Does Reinforcement Leads to Positive Change in Student Performances?
Noor Ashikin binti Mohamad
Language & Knowledge
Ms. Alyshia
17th May 2016
Does Reinforcement Leads to Positive Change in Student Performances?
Introduction
‘Instead of yelling and spanking, which don't work anyway, I believe in finding creative ways to keep their attention – turning things into a game, for instance. And, when they do something good, positive reinforcement and praise’ (Richardson, n.d.).
People can create happiness, no matter they build it with money, words or actions. But there is something that we did not bother to know, on how we could maintain that happiness. Nowadays, looking back to history, either parents or teachers would use punishments as their way to remove students bad behaviour. Sometimes, students get yelled and hit by these two groups of people. Punishments could be a good way to remove undesired behaviour, but would it last long? Punishment could be in two ways. First method of punishments that is used is, by adding unpleasant alternative to decrease students unwanted behaviour. Another method used is, by removing the pleasant alternative from students. The second method is the harshest method used to reduce students bad behaviour. But, does it really safe to use punishment method? As for me, punishment usually doesn't work to change somebody because it could lead to hatred to himself and others. This could make unstable emotions develop leads to negative problems such as suicidal and so on. Permanent changes only can last long if there is sense of happiness in it. Therefore, instead of using punishment, we could use a positive method which is known as reinforcement. This method would help in encouraging students to do well no matter in their studies or co-curriculum.
Limitations:
The research for experiment 1 has limitations in correct data of praising students as they knew their actions were being observed. There is also limitation in cost of bug-in the ear as it is expensive to apply this method to all the teachers. For experiment 2, the limitation is the time used to determine the effectiveness of teacher’s praising rate. The teachers are also different in education level and teaching experiences. The limitation for experiment 3, is the use of praising and attention method are only applied to kindergarten students, in the same place. So, it is limited to the place only, not universally.
Research Questions:
1. What type of reinforcement works the best for improving student performances?
2. What proves reinforcement works better than punishment?
Literature review
What is reinforcement?
Reinforcement was introduced by B.F. Skinner’s theoretical framework. It is defined as an event or state of affairs that changes subsequent student behaviour when it temporally follows am instance of that behaviour (Wlodkowski, 1978). For example, a student that is given praise for his arts skill will tend to increase and improve his skill in art works.
What is the type of reinforcement?
According to B.F. Skinner’s theoretical framework, reinforcement is divided into two; positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is known in educational psychology as a consequence that brings about the increase of a behaviour through the presentation of a stimulus (Malala , J, Major, A, Maunez-Cuadra, J, McCauley-Bell, P, 2007). Negative reinforcement is known as a consequence that brings about the increase of a behaviour through removal undesired stimulus.
This research could only relate positive reinforcement to student performances mainly in academic due to the previous studies carried out. Positive reinforcement here relates to motivational exposes to student. There are two types of motivations for this reinforcement, which is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation means, the ‘doing’ of the behaviour is considered to be primary reason for the performance, which involve manipulation, exploration, and information processing that provide satisfaction in and of themselves. This is what makes the students enjoy doing things because they love it, and not feeling force to do so. If they enjoy reading, they will read voluntarily as it is enjoyable and pleasure for them. On the other hand, in extrinsic motivation, it is the goal that being the reason for the changes of student performances. This includes getting high grade, or winning debate competition just in need of gaining rewards from parents or teachers.
In this case, positive reinforcement work better for individual high achievement. However, for a continuous long lasting satisfaction, positive reinforcement that is used must be intrinsic motivation as it delivers satisfactory in doing, not the result. So, it will maintain individuals interest in doing what they want and loved. This argument is based in part on learning theories, and on the review of existing literature that supports the significance of satisfactory and happiness in doing things. We need to build intrinsic motivation to avoid any undesired greed and stress due to high pressure and expectation from others.
Relationship between teacher coaching styles and student performance.
According to a study, teacher coaching styles are very important even in a child developmental stage. It could affect most of the child behaviour. There are at least three types of feedback, informational, regarding, and motivating (Mann, 1974). This feedback should be continuous and appropriate for child’s age and stage of development.
Nowadays, we often see teachers will only concentrate on what they are teaching rather than students’ level of understanding. There is, maybe few teachers still practice on concentrating students’ passion in the subject that they teach. However, there are still schools that will replace their students that provide a disruptive behaviour to another class to prevent any undesired problems. But, this kind of decision could make a situation even worse because students with emotional and behaviour disorder might feel they are being isolated and treated unfairly among teachers. To avoid this happens, researchers conducted an experiment to prove that this such problem could be avoid by raising praises rate to these students. By using praising rate as a factor, another experiment was conducted in an institution to prove that it could also affect students’ grades.
