Reinforcement Systems, Essay Example

The issue of reinforcement in education has been the subject matter of multiple arguments among researchers. As the theoretical justification roots in the research of animal behavior, their opponents insist that such “stick-and-carrot” approach implies inhuman treatment of people and seems unsuccessful. The supporters, like Stephen Ray Flora (2004), suppose positive reinforcements the most valid way of sustaining proper behavior, of increasing delinquency and stimulating academic progress (Flora, 2004).

The psychologists and teachers preferably recommend applying positive reinforcement in comparison to punishment. Downing, Keating, and Bennett (2005) evaluated that punishment is effective while the teacher is present; reinforcement stimulates long-lasting changes in student behavior, positive feelings, optimistic attitude to school which punishment is unable to provide (Downing, Keating, Bennett, 2005).

Apparently, reinforcement should be individual; selection of effective reinforces identifies the results. The choice of reinforcement techniques depends much on the age of students. Personal interviews, observations, questionnaires allow to determine the positive reinforcer which appeals to a child. Individual teaching enables the close contact of teacher and student, as well as inexpensive “natural” reinforcers. Individual reinforcement programs are difficult to manage in large groups. They suppose the small amount of students and surely require programming.

Social reinforcement implies the significance of teacher’s attention in the process of interaction. Though all-embracing teacher’s attention plays a significant part on all levels of education, in elementary school, it serves an authoritative form of reinforcement. Misbehavior often shows the lack of attention a child experiences, as students of this age attract teacher’s attention by both positive and negative methods.

Teacher’s attention expresses in verbal and nonverbal feedback. Gestures, like head nods are effective means in showing listener’s attention to a speaker. Moreover, this nonverbal method sustains eye-contact between teacher and student.

Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, Marsh (2008) concluded that efficient interaction of teacher and student supposes using error correction procedures accompanied by “continuous monitoring of the student’s academic and/or social behavior performance (e.g., curriculum-based measurement), as well as accurate and consistently presented instruction and interventions (i.e., fidelity of implementation)” (p. 28).

One of the mostly used reinforcement methods is praise. Praise given by the teacher to one of the group members creates incentives for others to behave the same way.  The authors of the article “Effective Reinforcement Techniques in Elementary Physical Education: The Key to Behavior Management”, Downing, Keating, Bennett advise to implement the reinforcement via spontaneous interactions. The teacher should praise the student’s appropriate drill execution, thus, pointing out the requirements for misbehaving student. In individuals teaching, praise heartens positive feelings, active participation, appropriate behavior; praise in groups encourages repeating the action praised by the teacher.  Therefore, praise is an efficient method both for individuals and groups.

The researchers identify the notions of specific and contingent praise. The technique of specific praise “occurs when the teacher specifies the target behavior reinforced within the praise statement” (Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, Marsh, 2008, p.27). Contingent praise is given for anticipated, appropriate behavior. Investigations claim that due to increase of “specific and contingent praise, improvement occurs in the number of correct responses by students, task engagement, words read correctly per minute, problems completed, and student engagement” (Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, Marsh, 2008, p.27.)

Besides praise (as both individual and group-oriented method), specialists identify activity and tangible reinforcement. They support the value of verbal reinforcement. David Baine (1982) claims the necessity to alternate the verbal and activity/tangible contingencies to avoid the loss of value which may occur in case the reinforcement is given too frequently (Baine, 1982). He notes that the list of edible and tangible reinforcers is extremely voluminous and may include: having lunch with a teacher, sitting in a special place, operating some devices, writing on colored paper and many others.

When the usage of tangible, activity or edible rewards is problematic, teacher may apply token reinforcement. Token reinforcers do not possess real value. They are objects that may be changed for something appealing for students. According to Baine (1982), “Tokens may be cashed-in at a token store; they can be used to bid on the reinforcers at periodic auctions, or they can be used to purchase lottery tickets for weekly draws of reinforcers” (Baine, 1982, p.106).

The above mentioned principles of positive reinforcement lead to the formation of distinctive prize-basing programs. One of the most popular among teachers is Mystery Motivators method which grounds on an unexpected reward for the group. Kamps (2002) suggests involving the class in preferred activity “for accomplishing a predetermined goal (e.g. quick transition without fights, increased compliance to classroom rules, improved recess behavior)” (Kamps, 2002, p.19). Downing, Keating, Bennett (2005) recommend making up unexpected fun activities for the entire class in return  for successful collective job and suggesting desired activity for students making progress. Though these recommendations were developed for physical lessons, they concern other subjects, as well.

The next group contingency aimed at the improvement of teaching abilities, reducing problem behavior, encouraging appropriate behavior is the Good Behavior Game (GBG). The class divides into several teams with appointed leader. Each team competes in accomplishing classroom rules and obtains check marks for the rules violation. Winner or winners obtain rewards (stickers, badges, stamps) for rule compliance. Except the group rivalry, the principle of the GBG is close to the Mystery Motivator.

Some separate systems use GBG as grounding principle. Cooperative Behavior Management modified the method by prizing both teams in case the points are low, rewarding individual students despite team membership, warning and reminding the rules to noncompliant students before the team loses scores.

The program Contingencies for Learning Academic and Social Skills (CLASS) was developed in 1988 by Hops and Walker. This group-oriented contingency model grounds on the principle similar to Mystery Motivator. The CLASS program implies group rewards for a class or a team for the specified rules accomplishment. Teacher applies signal card system (green cards stand for appropriate behavior; red cards signify inappropriate behavior) or a clocklight instrument showing green when everyone follows regulations.

Researchers claim the evident constructive effect of positive reinforcement techniques on academic progress and behavior improvement, on creating a positive climate.

References

Baine, D. (1982). Instructional design for special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., Marsh, S .(2008). Classwide interventions. Effective instruction makes a difference. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (6), 24-30.

Downing. J., Keating, T., Bennett, C. (2005).Effective Reinforcement Techniques in Elementary Physical Education: The Key to Behavior Management. Physical Educator, 62 (3), 114-122.

Flora, St. R. (2004). The power of reinforcement. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kamps D. M. (2002). Preventing problems by improving behavior. In Algozzine, B., Kay, P. (Ed.), Preventing problem behaviors: a handbook of successful preventing strategies

(pp.11-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press