Week 6 Discussion — What Keeps a Habit Going? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
You check your phone dozens of times without deciding to, you keep going back to the café with the punch card, and you once picked up a whole skill by watching someone else do it. This week you learned that classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning each change behavior through experience. That raises a question worth arguing: when a behavior keeps going, what is really keeping it going, and what would it take to change it?
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Pick one real habit of your own — checking your phone, snacking at night, a study routine, a game you keep playing, a shortcut you take at work. Describe what follows the behavior, and label it with this week's terms: is anything added or removed, does the behavior go up or down, and which schedule of reinforcement does the reward follow, if any? Then argue: if you wanted to change this habit, would changing the consequence, changing the schedule, or something else entirely work best, and why?
Option B: Pick a setting where people try to shape someone else's behavior — a workplace bonus plan, a family rule for a teenager, a loyalty app, a coach's training plan, a classroom reward chart. Using at least two ideas from this week, such as positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment, shaping, schedules of reinforcement, or vicarious reinforcement, argue which approach that setting should rely on and where it could backfire. Keep negative reinforcement apart from punishment in your argument.
There is no single right answer. A phone habit, a bonus plan, or a family rule can each be argued well in more than one direction. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us the story.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Describe the habit or setting, and say what is added or removed after the behavior and whether the behavior goes up or down.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (learning, classical conditioning, UCS, UCR, CS, CR, extinction, spontaneous recovery, operant conditioning, reinforcement, punishment, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, shaping, schedules of reinforcement, fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, variable-interval, observational learning, vicarious reinforcement) correctly.
- Give your position with a reason, and say which kind of learning best explains the behavior.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: offer a different label for the classmate's consequence, point out where negative reinforcement and punishment were blurred, or suggest a schedule change that might work better. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. I check my phone during every study session. Most checks bring nothing, but every so often there is a message I care about, so a reward is added after an unpredictable number of checks. That is a variable-ratio schedule, the one that keeps behavior going longest. My position is that deleting the app would work better than trying to check less, because the next check always might pay off. A fair objection is that I also check out of boredom, which would make it negative reinforcement: checking removes the boredom.
Notice how it labels what was added, names the schedule, takes a position with a reason, and raises its own counterpoint. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A real, specific habit or setting is described, the consequence is labeled by what was added or removed and which way the behavior moved, and the position is backed by a reason | A habit or setting is present, but the labeling is vague or the position is asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about what keeps the behavior going |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeping negative reinforcement apart from punishment and telling classical, operant, and observational learning apart | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com