BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE — FOR 110 YEARS?
HomeThe Dog BlogBloggersBefore You Get Your PuppyTraining TextbookRaising a PuppyVideosPodcastsManners & ObedienceStoreFree DownloadsAdult Dog TrainingBehavior ProblemsLog inDog BehaviorHome » The Dog Blog » Dr. Ian Dunbar's blog » BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE — FOR 110 YEARS?BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE — FOR 110YEARS?Search Dog Star DailyLikeVideo ContestDr. Ian Dunbar Thu, 05/07/2015 - 19:01Edward Lee Thorndike showed that behavior ismodified by its consequences and in 1905, hepublished his Law of Effect, basically stating: Anybehavior followed by pleasant consequences willincrease in frequency and be more likely to occurin the future, whereas any behavior followed byunpleasant consequences will decrease infrequency and be less likely to occur in the future.The notion of binary feedback is the quintessenceof learning theory. The Law of Effect was awonderful start but as theory was put to practice ineducation and training, something went very wrongalong the way. Over the years, dog training hasbecome overly complicated, time-consuming,technical, mechanical and impersonal — lacking incommunication, interaction and relationship. I feelthat dog training has lost its way, its voice and itssoul. We simply have to get things back on trackbefore dog training (dare I say it?) goes to thedogs.Aussie BBQ BedlamView Contest GalleryDSD NewsletterSIGN UPI first introduced science-based training techniques to dog trainers way back in 1971. However, over thenext decade, I realized that much of laboratory learning theory was either irrelevant or unworkable whenpeople trained animals in real life situations. Few people have the exquisite timing or tireless consistency ofa computer, which are both beyond essential when using punishment and even fewer people can computethe variable reinforcement schedules that were most effective for maintaining rates or responding andinstilling a stellar work ethic. Consequently, in 1982, I proposed a much simplified practical learning theorythat was first published in the original SIRIUS Manual and later in my second book, How To Teach A NewDog Old Tricks.In SIRIUS puppy classes, training was conducted off-leash within the play session in order to preventphysical prompts (especially leash tugging and jerking) from becoming a crutch — an extremely difficult-todispense-with crutch. The basic training sequence is so simple and comprised: 1. Request - 2, Lure - 3.Response - 4. Reward. The sequence is progressively modified in three stages.Stage 1. Teaching Dogs WHAT We Want Them To Do — by using food lures to entice the dog to watch theowner’s hand movements (signals) and then phasing out food lures during the very first training session,often on the 9th trial. The foodless handsignal is then used as a lure. Since the verbal request predicts thehandsignal, the dog eventually responds after the verbal request but before the handsignal, i.e., the dog haslearnt the meaning of the verbal request. Using food lures makes training lightning fast by accelerating theprocess of teaching handsignals and verbal cues. The sequence becomes: 1. Request - 3. Response - 4.Reward.Stage 2. Teaching Dogs To WANT To Do What We Want Them To Do — by phasing out food rewards andreplacing them with more powerful, life rewards, interactive games and cued behavior “problems”. Thereintroduction of food rewards was a boon for many novice trainers who had difficulty praising their dogslike they really meant it. Moreover, as an added bonus, Lure/Reward Training, does not require consistency,good timing or super-human computing power. Even utterly random reinforcement is highly effective atmaintaining high-levels of responding. And when owners are a tad tardy in rewarding dogs for a prompt sit,down, or sit-up, they end up effectively reinforcing mini-stays. In fact, teaching random length stay-delayswhen randomizing body position changes is an effective training technique in itself. Even so, althoughclassical conditioning food rewards should never be phased out, food rewards for teaching manners wereonly intended as a temporary training tool and were quickly phased out by asking “more for less”. Forexample, when all goes according to plan during the first session, the first eight trials produce 38 responsesfor just 10 food rewards, i.e., already a Response:Reward Ratio of 3.8:1! And of course, using the moreeffective “life rewards” is the real fun part of training. Once the dog is sufficiently motivated, external rewardsare no longer necessary because the dog is self-motivated and internally reinforced and the sequencebecomes: 1. Request - 3. Response.More infoONLINE STORE
