# Does clicker training really work?



## EpidemicMoon (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm a new dog owner and I've never trained a puppy before. I've only been able to get him to sit so far, and he's chewing on everything he can get his teeth on. I love him to death, but he's driving me crazy.

Would it be easy for me to learn? And for him to get the hang of?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

EpidemicMoon said:


> I'm a new dog owner and I've never trained a puppy before. I've only been able to get him to sit so far, and he's chewing on everything he can get his teeth on. I love him to death, but he's driving me crazy.
> 
> Would it be easy for me to learn? And for him to get the hang of?


Yes but with puppies, management is also a good thing. Tether him to you!


----------



## Analogdog (Apr 3, 2012)

Yes, clicker training is easy to learn, but in your case I would learn about puppies from dogstardaily.com by downloading the ebooks and then move on with clicker training.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Clicker training is amazing, I'm a big fan. It's great for teaching a dog something new, and once the dog "gets" it you no longer need the clicker. I know a big concern many people have is that they always have to have the clicker, which isn't true. I use the clicker and a verbal Reward Marker ("yes" or "good"). That way when I no longer need the clicker I can still tell the dog Yes so she knows she did it right.

The click, from what I learned in Karen Pryor's book Reaching the Animal Mind, is actually a powerful tool. It's not magic, but used correctly can make a big difference in how quickly your dog learns a new skill and how well the dog remembers it. The click goes straight to a primitive part of the brain the connects directly to memory and emotion.

Check out clickertraining.com.
http://www.clickertraining.com/whatis
http://www.clickertraining.com/basics?source=fpnf


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Clicker training can help with chewing as you can reward for chewing on certain items, but chewing is a more complicated behavior. You need to manage the environment, provide appropriate chew items, and always confine the puppy when you can't be watching it. Crating keeps your stuff safe, as well as keeps the dog from injuring itself or ingesting something dangerous by chewing.

You need to get into puppy classes, look for a local trainer who uses positive reinforcement methods. No physical correction, alpha rolls, leash pops, etc.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

I won't comment on the clicker's efficiency, since I don't use one myself, although I use a word as marker and I believe that any marker, when properly used, can be very efficient. Specially if there's consistency, and clicker is very used since it's consistent when it comes to the sound (with voice you might vary a bit when it comes to volume and such, but I prefer to use my voice since it's more practical for me).

With chewing, it's important to focus on the following:
- develop the good habits;
- not allowing development of the bad habits.

Your pup is young, he's curious, he uses his mouth to interact as we use our hands, and he has the urge to chew due to teething. It usually gets much better with age, but some dogs might have the urge to chew even when they are grown up. Some dogs chews coz they are bored or anxious, but some chew as habit.

You can help him develop the habit to chew appropriate stuffs by giving him interesting and even tasty toys or chew bones to chew. Give a kid a toy he likes, and he will learn to play with it instead of your stuffs. 
Whenever he tries to go after other stuffs, simply redirect him to the toys again. Tease him with the toys, rotate the toys, keep him interested in them. Use body block to block his access to what's inappropriate. Sometimes, not making a fuss or correct and simply redirect is better - some dogs gets more curious or even too excited when an owner yells "NO!!" and gets crazy over a pup approaching something. If you make it seem as if you don't care much about it and then make the toys seems more interesting, he will soon lose interest in what's not his toys. But even so, I'd allow a pup to sniff around, just not mouth something. A pup is very curious of the new world to explore, let him sniff, acknowledge the existence of the object, and he will lose interest soon, specially when he has the funnier toys after all. 
If he must get something and redirect fails, you can tell him "no" without anger (anger = excitement = worsening the situation) and use body block, and if he still insists, you can use time out in a boring room or simply continue blocking his way 'till he gives up.

To not allowing bad habits to develop, confine him to a safe place that he can't chew anything inappropriate at all when you can't supervise, and always supervise and puppy proof as much as you can when you are together. Giving a pup too much freedom and possibility to get something you don't want to will allow him to find out how much fun it is to chew and destroy just anything, and it will be hard to change the habit once developed. Also, it's not safe for him and just imagine if a pup gets shocked by chewing cords! Or choke on some dangerous piece.

Just remember to be patient and consistent, most pups gets better after they grow up (mine is 1 year and 3 months old and although he still destroys given the opportunity, he mostly spreads his own toys through home and happily chews some bone next to us. ).


