The Necessity Of Deconstruction
It is foundational to the exploration of Learner Centered Training (LCT) that we engage in the deconstruction of current training beliefs and methodologies, including those that are R+.
——————————-
Deconstruction: the analytic examination of something (such as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy (Miriam Webster)
——————————-
This realization solidified for me after I reviewed a video for a client who is experienced with dog training and is learning to apply learner centered methods. Specifically, they are working to address their dog’s big feelings about the dog’s harness. The client had been excited to share this video, which took place in a moment when the harness had to go on. They noted that the dog’s body language was looser, wigglier, and happier than in the past and that we were seeing the start of a positive conditioned emotional response (CER) to the harness. I saw the video differently. I saw a dog who was using their newly-learned gestural, “no thank you” with fierce determination, keeping their nose practically glued to the harness as it appeared from behind their human’s back. In addition to seeing the dog’s response differently, I also recoiled at the phrase “conditioned emotional response.”
As I worked to unpack why that phrase bothered me so much, I came to the realization that CER, like so many standard concepts in dog training, is antithetical to the learner centered approach. In LCT, we are not working to change the dog’s opinion about the harness, let alone condition a specific emotional response. We are working to create an environment where they have full control over their experience of the harness every time they interact with it. I have no interest in manufacturing positive feelings about the harness. Rather, I have an interest in empowering the dog to get answers to questions they have about the harness, in altering their experience of having the harness happen to them, and in helping them understand what the harness means (time for a walk, car ride, etc.) so they can make informed decisions about whether or not to participate. These are vastly different goals than the compliance and control oriented goals of a CER and, frankly, behind many of the R+ behavior modification techniques commonly applied to behavior rooted in big feelings. While R+ training took us a great way beyond punishment, intentional compulsion, and unkind treatment, this move toward valuing kindness has not immunized us against bias, historical influence, and the unjust wielding of power.
I had thought the client understood the differences as we had discussed them at length, so I was puzzled at how we had arrived at this non-sequitur between old and new techniques. As I started to think about how to reframe the differences, I realized I had explained the learner centered approach without commenting on the ways it contrasts with other methods, for fear of causing offense or appearing dogmatic. I have my own learning history around responses to criticism of highly-valued R+ methods, and I have long-since focused exclusively on sharing LCT ideas and methods to the exclusion of commenting on other approaches.
Yet, the more I thought about this most recent and other, similar interactions, the more settled I became in my conclusion that it isn’t possible to teach these techniques to someone who is familiar with standard R+ techniques without first engaging in some level of deconstruction of those techniques and the beliefs undergirding them.
Deconstruction is meant to critically examine something; it asks whether our beliefs remain true in light of updated bodies of knowledge, seeks to expose truths that were supported by assumptions rather than facts, and rejects the idea of a universal truth applied equally to all. This is the process we are called to engage in as we unleash animal voices, to compare what they are now telling us with what we previously thought, and to reject the notion that R+ training methods are valuable to our learners until we have asked them and tested our assumptions.
In other words, learner centered methods are not tools to be added to our existing toolboxes. Doing so would be like adding a chainsaw to a potter’s toolbox - it wouldn’t fit, it won’t work on clay, and it doesn’t make sense to try and incorporate that tool into the foundational skillset used in ceramics work. The chainsaw was created for an incompatible purpose, just as R+ methods function incompatibly with learner centered methods.
Much of R+ training involves us dictating goals and processes, and doing our best to kindly convince our animals how they should feel about food, toys, activities, and other stimuli. Offering a treat for opting into a nail trim is coercive, even as it creates a desirable behavior. Offering control over the nail trim - which paw we start with, how many nails we clip, how fast or slow we move - and giving reinforcement for opting out means we have a truer measure of assent because we offer no incentive to participate and, in fact, give a reward for opting out instead. We can reliably create all kinds of behaviors, but when we truly center the learner’s experience, we have a fundamentally different goal that requires different approaches.
That isn’t to say that we are calling behavior science into question; rather, we have incorporated updated information into our application and our associated outcomes. Where we were once limited to observing respondent behaviors (e.g., body language) alone, we can now solicit input directly from our learners, involve them in the learning process in more meaningful ways, and test our assumptions about what works “best” (Best for whom? To what end? Who decides?). Mands and other gestural communication, biasing toward the opt-out, and emphasizing motivation and functional relevance give us new, proactive ways to solicit input far beyond interpreting responsive behaviors like body language. Using these methods, we can ask questions in new ways and gain new insight into the impact of standard practices on our learners, as well as understand our learners’ cognitive capacities more clearly. However, we will not hear until we stop speaking - or, in this case, until we relinquish the convenient silencing afforded us by R+ approaches.
——————————-
Deconstructionism: A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases… and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination ... Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all. (pbs.org)
——————————-
Since learning about and implementing the LCT framework, my understanding of operant conditioning, counter-conditioning, reactivity management, dogs’ capacity for cognition and metacognition, their emotional needs and ability to regulate, and so much more has radically changed. As my toolkit has expanded to include multiple modern learning theories and learner-centered methods, my beliefs and assumptions have been proven wrong time and time again. As a small sample of my changed perspective: I no longer believe that dogs shouldn’t stare at their triggers nor that they should get a treat for looking away; I don’t think counter-conditioning does what we think it does or, at a minimum, I believe it is unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming; I think the Premack Principle is frequently misunderstood and mis-applied, and I believe errorless learning as an end goal is reductive.
These beliefs, opinions, and our LCT methods, which are are steeped in broader learning theories, tend to be misunderstood at best and are often met with skepticism or dismissal. It is uncomfortable to confront our assumptions and deeply-held beliefs about our work with our beloved animals, particularly if one has already deconstructed balanced methods, crossed over, and feels they have found their truths about dog training. Yet, all of the changes to my own thinking reinforce my belief that deconstruction is both inevitable and required to embrace learner centeredness in our training. Engaging with these questions does no harm, we can walk away at any time, and I can only attribute such defensive responses to the discomfort inherent in deconstructing deeply-held belief systems. Still, if we rest on comfortable assumptions, we will miss an immense opportunity to learn, to know better, and to do better.
Continuing to deny what we are unequivocally hearing from our animals in favor of staying comfortable is paternalistic and will preserve a faulty power structure; and, in order to fully listen, to truly hear them, it is imperative that we engage in the process of deconstructing the training methods we so value.
——————————-
FAQ
Does this mean there is never a time for R+ methods? No. Sometimes teaching a skill can and should utilize those methods. However, that skill acquisition is not our final goal, it’s one step on the way to empowering the learner to problem-solve, to choose from several skillsets, or to create new ones.
Does it mean learner centered training (LCT) methods are inherently better? Classic trainer answer: It depends. Specifically, it depends on one’s goal(s) and motivation(s) in their work with animals. I personally believe it is better. With LCT, we arrive at the same skills more quickly, the skills are more generalizable, and they serve the learner better. The impact of increased agency on distress tolerance is inarguable and is invaluable to emotional change.
Aren’t you being hypocritical saying others need to be more open-minded? I’m admittedly biased, but I don’t think so. My call is for people to consider trying these methods to gain the insights we can now access in ways never-before available, and to listen to what they hear. No more, no less. I’m also sharing how doing so changed my beliefs, but I invite people to go on their own journeys with this approach and see what they learn. I feel strongly that I can’t reconcile other practices with what I’ve learned, but I will always be learning and am looking forward to talking with others as they experience this framework - maybe I’ll change my mind, or maybe we’ll find a new mindset together.