Stage 3. Insisting on Compliance with Instructive Reprimands — only of course, once the dog understandsthe task at hand (tested by assessing Response Reliability Percentages for each cue) and has beenmotivated to want to comply in most circumstances. The instructive nature of aversive punishment dependsalmost entirely on split-second timing and the effectiveness of punishment-training requires 100%consistency. Punishment worked extremely well in laboratory learning theory experiments but not very wellin real life, especially with human trainers. Ill-timed or inconsistent aversive feedback makes it difficult fordogs (and horses, students, employees, spouses and children) to learn anything but a dislike for “training”and the “trainer”. Even when aversive punishment does work, the result is woefully insufficient. When dogsare non-compliant, or otherwise misbehave, in addition to 1. Inhibiting undesirable behavior, we also want to2. Get the dog on track as quickly as possible and 3. Inform the dog of the potential danger of noncompliance. A single spoken word — an instructive reprimand — conveys all three pieces of information,producing high levels of compliance.Back in the 80s, I thought it was necessary to instructively reprimand in a louder voice. However, we havesince discovered that raising the voice is unnecessary to achieve on-demand, high levels of compliance.Exciting stuff! When dogs err, the key is clear instruction and calm insistence. Thus, the Request nowbecomes a Warning that signals to the dog that you will follow up and gently insist on compliance: 1.Request/Warning - 3. Response - 4. Insistence. No shouting, no fear and no pain. It’s all really so verysimple.Throughout the 90s, dog training was progressing in leaps and bounds. Nearly all puppy training classes,workshops and events, such as the K9 Games, were held off-leash and so the dogs developed brilliant biteinhibition, were well socialized with people and other dogs and were under off-leash verbal control (withoutthe continued need for training aids, such as leashes, collars, halters and harnesses). Food lures andrewards had been used to great effect and phased out so that the dog’s compliance was not dependent onthe owner having food in their hand or pocket. All in all, things looked good and augured well for the futureof pet dog training. And so what went wrong?So many puppy classes and workshops are conducted on leash and in my opinion, today’s dogs aremuch more reactive around other dogs, more fearful of people and the acquisition of bite inhibitionhas suffered. (In my Reliability and Games workshops over the past two years, at least a dozen dogswere attacked and four people were bitten.) Also, on-leash training does little to provide owners withoff-leash verbal control for dog parks, or at home even.Food lures and food rewards are not being phased out and so food becomes bribes as soon as thedog develops competing doggy interests and is no longer willing to comply.Far too many food rewards are dispensed indiscriminately via rich and relatively ineffective schedules,e.g., continuous reinforcement, that reinforce just as many below-average responses as aboveaverage responses — rates of responding progressively decrease as food loses its reinforcing powerand the quality of responses seldom improves.Reward-training has become overly complicated, time-consuming, technical and beyond thecapabilities of many owners, who out of frustration turn to different techniques, e.g., on-leash andshock training, which give the illusion of rapid resolution — provided the dog remains within arm’sreach, on-leash or wears a shock collar, of course.As pet dog training became a separate field from obedience/working training, we moved away fromongoing quantification and without a doubt, standards have dropped considerably. Multi-minutestays and off-leash heeling have become somewhat of a rarity in puppy training classes. Lack ofquantification and solid data have fueled numerous needless arguments that have virtually cleavedthe dog training profession.Perhaps the single biggest detrimental change to dog training is the disappearance of verbalinstruction prior to task and verbal feedback.PunishmentI should mention that Thorndike is one of my heroes and his Law of Effect came so very close: behavior ischanged by consequences and consequential feedback should be binary. The reward aspect of the Law ofEffect is pure in its simplicity and so very effective. Just wait for, or better yet, encourage, the trainee to dosomething “right” and then immediately praise and reward and the “task” is virtually 95% complete.However, the use of aversive punishment was just so very, absolutely