Download File - R. Anthony James` Electronic Portfolio

An Evaluation of and Applications for Skinner’s Theory of Operant
Conditioning.
Anthony James
EDTC 611
Learning and Cognition
Spring 2006
Burrhus Fredric Skinner, an accomplished behavioralist, is best known for
his theory of operant conditioning. Unlike cognitive theorists who attribute
learning and other such behaviors to inner processes, Skinner held that people
operate in environmental settings and that stimuli present in the environment can
influence peoples’ behavior (Feist &Feist, 1998, p. 269). He further postulated
that these influences can either positively or negatively affect behavior; these
influences, according to Skinner, are called reinforcers (Palmer, 2003). Skinner
believed that the consistency and the proximity of the reinforcer could either
extinguish or shape behavior depending on the schedule of reinforcement
(Boeree, 1998). The purpose of this paper will be to discuss Skinner’s theory of
operant conditioning and examine its applications for instruction.
When discussing Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning, one must first
evaluate the role of reinforcement. Reinforcement, according to (Feist & Feist,
1998, p. 272), “is anything within the environment that strengthens a behavior.” It
elicits a response or behavior, meaning that it increases the probability that a
response or behavior will occur under a given set of circumstances (Schunk,
2004, p. 51). If the probability of a response does not increase after
reinforcement has been applied then it is because the reinforcer is not perceived
as reinforcement (Bull, 1999). When reinforcement is not contingent on or is not
recognized as contingent on a specific behavior, it will prove to be ineffective.
Take the example of a student that views awards and praise as products of luck
and status instead of dedication and hard work. In this case because the student
has misattributed the reinforcer, it is unlikely that he or she will associate working
hard with awards and praise.
It should be noted that the term reinforcement should not be used
interchangeably with the term reward, for the two are not synonymous; “not every
behavior that is reinforced is rewarding or pleasing to the person” (Feist & Feist,
1998, p. 272). To illustrate this point consider the example of receiving a higher
education. Most societies encourage people to pursue higher education;
however, many students find getting a higher education expensive, exhausting,
and time consuming. Applying (Skinner’s, 1971) logic, education is not
reinforcing because it is beneficial; it is beneficial because it is reinforcing.
As previously indicated reinforcers can either positively or negatively
affect behavior, meaning that they will signal that a behavior is desirable.
Reinforcers serve to promote and foster a specific behavior by acknowledging
the behavior. More specifically, reinforcers, as functions of reinforcement, “can
be divided into that which produces a beneficial environmental condition (positive
reinforcement) and that which reduces or avoids a detrimental one (negative
reinforcement)” (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 272).
Positive reinforcement follows a response and is the presenting or adding
of a condition (positive reinforcer) to a situation (Schunk, 2004, p. 51). Positive
reinforcement, on the basis that a stimulus is introduced, reinforces behavior
because it signals to a person that a given behavior is desirable. An example of
this would be a teacher that wants to increase the probability that students will
complete reading assignments when given as homework. It might be beneficial
for the teacher to consider awarding bonus points to students who answer
questions correctly during class discussion. In this example, completing reading
assignments in preparation for class discussion represents the behavior that is
desired and the awarding of bonus points represents positive reinforcement.
Conversely, negative reinforcement also follows a response; however, it is
the removal of a condition (negative reinforcer) from a situation (Schunk, 2004, p.
51). Similarly, as with the case with positive reinforcement, negative
reinforcement, on the basis that a stimulus in removed, reinforces behavior
because it signals to a person that a given behavior is desirable. Consider the
example of a teacher that wants to increase students’ averages on daily quizzes.
In this case it might be beneficial for the teacher to consider granting an
exemption on Fridays for students that average 85% on quizzes Monday through
Thursday. With this example, adequately preparing for daily quizzes represents
the desirable behavior and not having to take a quiz on Friday represents
negative reinforcement, provided that students consider taking a quiz a negative
reinforcer.
As with the distinction between reinforcement and reward, it should also
be noted that according to Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning, punishment
is viewed as separate and distinct from negative reinforcement. Punishment,
when used as a means of behavior modification, “is the presentation of an
aversive stimulus, whereas negative reinforcers remove, reduce, or avoid
aversive stimuli” (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 273). In other words, punishment is
punitive, whereas negative reinforcement seeks to alleviate. Punishment is often
used to modify learner behavior by those who hold power (Bull, 1999). However,
“punishment suppresses a response but does not eliminate it; when the threat of
punishment is removed, the punished response may return” (Schunk, 2004, p.