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

EpidemicMoon said:


> I'm a new dog owner and I've never trained a puppy before. I've only been able to get him to sit so far, and he's chewing on everything he can get his teeth on. I love him to death, but he's driving me crazy.


You are asking the wrong question.

The question you should be asking is " Does 'mark*-and-reward' training work?". And the answer is overwhelming YES.

Most marks are audible, but they don't have to be. For instance, deaf dogs are taught using a visual mark. 

A click is an audible mark made with a mechanical device that you hold in your hand, called a 'clicker'. However, you can use just about anything you want to make an audible sound. A mechancal clicker has certain advantages because of the sound pattern it makes, and other factors, but it isn't a game-over if you don't use it. 

The important thing about dog training is not the tool you use but the attitude you bring. Thinking of training as really *teaching *is a good way to begin thinking about it. 



EpidemicMoon said:


> Would it be easy for me to learn? And for him to get the hang of?


Yes. And yes. 

And just to let you know, pups will chew on just about anything they can until their adult teeth come in. It's just part of being a puppy. Some dogs continue chewing on things as adults, and other dogs completely lose interest in it when they leave puppyhood. A good selection of puppy chew toys is essentisl - - and maybe some adult ones will be in order as he gets older. 


_* The actual theoretical term is "bridge" , not "mark" , but "mark" has a nice common meaning that fits well._


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Clicker training is great! You can get clickers from a pet store for under $2, so buy a few and scatter them throughout the house so you always have one handy. I love Emily Larlham, kikopup on Youtube. She demonstrates clicker training for almost any issue you'll run into, watch and rewatch them, you'll learn a lot.

It seems like any word should work, and people do say it does, but I saw a huge improvement in Kabota's training by switching from "good" to a click. Maybe some dogs just have an easier time with a sound than a word, or maybe I don't say "good" consistently enough, but considering how cheap clickers are, there's really no reason not to try it.

There is a learning curve to clicker training, though. Timing is important and that does take some time to learn and it feels awkward at first to juggle the clicker and the treats. You will learn it, though.


----------



## troglodytezzz (Oct 19, 2010)

The chewing is a management issue. Don't give the pup access to things that he shouldn't chew. When the pup is chewing on something inappropriate, redirect him to something he can chew (stuffed kong, bully stick, nylabone etc..) When the pup is alone put him in a puppy safe area (crate, exercise pen) that has chew toys in it.

Clickers are awesome! You can teach a dog just about anything using one. I am also in Ontario (just east of Toronto). I know of a few schools in and around the Toronto area that teach clicker training. If you are interested just send me a message and I will send you the contact info.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Poly said:


> You are asking the wrong question.
> 
> _* The actual theoretical term is "bridge" , not "mark" , but "mark" has a nice common meaning that fits well._


Actually, the clicker (or other marker) is both a marker of exact behavior and a bridge to the primary reinforcer (so you can let the dog know that the primary is on the way. The two terms are not interchangable. For instance in Kayce Cover's SATs training, there in an intermediate bridge (that tells the dog when he is getting warm) and a terminal marker that tells the dog when he is right.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually, the clicker (or other marker) is both a marker of exact behavior and a bridge to the primary reinforcer (so you can let the dog know that the primary is on the way. The two terms are not interchangable. For instance in Kayce Cover's SATs training, there in an intermediate bridge (that tells the dog when he is getting warm) and a terminal marker that tells the dog when he is right.


I didn't want to get into the sausage-making details. 

But fot those who might be interested in the theory. 

In learning theory, the proper terminology is "_conditioned reinforcer_" or "_secondary reinforcer_". A clicking device as used in dog training- or more properly, the sound that it makes - is clearly being used as a conditioned reinforcer. You won't often hear a dog trainer use this description, but it is the proper one. 

Any other terminology is merely used as a convenience by the trainer. It would be somewhat awkward in a training situation to say, " Now apply your conditioned reinforcer and follow by a reward." By the time you got that out, it would be OBE. 

So for convenience, trainers tend to use the terms "mark", "click" or even "bridge" as a synonym for a conditioned reinforcer. "Bridge" is something of a carry-over from learning theory, but in actual learning theory it is more often used as a verb, not a noun. 

