* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download File - R. Anthony James` Electronic Portfolio
Prosocial behavior wikipedia , lookup
Learning theory (education) wikipedia , lookup
Behavioral modernity wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic behavior wikipedia , lookup
Observational methods in psychology wikipedia , lookup
Bullying and emotional intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Abnormal psychology wikipedia , lookup
Thin-slicing wikipedia , lookup
Residential treatment center wikipedia , lookup
Neuroeconomics wikipedia , lookup
Organizational behavior wikipedia , lookup
Parent management training wikipedia , lookup
Theory of planned behavior wikipedia , lookup
Sociobiology wikipedia , lookup
Attribution (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Descriptive psychology wikipedia , lookup
Applied behavior analysis wikipedia , lookup
Psychological behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Theory of reasoned action wikipedia , lookup
Insufficient justification wikipedia , lookup
Verbal Behavior wikipedia , lookup
Social cognitive theory wikipedia , lookup
Behavior analysis of child development wikipedia , lookup
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.