55). An example of this is a student that is suspended from school for bullying
other students. The bully may be less likely to engage in bullying behavior at
school; however, it is unlikely that the bullying responses will significantly be
reduced. Because the suspension (punishment) is limited in scope, meaning that
it only applies at school, there is a likelihood that the bullying behavior will
continue outside of school. In this case punishment will not strengthen the
bullying behavior; however it does not weaken it either.
Once the role and function of reinforcement has been discussed, one
must next evaluate how reinforcement should be applied in the most practical
and beneficial manner. Reinforcement is situational, meaning that it is not used in
every situation or under every set of circumstances (Bull, 1999); this is where a
schedule of reinforcement comes into play. The phrase “schedule of
reinforcement” refers to the frequency in which reinforcement is applied to a
specific behavior (Palmer, 2003). Schedules of reinforcement can be divided
into two scheduling categories: continuous schedules of reinforcement and
intermittent schedules of reinforcement (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 275).
Continuous schedules of reinforcement reinforce behavior at every trial or
every time the desirable behavior is emitted (Palmer, 2003). Continuous
schedules are used when new skills are being acquired and one wants to
encourage correct responses and discourage incorrect responses (Schunk,
2004, p. 56). Take the example of teaching a three year old the alphabet. In this
case it might be beneficial to praise the child after every time the child
successfully makes the sound of a letter of the alphabet. Constant
encouragement under these conditions would be deemed appropriate. However,
one should be mindful that a continuous schedule of reinforcement can be limited
in its scope of effectiveness (Palmer, 2003). Rewarding a fourth grader with a
piece of candy each time he/she raised his/her hand and answered a question
correctly illustrates this point. Using a continuous schedule of reinforcement
under these conditions could become costly for the teacher and only motivate the
student to answer a question when he/she wanted a piece of candy.
On the other hand, intermittent schedules of reinforcement reinforce
behaviors, but not at every trial or every time the desirable behavior is emitted
(Palmer, 2003). Intermittent schedules, when applied correctly, “make more
efficient use of reinforcement because the organism is not reinforced for every
response” (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 275). Classroom management is a good
example to consider. It would be impractical for teachers to praise each and
every student each and every time he/she behaved appropriately, especially with
the increase in classroom size. Continuously praising students would disrupt the
flow of instruction and come to be expected by students for each time they
behave appropriately in class. Employing a continuous schedule of reinforcement
under these conditions would cripple classroom management.
Intermittent schedules of reinforcement vary and “are defined in terms of
time and the number or responses” (Schunk, 2004, p. 56). There are four basic
intermittent schedules of reinforcement: fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed interval,
and variable-interval (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 275). When determining which form
of intermittent schedule of reinforcement to use, one must consider which is most
appropriate and will produce the most beneficial results.
With a fixed ratio schedule, reinforcement is applied after a certain
number of responses occur; this number does not change (Palmer, 2003). An
example of this would be a history teacher that awards bonus points to students
each time they successfully answered four questions during a history bowl
challenge. In this case four represents the set number of desirable responses
needed for reinforcement to occur and the awarding of bonus points represents
positive reinforcement.
On the other hand a variable ratio schedule, reinforcement is applied after
a certain number of responses occur; however, the number of responses varies
(Palmer, 2003). A variable ratio schedule is represented with the example of a
math teacher that allows students to de-stress by playing an approved computer
game after they successfully complete on average of four math worksheets. In
this case reinforcement (time to de-stress) is contingent upon students
completing a certain number of worksheets; however, because the reinforcement
is set to a variable ratio schedule, the teacher can gradually increase the number
of responses needed to receive reinforcement (Feist & Feist, 1998, p. 275).
With a fixed interval schedule, reinforcement is applied after a certain
amount of time has elapsed; the amount of time is always the same (Palmer,
2003). Consider the example of recess in elementary schools. Usually, recess is
offered at the same time every day; students never have to guess when it is
going to take place and they can set their watches to it. Having recess at a set
time and not deviating from that time represents a fixed interval schedule. If
recess is contingent on good behavior in class then recess would represent
positive reinforcement.
With a variable interval schedule, reinforcement is applied after a certain
amount of time has elapsed; however, the amount of time varies (Palmer, 2003).