Methodology
For Reducing Students’ Disruptive Behaviour:
Experiment 1
There are five methods researchers observed at when experimenting this experiment to increase teachers personal praising rate and reduce students’ disruptive behaviour which is by indirect training, direct behaviour consultation, maintenance, direct behaviour consultation (DBC) and performance feedback (PF), one month and 2-month follow up phases. Two Caucasian teachers, Ms. Harrow and Ms. Hopper, served as the primary participants in the study. Both of them have different level of education and teaching experience. Ms. Harrow taught the Grade-4-to-6 alternative school class, which majority of her students had psychiatric disorders, including mood disorders, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and ADHD, and they receive special education services. Ms. Hopper taught the kindergarten-to-third-grade alternative school class, which, all students received special education services. All sessions were conducted when there are math exercises provided by both teachers. These exercises are done either by themselves, by discussion in class or by doing the exercises together in class.
Indirect Training. The indirect training is when there is interface between experimenter and a teacher regarding on behaviour specific praise and the use of it. The experimenter will explain and provide examples on behaviour specific praise for the teachers to practice. After the teacher used to start praising students, experimenter will then give immediate feedback to teachers on the correct usage of behaviour-specific praise. The experimenter then will let the teachers to ask any question on any issues related to coaching styles. Finally, the experimenter will provide behaviour-specific handout as an easy guideline for teachers. Indirect training sessions lasted approximately 30 min per teacher.
Direct Behavioural Consultation. Following the indirect training phase, DBC is the next step for this experiment. Before the class started, experimenter will meet teacher to provide bug-in-the ear. The experimenter will then set appropriate volume for the bug-in-the ear and teacher was expected to repeat everything the experimenter told via bug-in the ear. Then, teacher is allowed to leave for the class, and the experimenter will then observe the targeted class at obstructive distances. When student do well as expected, teacher will need to repeat experimenter’s praises. If the teacher praises first, then, experimenter will need to wait for a minute later to give another instruction.
Maintenance. After DBC phase, the maintenance phase will begin for the next school day. During maintenance, teachers will not be provided any behaviour-specific praise or feedbacks. Observations will be conducted same as baseline period. Ms. Hopper did not experience an immediate maintenance phase due to a holiday break.
DBC Plus PF Phase. This phase is conducted same as previous DBC phase but, there will be a correlative feedback the next day every DBC is conducted. The experimenter will present and explain the feedbacks graphically to the teacher. This only happen to Ms Harrow as a treatment to maintain her praising rate after DBC sessions.
One-Month and 2-Month Follow-Up Phases. During the 1- and 2-month follow-up phases, experimenters sat in an unobtrusive location of the classroom and observed ongoing classroom activities. Experimenters did not provide any prompts or feedback to the teacher (Dufrene et al. 2014). Observations were conducted in a manner identical to the observation procedures used during baseline and maintenance (Dufrene, Brad A. Lestremau,L . Zoder-Martell, K., 2014).
Experiment 2
This study involved a male and two female teachers; (Kelly and Jaime is the general education teachers while Chris is the special education teacher) and they taught in school which is operating block scheduling. They co-taught Math for different ninth grade classes who failed in that subject in previous year because they need to pass the subject for graduation. Instead of following block schedule, these three teachers teach students every day. Students were taught all Mathematical units over 14 weeks. During 15 minutes on the talks of Math instructions, group presentation and so on, the students and teachers are being observed. This experiment only uses direct training.
Baseline. During 15-minutes of interactive math instruction, students will be observed. Each observation included even when there is instruction, practices, and review of student answers. As usual, the general educator will explain on Math instruction in front all of the students while special educator will assist and help people in need. Only one teacher in each class was observed. When there are any independent practices, students were allowed to work own their own or with friends. All three classes experienced disruptive behaviour which is out of control. Students were wandering around, playing with phones, shouting and yelling in class which were of the teachers’ concern.
Teacher coaching intervention. When any Behaviour-Specific Praise statements is not presented during the baseline, the first teacher will be train in the intervention of teacher coaching. They will be trained everything relate to BSPS, and are in need to use it often. When the baseline ended, the teacher will be told how many times they used BSPS in class. Then, the teacher will set a goal for the number of BSPS to deliver within each 15-minute observation for the next class. Following the initial training, the experimenter provided a 5-minute for each teacher to remind them to use BSPS and they could ask any question at that time. Written performance feedback was left in a folder on the teacher’s desk every time after 15 minutes teaching coaching done. That folder recorded the first two trials on BSPS, the total number of BSPS used by teachers, and BSPS that teacher should use in class (Duchaine, Ellen L.; Jolivete, Kristine; Fredrick, Laura D., 2014).
