Perception and disturbance (was Re: Stefan Balke's diagram)

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Rick Marken (01.03.14.1400)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0314.1100)--

The variable can be called "order".

I think it's worth being as concrete as possible about what
any possible controlled variable might actually "look like",
especially when it's not possible to characterize that variable
quantitatively. When one says that a teacher controls a variable
called "order", what might the teacher actually be perceiving
and controlling? I think "order" (in the context of classroom
teaching) probably refers to a perception of various aspects
of the behavior of students in class: whether or not the kids
are throwing things, talking at inappropriate times, passing
notes, etc.

The perception of "order" must also be a _variable_. So it can
range from, say, "orderly", such as when all the kids are
listening attentively to the teacher, to "disorderly", such as
when one or more of the kids is doing things like throwing
objects and talking at inappropriate times. So the state of the
perception of "order" depends on the perceived state of various
lower order perceptions of various aspects of the behavior of
kids in the class.

Disruptions are anything that disturbs the perception of order.

When we are able to see "order" in this concrete way -- as a
perception of different aspects of student behavior -- then it's
clear that "disruptive behavior" is not a disturbance to this
variable; it's actually a state of this variable. The "order"
perception is in the state "disorderly" when one or more kids
is acting in a way that is seen as "disruptive".

So what is a disturbance to the perception of order? Where
are the disturbance variables? The variables that cause the
perception of order to go from orderly to disorderly? I think
that the disturbance variables are the unobservable causes
of the behavior that is seen as orderly or disorderly. If you
are a control theorist you understand these causes to involve
reference signals and control loops; if you are a conventional
psychologist you understand these causes to involve internal
(to the student) or external _stimuli_.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0314.1733)]

Rick Marken (01.03.14.1400)

When we are able to see "order" in this concrete way -- as a
perception of different aspects of student behavior -- then it's
clear that "disruptive behavior" is not a disturbance to this
variable; it's actually a state of this variable.

That's why I prefer not to see order in this concrete way. As I use it,
"order" is a higher-order perception. Disruptive behavior is a disturbance
to this variable and not a state of the variable.

BG

3

[From Bill Powers (2001.03.16.0844 MST)]

Rick Marken (01.03.14.1400)
When we are able to see "order" in this concrete way -- as a
perception of different aspects of student behavior -- then it's
clear that "disruptive behavior" is not a disturbance to this
variable; it's actually a state of this variable.

Bruce G.

That's why I prefer not to see order in this concrete way. As I use it,
"order" is a higher-order perception. Disruptive behavior is a disturbance
to this variable and not a state of the variable.

That's a perfectly good way of seeing it, Bruce, and I would tend to agree.
It would help, however, if you could elucidate the reasons for your
preference. For one thing, it would help me to understand mine. Here's my
elucidation.

"Order" can refer to one end of a scale that has "disorder" at the other
end. Language always has the semantic problem, however, that any given word
can refer to more than one scale. "Orderly" can also indicate a scale with
"random" at the other end, or "chaotic", or "disobedient," or "out of
sequence", or "unregulated" or "confused" (the latter two from the Word
thesaurus). It could be that the scale that's really being referred to is
"controlled -- uncontrolled" (by the teacher), or perhaps "predictable --
unpredictable" (by anyone). But that all depends on who's talking.

By this way of perceiving, behavior is another variable that can range from
nondisruptive to disruptive. Of course no behavior is inherently either
disruptive or nondisruptive in itself. We judge the disruptiveness of a
behavior by its tendency to change the state of some other variable, such
as classroom orderliness. If Charlie passes a note to Tom while the teacher
is writing out a homework assignment on the blackboard, this would not
(normally, depending on the contents of the note) disrupt the classroom
process, whereas the identical behavior would be disruptive if it happened
while the teacher was explaining something to the class -- especially, if
the explanation were being directed to Charlie or Tom. A disturbing
variable always has to be defined in terms of its effects on a controlled
variable, which can change from one situation to the next.

Consider this behavior: Charlie leaps to his feet during math class and
yells "WAA-HOO! YIPPEE! HOORAY!" after which everyone laughs. Is that a
disturbance of the classroom process? It all depends. If the teacher has
been reading out a list of grades, and has just said "Charlie, A", and
nobody including Charlie expected to hear anything better than "C", then I
doubt very much that the teacher would consider Charlie's outburst
disruptive. If, on the other hand, Charlie had been listening to a baseball
game via an inconspicous earphone, and the teacher were in the middle of
explaining the factoring of polynomials, the same behavior would be seen
quite differently by the teacher.

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.03.16.1053 EST)]

We already have good reason to believe that teachers are controlling a perception of students learning what they want them to learn, e.g. the factoring of polynomials. In all examples of disruption that I have seen mentioned, the disruption is easily seen as a disturbance to that. What need is there to postulate an additional controlled variable that we (problematically) call "order"?

  Bruce Nevin

5

[From Bill Powers (20012.03.16.1654 MST)[

Bruce Nevin (2001.03.16.1053 EST)--

We already have good reason to believe that teachers are controlling a
perception of students learning what they want them to learn, e.g. the
factoring of polynomials. In all examples of disruption that I have seen
mentioned, the disruption is easily seen as a disturbance to that. What
need is there to postulate an additional controlled variable that we
(problematically) call "order"?

I don't think we need to "postulate" it. Most teachers I have known speak
about "discipline" and "controlling the class" and so forth. They do
perceive a dimension more general than the subject they happen to be
teaching at a given hour. A disruptive student is not necessarily
disruptive only, say, in mathematics classes. Of course if that happened to
be true, it would be very useful information about why the disruptions take
place. But I think that most teachers do perceive in terms more general
than just "disturbance of my teaching polynomials."

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0319.1615)]

Bill Powers (2001.03.16.0844 MST)

That's a perfectly good way of seeing it, Bruce, and I would tend to agree.
It would help, however, if you could elucidate the reasons for your
preference. For one thing, it would help me to understand mine. Here's my
elucidation.

I have not responded simply because I have nothing to add to your post.

BG