"Marker training" - as I understand it - is something different. It is a method or style of training. It employs an audible conditioned reinforcer for correct bahavior (' positive marker') - which could be a clicker sound - but it also employs a _ different_ audible plus a visual ('negative marker') as a consequence of incorrect or unwanted behavior. In this method - again as I understand it - when any incorrect or unwanted behavior occurs, the trainer _never_ ignores it nor employs any other form of correction - even in a shaping or back-chaining situation. The trainer _always_ employs the 'negative marker'.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

EpidemicMoon said:


> I'm a new dog owner and I've never trained a puppy before. I've only been able to get him to sit so far, and he's chewing on everything he can get his teeth on. I love him to death, but he's driving me crazy.
> 
> Would it be easy for me to learn? And for him to get the hang of?


Clicker training is really easy. The key is to first teach him that when he hears a click, a treat is coming! That is what makes it effective. So, make sure you 'load' the clicker by teaching him this before anything else. It's good for teaching precise behaviours as well, as many words can be confusing for a young pup. An alternative to clicker is saying 'yes' to mark the correct behaviour. 

Timing is everything so make sure you practise clicking at the right time before you start training with it.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Poly said:


> "Marker training" - as I understand it - is something different. It is a method or style of training. It employs an audible conditioned reinforcer for correct bahavior (' positive marker') - which could be a clicker sound - but it also employs a _ different_ audible plus a visual ('negative marker') as a consequence of incorrect or unwanted behavior. In this method - again as I understand it - when any incorrect or unwanted behavior occurs, the trainer _never_ ignores it nor employs any other form of correction - even in a shaping or back-chaining situation. The trainer _always_ employs the 'negative marker'.


Hmm...

So during shaping, when I give my reward marker (either a click or my verbal) + reward, or turn my head and say "nope" (and no reward), would that be an application of true marker training? I ask because that's pretty much how I relate to Wally every day.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Poly said:


> I didn't want to get into the sausage-making details.
> 
> But fot those who might be interested in the theory.
> 
> ...


I very seldom need a negative marker in a training situation. Generally the absence of a click is enough information for the dog to try something else. That doesn't pertain to some real life dangerous situations. But when the dog is in the process of trying to figure out what I want he is never "wrong" - just not correct at this moment. And I don't want to dampen his enthusiasm for figuring it out.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Hmm...
> 
> So during shaping, when I give my reward marker (either a click or my verbal) + reward, or turn my head and say "nope" (and no reward), would that be an application of true marker training? I ask because that's pretty much how I relate to Wally every day.


Sort of, but not quite. Let me say up front that 'marker training' is not a method I use. But I have seen it being done with K9 dogs in training so I am a bit familiar with it. 

When I have seen it done, the 'negative marker' is quite a bit more empahatic than just a "nope". It might be a "NO-NO-NO" in quite a loud voice PLUS an emphatic visual signal such as one or both hands up - palms facing the dog - and a very strong pushing motion in the dog's direction. This is done even when the work is very close and the behavior is still being shaped. 

You aren't physically abusing the dog, of course, so it's not like some of the 'yank-and-crank' techniques. But it isn't a method I'm comfortable with. 

Like other methods, if you are comfortable with it and it works for you, then do it. If you aren't or if it doesn't, don't use it.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Poly said:


> Sort of, but not quite. Let me say up front that 'marker training' is not a method I use. But I have seen it being done with K9 dogs in training so I am a bit familiar with it.
> 
> When I have seen it done, the 'negative marker' is quite a bit more empahatic than just a "nope". It might be a "NO-NO-NO" in quite a loud voice PLUS an emphatic visual signal such as one or both hands up - palms facing the dog - and a very strong pushing motion in the dog's direction. This is done even when the work is very close and the behavior is still being shaped.
> 
> ...


Ah, I see - thanks for the explanation. 

Yeah, I don't think I'd go that route, but I can see why it could work if the dog can handle it. Definitely some clear feedback differences between the two.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Hmm...
> 
> So during shaping, when I give my reward marker (either a click or my verbal) + reward, or turn my head and say "nope" (and no reward), would that be an application of true marker training? I ask because that's pretty much how I relate to Wally every day.



I do that too, as she just needs a little more than 'absence of a click' to get why she's not getting the treat. I just go, "nope!" or "uh uh" in a gentle way, and she always tries another way. The other option is just to wait a moment, provide the cue again, and see if she'll try something different/get it right.


----------

