms with resource support. To meet this end, I have been working on developing a data-driven rubric or list of qualifications to guide my efforts. I finally sat down this weekend and put the rubric into a written, or better stated, flowchart form.

I have focused my efforts at this juncture on the standardized neuropsychological assessments we have for each and every student. In our school district that means the Vineland or ABAS-II for adaptive function, the Woodcock-Johnson III for academic skills, the BASC-2 for behavior and emotional well-being (I focus on anxiety measures as they are particularly relevant to success or failure in education), and we use curriculum based measurements (CBM) like the DIBELS, GoMath and ImagineIt! tests, along with computerized assessments. I justify using these standardized measures because all students get them at their evaluations and re-evaluations, but also because I want to avoid any potential for IEP teams to make judgement calls based on how we feel a student may perform in mainstreaming. I am choosing to constrain myself to only considering standardized data that are out of my control.

Once I apply this flow chart, I then start collecting behavioral data from the students while they are in the general education classroom. I feel the more typical method of evaluating behavior in the self-contained unit, to determine if the students are ready for general education, is often unfair. What I mean by unfair is that oftentimes the students that act out in the special education classroom due to boredom are being deprived the very challenges that they need to better themselves. In this way I feel I am giving students the chance to succeed when presented with a challenge, and I am collecting data that will serve useful to provide strategies the students may need when the going gets tough.

So what am I asking all of you to do

I ask that you give me any and all critical feedback you can muster. I can take it, I promise. I feel that as a scientist I need to put everything I do out there for public review, and that continues more so now that I am in education. This flowchart is going to serve as my model by which I can collect data on student achievement. I am almost finished with collecting my first quarter of data. When I move into the next quarter in November, I want to feel confident in my rubric because it has passed a sort of external peer review process.

Also, I think that if anything is unclear, that is also information I need. I am confident I will be handing this rubric off to others, and I need it to be a fairly useful tool at the outset. So if anything is unclear, I also need those feedback.

Quick info:

  • I have chosen 60 as an adaptive cutoff based on research from a scientific colleague I respect.
  • I have selected the 50th percentile for any CBM because that means 50% of their General Education peers are performing worse than the student of interest is on that particular task. To me this is a marker of success for a student in special education-being academically average.
  • I have chosen Clinical Significance for anxiety from the BASC-2 as the relevant anxiety cutoff because anxiety uniquely effects a student’s ability to persevere during tough tasks and changes their perceived stress level in mainstreaming.

Thank you all in advance for your help. Feel free to give feedback in the comments (I will approve them as fast as I can), by email through my contact form, on twitter, or on my class Facebook page as a comment.

Here it is! You can download a pdf version of the Mainstream Flow Chart!


Click to enlarge!