As the proud parent of a two-year-old Husky, I am well-versed in the many ways to train a dog.* One of the most common methods of training a dog is through the use of clickers. This method of training uses operant conditioning, pairing a treat with a sound, to reinforce a specific behavior. Amongst trainers, the common belief is that using a sound, instead of voice commands, ensures that the feedback received is consistent and non-judgmental. This all makes sense when training animals, but do these same methods work for teaching humans? A recent episode of the podcast Hidden Brain explored this topic further.
Dr. Marin Levy, an orthopedic surgeon, first used clicker training when teaching his dog how to perform tricks. He then used it to teach other dog handlers how to properly throw a frisbee.
The idea behind this training is simple: When students properly perform a defined task, they hear an auditory “click” instead of verbal directions or affirmation. This method has been used by a few other researchers, but has otherwise primarily been used in the realm of sport instruction. In 2015, a study from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Studies looked at the use of clickers (or as they termed it: TAGteach) by dance teachers. Like in dog training, the theory was that the sound would be more consistent, and less “judgmental,” than traditional verbal instruction. The results showed that instruction that used this method increased baseline performance in all students.
A side effect of teaching this way, at least in the example of the dance students, was that the students were given the space to experiment and find the solution on their own. In the TAGteach experiment, students were told the skill they were trying to master, were provided a demonstration of the skill, and were then instructed that if they performed the skill correctly they would hear the clicker sound. They were also instructed that if they did not hear the sound, they should try again. The teacher only intervened with additional instruction if the student failed the skill multiple times. This approach to skill acquisition allows the student the time and space to explore (within defined parameters) and come to a solution on their own. Exploration is important in skill acquisition. This is especially true when students need to apply new skills in unfamiliar contexts.
At a recent agility class I attended with my pup Rollo, our teacher used clickers to note when we had hit an obstacle properly. As I had recently been working on this blog, I was keyed into listening for the click. I have to say that it was a nice indicator of positive reinforcement. I found myself listening for the click to indicate a successful contact at the bottom of the A frame, or after a good transition from tunnel to jump.
Back to Dr. Levy.
Dr. Levy didn’t stop with using clickers to teach frisbee throwing techniques to other dog/human teams. He went on to use this technique to teach his orthopedic fellows how to tie knots, drill holes, and twist screws. In his 2016 study, Dr. Levy (along with co-authors Karen Pryor and Theresa McKeon) found that surgical students who were taught with clickers were more precise than those taught via demonstration method only.
There are, I would argue, a number of factors at play. First, both Dr. Levy’s study and the study with the dance students were looking, much like animal clicker training, at changes in behavior. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the delivery of the instruction was fundamentally changed in both instances. Specifically, the instruction was broken down into simple steps (sometimes referred to as chunking or scaffolding). For a great overview of these concepts in education, please read this blog article written by my colleague Daniel Stanford. The recorded changes in learning could be attributed to the pedagogical changes in this instruction style and not necessarily to the use of clickers.
Levy specifically talks about chaining. Like scaffolding or chunking, chaining is a way of breaking down complex tasks into more “bite-sized” chunks. Chaining breaks tasks into links. Each link is a discrete behavior. These behaviors are then reinforced separately before being chained back together to form the more complex behavior. For a great demonstration of the chaining technique, listen at about 42 minutes into this podcast. The dance teachers also remarked that participating in the study forced them to break down tasks and change the way they were teaching. It could, therefore, be theorized that this change in instruction may have influenced the results.
Some could also argue that the results the researchers are seeing are really the result of something known as the Hawthorn Effect. Simply stated, the Hawthorn Effect is the idea that a participant’s behavior is changed not because of the intervention, but simply because they are aware that they are being observed. It is awareness that results in the participants focusing more on the tasks, thus increasing their acquisition of the knowledge/skill. In fact, in the TAGteach study, the researchers couldn’t rule out increased attention by the instructor and the other students as being an influence in the results.
That being said, there seems to be some research that indicates that clickers are valuable when teaching students complex tasks that can be broken down into links. In particular, the feedback from participants in these studies indicate that the clickers helped eliminate “noise” and helped quiet inner negative voices. These observations may indicate positive impact for students who struggle with a given task. Removing the chance for judgement also allows these students to focus less on how they may be being judged, but instead on the problem at hand.
It may be hard to see how these methods would apply when teaching writing or history, but for disciplines like engineering and the health sciences, where there are physical tasks that must be completed in prescribed manner and those skills need to become innate, clickers may be another option to consider in the pedagogical tool kit.
*Note I am not sure you ever really train a husky: I think they train you!