and completely wrong from the outset.Obviously, it is essential to teach owners how to inhibit and eliminate undesirable and potentially dangerousbehaviors, otherwise owners will become frustrated and likely seek help elsewhere. It would be too silly toignore non-compliance and misbehavior hoping that they will “go away” (extinguish). Nonetheless, it is notnecessary to make failure to learn a more unpleasant experience than it already is? Maybe the teacher or theteaching contributed to the slow learning but regardless, who on earth would want to frighten or hurtchildren, pupils, employees and animals for failing to learn?Food and shock were used in laboratory training experiments because computers could not explain thetask, praise, reprimand, or reinstruct. Food and shock were highly effective in the laboratory because bothwere administered consistently, with exquisite timing and according to computed reinforcement andpunishment schedules. Some reinforcement schedules worked well to increase rates of responding andpunishment was extremely effective at inhibiting and eliminating unwanted behavior. However, a computertraining caged rats and pigeons is very different from people training animals in real life. For example, shockpunishments worked in the laboratory because they were administered immediately and consistently andthe animals were caged and could not escape. Consequently, it was assumed that painful punishment wasthe best solution for unwanted behavior. However, few people have the consistency or timing of a computerto administer punishment effectively, which creates many additional problems. And in real life, the dog mayrun away, or force the trainer to run away.Administering aversive punishment without exacerbating problems, or causing others, requires considerableexperience and expertise. Therefore, aversive punishment is not a good choice for when people trainanimals or other people. Most people are pretty inconsistent and don’t have brilliant timing. Whereasinconsistency and lousy timing can actually work quite well with reinforcement, either one destroys anypunishment-training program. People simply cannot punish effectively — advertised by the fact that leashes
and shock collars often become lifetime management tools. Punishments should decrease in frequency andeventually be eliminated as undesirable behavior is inhibited and eliminated. Continued “punishment” isevidence that it is not working and therefore, by definition, the aversive feedback cannot be defined aspunishment.It is actually a surprisingly simple endeavor to deal effectively with behavior problems and non-compliancewithout casing fear or pain. Without a doubt, if, a hundred years ago, Thorndike had consulted kindergartenteachers and grandparents rather than dog trainers with regards how to deal with misbehavior, instead of aFood Reward vs. Physical Punishment binary feedback, we would probably have Praise vs. SpecificRedirection, or Reinstruction, i.e., gentle guidance and insistence.Rather than treating dogs as adversaries in the training arena, we should consider dog training to be on parwith teaching a child to read, learning how to tango, or being taught golf. This is education, not war. Withouta doubt, adopting non-aversive means for inhibiting undesirable behavior and non-compliance isparamount. Beyond overdue. I am completely serious when I say that dog trainers (and parents) can learn somuch from grandparents and kindergarten teachers.Food Lures and RewardsBringing back food lures and rewards certainly did wonders for dog training. Food should be mandatory forclassical conditioning. (There is no practical alternative to teach dogs to like children, men and strangers.)Food lures make teaching verbal cues lightning fast and food rewards are extremely effective, especially fortrainers without great affect.We have three wonderful reward-based training techniques at our disposal. They have pros and cons interms of ease and efficiency (speed) but all three are effective and enjoyable for dogs and their owners:Lure/Reward Training is most certainly, by far the quickest way to put behaviors on cue and the trainer may(must) teach several behaviors concurrently. Since the behaviors are predictably lured, the trainer may cuethe dog beforehand on the very first trial and employ a differential reinforcement as early as the second trial.Timing between the verbal cue and the lure is critical, however consistent reinforcement is not necessary.Food (or toy) lures and rewards are the easiest of training tools to phase out. As with many trainingtechniques, perhaps the biggest drawback of Lure/Reward Training is that it is done executed correctly —few owners are instructed to