To illustrate this point consider the example of a teacher that offers free time to
students. The teacher may offer free time after students have completed a major
assignment or after students have completed a certain number of worksheets. In
this case students are reinforced for completing assignments with free time;
however, when the reinforcement occurs varies according to when the teacher
feels an appropriate amount of time has elapsed and that a sufficient amount of
work has been accomplished.
As previously indicated, not every schedule of reinforcement will work in
every situation. Each schedule of reinforcement yields different result. Dale
Schunk in his textbook entitled Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective
provides a list of what to expect when applying certain schedules of
reinforcement. Ratio schedules of reinforcement, according to (Schunk, 2004, p.
56), elicit more responses than do variable schedules of reinforcement; however,
they are prone to produce fatigue due to the frequency of responding. Fixed
interval schedules, (Schunk, 2004, p. 56) argues, produce higher responses
leading up to reinforcement and lower rate of response following reinforcement,
whereas, with a variable ratio schedule, responses are consistent. Intermittent
schedules, (Schunk, 2004, p. 57) contends, are less prone to extinction than are
continuous schedules of reinforcement. No matter the case, when determining
which schedule of reinforcement to apply, it is important to consider the
practically and usefulness of the schedule in order to maximize the benefit of
reinforcement.
Now that reinforcement and the schedule in which it is applied have been
discussed, one must next evaluate shaping and its role or function in Skinner’s
theory of operant conditioning. Shaping, according to (Feist & Feist, 1998, p.
270), is “a procedure in which the experimenter first rewards gross
approximations of the behavior, then closer approximations, and finally, the
desired behavior itself.” A teacher using shaping as a technique allows for the
learner to be reinforced for behaviors that closely match the desired or target
behavior. It is a piecemeal approach of moving the learner closer to what is
expected. An example of a skill that might be shaped is teaching a child to play
the piano or musical instrument. Because of skill required, it might be best to
reward or praise the child for correctly identifying a key, then for recognizing the
note that a specific key makes, and then for making a harmonious melody using
the keys and notes learned. In this case playing a harmonious melody is the
target behavior; however, the learner is reinforced for behaviors that lead to the
target behavior.
It is important to distinguish shaping from chaining. Chaining, according to
(Schunk, 2004, p. 60), “is the process of producing or alternating some of the
variables that serve as stimuli for future response.” Consider teaching a student
to solve word problems. Solving word problems involves two skills, reading and
problem solving. In order to for students to solve word problems, they must first
read the problem, next they must extract what data is know, and then they must
solve for x. In this case reading and having to problem solve represent two
chains that leads to solving word problems.
Once shaping has been defined and distinguished from chaining, it is
important to discuss extinction. “Extinction is the process by which a response
becomes disassociated with a particular stimulus because it is not followed by
reinforcer” (Ball, 1999). With extinction a behavior is suppress or retarded
because it not reinforced. Take the following example to illustrate this point.
Students that behave appropriately in class but are not reinforced to doing so
may stop behaving appropriately in class. Student that turn in assignments on
time but who do not receive reinforcement may stop turning in assignments on
time without expected consequences. In both of these cases the withholding of
reinforcement may lead to the extinction of behavior.
It should be noted that even though a behavior has been extinguish, it is
still possible for the extinguished behavior to return. This is a process called
spontaneous recovery (Ball, 1999). With spontaneous recovery, a behavior
returns because of perceive reinforcement. Should a student see the reward in
behaving appropriately in class, the student will likely return to behaving
appropriately.
Now that Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning has been discussed,
one must finally evaluate its applications for instruction. As previously indicated
with example discussed earlier, how Skinner’s theory is applied is contingent on
the situation and the circumstance. Not every behavior requires the same degree
of reinforcement or the same schedule of reinforcement. What ones intention is
will help determine what course of action should be employed. No matter what
the case, it should be known that Skinner’s theory has a place in instruction.
Reference:
Boeree, G. (n.d.). Personality Theories: B F Skinner. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html
Bull, K. S. (1999). Current and Historical Learning Theory: An Online Hypertext.
Retrieved
January
23,
2006,
from
http://home.okstate.edu/homepage.nsf/toc/EPSY5463C4
Feist, J & Feist, G. J. (1998). Theories of Personality. McGraw Hill.
Palmer, J. (2003). Operant Conditioning. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from
http://peopleeku.edu/palmerj/200/operant.htm
Schunk, Dale H. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.