phase out the food lure in the first session and so, food becomes a bribe,which the dog eventually “blows off” and the owners get frustrated.Shaping (Clicker Training) is the method of choice for fine-tuning behavior and for teaching behaviors thatcannot be lured, for example, handstand pirouettes. Shaping is complicated and time-consuming andrequires a considerable skill set. Consistency and exquisite timing are absolutely essential. Trainers may onlyshape one behavior at a time and must first employ a continuous reinforcement schedule to “capture” eachsuccessive approximation before eventually, putting the final performance on cue. Many trainers experiencedifficulties phasing out the clicker and food rewards. Many younger trainers are maybe unaware that shapingtook a lot of hurt out of dog training. Shaping provided a fairly fast means (usually quicker than luring) forteaching non-retrieving dogs to reliably retrieve and thus, abolished the barbaric ear-pinch (negativereinforcement) procedure. Additionally, since behaviors are not always lured or prompted, owners have noexpectations regarding their dogs’ performance and are simply happy when their dogs do something worthrewarding. Since the dog can never be “wrong”, owners seldom become frustrated. In fact, the hallmark of aClicker class is exiting owners with smiley faces and dogs with waggy tails.All-or-None Reward Training is the method of choice for training out-of-control, inattentive, hyperactiveadolescent dogs that blow off food bribes — an absolutely brilliant technique for teaching dogs to calmdown, sit-stay and focus. Once the dog calms down and focuses, it is easy to revert to Lure/Reward Trainingbut this time, phase out the food lures and rewards. All-or-None Reward Training is time-consuming butquicker than Shaping because when the dog eventually “gets it right”, he gets it right all at once. Forexample, either the dog is not-sitting, or sitting, either the dog is barking, or quiet, either the dog is lookingaway, or looking at the trainer. All-or-None Reward Training is by far the easiest of training techniquesbecause consistency, good timing, or a doctorate in learning theory are all unnecessary.All the above techniques are effective and thoroughly enjoyable for owners and dogs but in terms of easeand efficiency, my Lure/Reward Training is always my Plan A for teaching novice owners how to trainpuppies and adult dogs. For hyperactive, inattentive dogs that are blowing off food bribes, I would use PlanB: All-or-None Reward Training to gain focus and calmness and then revert back to Plan A. Once the dogshave acquired a few easy-to-lure basics: Come, Sit, Down, Stand, Roll Over, Stay, Follow, Heel, Walk-onLeash, Quickly, Steady, Speak, Shush, Off, Take it, Thank You, Hug, Fetch (differential retrieves), Go To (people and places), Bed, Beg, Bow, Bang, Back-up, Creep, Twirl, Dance, etc., I would introduce Plan C:Shaping.Yes, we should absolutely use food lures and rewards in dog training but phase them out as soon aspossible. It has been well over 40 years since I reintroduced the use of food (and toy) lures and rewards andfun and games to dog training and initially, it was a hard sell trying to explain to obedience trainers thatluring and rewarding with food was very different from bribing. Ironically, nowadays, I would say that far toomany trainers are indiscriminately dolling out far too many food treats and not phasing out food lures withinthe first session and so, as soon as the dog develops competing interests and becomes unwilling to complywith the owner’s wishes, food becomes a bribe, which the dog blows off. And then, many trainers forget theprime principle of training — Thorndike’s Law of Effect — that behavior in changed by its consequences andinstead, try to alter the frequency of behaviors by changing antecedents. For example, by increasing thevalue of food lures, being animated and speaking in a soft squeaky voice to entice dogs to approach, orspeaking in a loud, stern voice to make dogs cease and desist. Of course, altering antecedents may causetemporary changes in behavior. The dog may respond now but will be unlikely to do so in the future,especially without the improved food lure, or altered tone/volume of voice. Consequential feedback,however, effects permanent changes in behavior.Most learning theory experiments focused on maintaining rates of responding but nearly all of the schedules— continuous, fixed interval, fixed rate, variable interval, variable rate and random reinforcement — allreward animals irrelevant of the quality of the behavior, i.e., the animal is rewarded for just as many belowaverage responses as above average-responses, which is really pretty silly.
QuantificationReinforcement should reflect the quantitative and qualitative aspects of behavior. The quantitative aspects ofbehavior are easily measured, for example, speed of recalls and length of stays. Differential reinforcement isthe only way to go, i.e., the dog should only be rewarded for responses that meet minimal criteria, betterresponses earn better rewards and the best responses win jackpots. As a rule of thumb, the dog should berewarded for no more than a third of all responses. With at least a 3:1 Response: Reward Ratio, not beingrewarded is actually as informative and as motivating as being rewarded. (What happens in the four yearsafter coming fourth in the Olympics?) Therefore, trainers need to calculate average responses, e.g., averagerecall time. Thus, with a DR10.20.30, the dog is only rewarded for recalls 10% quicker than average. Forrecalls 20% quicker than average, the dog receives better or more rewards and for recalls 30% quicker thanaverage, the dog receives a celebration!Quantification is motivational for dogs, owners and trainers. Quantification allows owners and trainers todetect “baby steps” — early improvement. For example, when a sit-stay improves from 0.2 to 1.2 secondsafter just three trials, that’s a colossal 600% improvement. Just four more equivalent 600% improvementsand the Jack Russell will be sit-staying for four minutes and 29.2 seconds. Not too shabby! And each timethe owner and dog surpass a personal best, the trainer may praise the owner and encourage them to praisethe dog for a good job well done. Moreover, at the end of each session, the trainer may remind the owner,“Well, this is a lot better than when we started”, meaning, “Aren’t you the lucky one to be training your dogwith me rather than another “trainer” who doesn’t fully appreciate a little science”.Quantification prevents needless argument. Debating theoretical issues often consumes valuable trainingtime and at best, much of the argument centers on non-issues and at worst, the rigmarole is akin to a strawman beating a dead dog. For example, the Quadrant. (I do so wish that we hadn’t come up with theQuadrant. The Quadrant was only intended as a memory aid to help decipher the needlessly complicatedand ambiguous terminology of positive/negative reinforcement/punishment.) A trainer might insist that theyare totally “positive” when they time-out (negatively punish) a ”bully” from a play session but interview thedog, and he might say, “But this is positive punishment, she put me in prison.”Rather than wasting time with banter, badinage, disagreement, argument, or personal slurs about what wethink is the best way to train dogs, we should first prove that we are, in fact, training dogs. We mustseparate what we think or believe from what we know. Behavior and behavior-change (training) isobservable and quantifiable and therefore, the facts are irrefutable.Trainers must not be afraid of numbers. Indeed, trainers need to calculate Time & Trials to Criterion,Response Reliability Percentages, Response:Reward Ratios and especially Response:Punishment Ratios(extra-especially if using aversive punishments). If the number of responses does not appreciably increaserelative to the number or Rewards, then the dog is not learning much but at least he’s having a great time.However, if the number of Punishments does not decrease relative to the number of Responses, then thedog is not learning and he is having an unpleasant time.People may not be as consistent, or have such great timing, or be able to compute like computers BUTpeople are smarter in different ways. Didn’t we invent computers? People can easily assess qualitativeaspects of behavior. People can quantify quality (style, panache, pizazz and cuteness) in an eye-blink andwe can give the most sophisticated, differential, consequential, binary feedback, i.e., verbal feedback.Verbal FeedbackIn an attempt to emulate computer-generated learning theory, verbal feedback has all but disappeared fromdog training and there’s hardly a “thank you”, a celebration, or a redirection, or reinstruction to be heard.Rather than trying to teach owners to emulate computer reinforcement and punishment schedules usingquantum rewards and/or punishments (clicks, treats, shouts, jerks and shocks) for which the instructivevalue absolutely depends on consistency and precision timing, (which of course most people don’t have),we should be teaching people how to praise and reprimand (gently insist).The goal of dog training is to produce an internally-reinforced, self-motivated dog that is under reliableverbal control when off-leash, at a distance and distracted, and without the continued need of any trainingaid. Many of the above constraints on learning would be moot, if we went back to training with verbalfeedback and reintroduced some feeling to the science of dog training.Food and shock were used in laboratory training experiments because computers could not explain thetask, praise, reprimand, or reinstruct BUT WE CAN! Verbal feedback is binary, analogue and instructive —precise, rich, efficient and effective, especially for eliminating misbehavior and lack of compliance.Dogs need to know whether they got it “right” or “wrong” (binary feedback). When dogs get it “right”, inaddition to learning that she got it “right”, a dog needs to know how well she did. (Differential reinforcement.)Verbal feedback is effortlessly and naturally analogue — the degree of praise differs to reflect the quality ofthe behavior.Moreover, verbal feedback allows us to transcend the laws of laboratory learning theory that dictate: when adog misbehaves, the consequences must be unpleasant. Instead, when a dog gets it “wrong”, a singlespoken word effectively conveys three essential pieces of information: 1. What you’re doing is “wrong”, 2.What you’re doing is potentially dangerous and 3. This is what you should be doing, i.e., verbal feedback isinstructive and offers by far the best way to get the dog back on track as quickly as possible withoutcausing fear or pain, in fact, without even raising our voice.This may well be my last year on the seminar circuit. I know I’ll never completely retire from the world ofdogs but for 2016, I have only planned two seminars. This year, as a potential last hurrah, I have scheduledthree seminar tours for the East Coast (June), Great Britain (July) and the Midwest (September).“Barking Up The Wrong Tree” seminars in Ft. Lauderdale FL (6th June), Atlanta GA (13th June), Reading UK(11th July), Iowa City IA (10th September), Minneapolis MN (12th September) and Kansas City MO (16thSeptember)
“Pros & Cons of Five Reward-based Training Techniques” seminars in Reading UK (12th July) and Cardiff UK(26th July)“Dr. Ian Dunbar UNLEASHED!” seminars in Orlando FL (11th June), Washington DC (20th June), EastHanover NJ (27th June) and Madison WI (26th September). In “UNLEASHED!”, I plan to candidly expresswhat I think is wrong with the world of dogs and suggest how we can best put things right.Tags: dr. ian dunbardog trainingpunishmentseminarsLikeDr. Ian Dunbar's blogProducts from Dr. Ian DunbarWho Trains Whom- '94 LectureDr. Dunbar has always been one ofthe best at explaining dog trainingfrom the dog’s point of view, and inthis video he highlights many ofthe most common mistakeshumans make when trying to traintheir dogs.Every Picture TellsA StoryEvery Picture Tells A Story is aneducational aid for children toexplore the language of dogs. Dr.Ian Dunbar spends a day exploringthe relationship between childrenand dogs.Science-BasedDog Training (withFeeling) - Day 1Day 1: We Continue to WastePuppyhood! Learn how to easilyprevent the most common andpredictable behavior problems.Dog Aggression:BitingDay 3: Adult Dog Classes &In this DVD lecture, veterinarianTrainingand animal behaviorist Dr. IanDunbar addresses one of the mostworrying behavior problems anydog owner can face — dogs thatbite.CategoriesBefore You Get Your PuppyDogStarDaily.com is a free website for doglovers — a daily magazine with news, blogs,and articles about dog behavior, and acomprehensive digital dog training textbookwith everything you need to know abouttraining your puppy or dog.Raising a PuppyWe so strongly believe that puppy husbandryand training information is so important that itshould be freely available to all, with the hopethat dogs (and their humans) will be happierand healthier because of it. more »Behavior ProblemsManners & ObedienceAdolescent Dog TrainingContact Us Terms & ConditionsAdult Dog TrainingDog BehaviorSIRIUS DoTrainer AcadDay 3Copyright 2007-2017 Dog Star Daily.All Rights Reserved.Maintenance by Jeneration Web Development
Home » The Dog Blog » Dr. Ian Dunbar's blog » BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE — FOR 110 YEARS? BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE — FOR 110 YEARS? Dr. Ian Dunbar Thu, 05/07/2015 - 19:01 Edward Lee Thorndike showed that behavior is modified by its consequences and in 19
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
If the dog is barking at people it can see passing by, try blocking the dog's view. An anti-barking collar may be useful for some, but not all. Teach the dog to stop barking on command. When the dog is barking give a firm command such as 'cease' and call the dog to you. Praise the dog when it stops barking. If the dog will not .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
identify the correct address of the offending dog; Complete the 'Barking Dog complaint form' in the center of this booklet. keep a diary of the dog's barking habits for a period of two (2) weeks, noting the date, time, weather conditions and duration of barking, and the reason as well as the effect the dog's barking is having on
reading comprehension. DIRECTIONS. this practice test contains one reading selection with two multiple-choice questions and one open-response question. Mark your answers to these questions in the spaces provided on page 5 of your practice test answer document. 1. The porcupine is a controversial, yet important, forest creature. Our more prickly encounters with “quill pigs” may be remedied .