Maintenance. The teacher will be in observe after two to three weeks to determine whether the use of BSPS is still keep in maintain or not. The teacher-coaching and performance feedback will not be used during this phase (Duchaine, Ellen L.; Jolivete, Kristine; Fredrick, Laura D., 2014).
Social Validity. Social validity was evaluated using a modified version of the Treatment Acceptability Rating Form-Revised. Teachers will be given this modified form and written performance feedback on the last day of intervention and they need to complete the form. This form consists of 17 question with comments space, and are provided to measure the effectiveness usage of BSPS (Duchaine, Ellen L.; Jolivete, Kristine; Fredrick, Laura D., 2014).
Relationship between Teacher’s attention and praise to students and their academic performances.
Experiment 3:
Experiment 3 was being experimented to nine kindergarten students from different family background. The method used to measure for this experiment is tally methods where the student will score 1 if they get attentions or praise from their teachers. To measure whether praise and attentions from teachers affect student performances (Au, 1974), three high achiever students and three low achiever students were taken out to compare.
Discussion:
Based on experiment 1 that relates to students’ disruptive behaviour, it was hard for the teachers to maintain the usage of Behaviour-specific praise to their students, but with help of direct training, Ms. Harrow and Ms. Hopper could continuously cope and use it afterwards with the help of performance feedback. It was the most effective method used in increasing teachers’ praise rate. The outcomes of the experiment are, teachers’ coaching become more effective and the students disruptive behaviour decreases too. When teachers do not practise the BSPS, students disruptive behaviour increases and vice versa. For experiment 2, the method used is the same but specifically only with direct training. This is the most effective way to reduce student disruptive behaviour in class and the perfect way to engage the students with the subject taught. However, this use of method did not affect any changes in grading as high grade was determined to be affected by student interests in class. But, with praising the students, the possibility to increase the likelihood of the subject is higher.
On the other side, based on experiment 3, it was being measured that high and low achievers did receive same treatment, with same amount of praise and attention. When we look at the result of the experiment, high achievers were not being affected by any changes amount of praise and attention. Even they get less attention and praise, they still score the subjects, same goes when they get more attention. However, for low achievers, when they get more attention and praise, their score in subject increases. It shows that low achievers can score well in any subjects if they get more attention and praise from teachers in or outside the classroom. So, it proves that by praising (reinforcement), students can cope well with the subjects better than getting punishment.
Conclusion.
Therefore, it is clear that reinforcement is the best option in improving student performance. We should use intrinsic motivations instead of extrinsic motivations for a long lasting changes in behaviour nor performances. This would keep enjoyable environment continuously present in of the doing of the actions. This is because, extrinsic behaviour could make the interest on ‘the doing’ less enjoyable compared to the rewards that would gain. According to B.F. Skinner too, reinforcement works better than punishment as it only invokes happiness and warm feeling inside people hearts. Punishment may be good for a moment, but it brings disastrous problems in future as the child or students that have been punished were pain emotionally and mentally. They might hold grunge and attack the doers in future. By reinforcement as simple as praising, the likelihood for the low grader to achieve higher grades in future is possible, and the environmental of studies are prevented from any pressures but full with enjoyableness.
References
Au, K. H., 1974. Relationships Between Selected Teacher Behaviour and Pupil Achievement, L.A: California University, Los Angeles. Mental Retaration Research Center..
Duchaine, Ellen L.; Jolivete, Kristine; Fredrick, Laura D., 2014. Specific Praise in Inclusion Classrooms. The Effect of Teacher Coaching with Performance Feedback on Behavior, Volume 34, pp. 219-227.
Dufrene, Brad A. Lestremau,L . Zoder-Martell, K., 2014. Direct Behavioral Consultation. Effects on Teachers' Praise and Student Disruptive Behaviour, Volume 51, pp. 567-580.
Guess, P., Bowling, S., 2014. Student Perceptions of Teachers. Implications for Classroom Practises for Supporting Students' Success, Volume 58, pp. 201-206.
Malala , J, Major, A, Maunez-Cuadra, J, McCauley-Bell, P, 2007. The Use of Reward in Instructional Digital Games: An Application of Positive Reinforcement, s.l.: s.n.
Mann, M., 1974. Developmental Learning Process. A Performance-Based Early Childhood-Special Education Teacher Preparation Program. Monograph No. 5.. Washington: Bureau Of Education for Handicapped (DHEW/OE), Washington, DC..
Richardson, P., n.d.. BrainyQuote.com. [Online]
Available at: http://www.brainyquote.com/citation/quotes/quotes/p/patriciari332134.html?ct=Patricia+Richardson
[Accessed 14 May 2016].
Wlodkowski, R. J., 1978. Motivation and Teaching. In: A Practical Guide.. Washington: National Education Association, Washington, D.C, pp. 152-162.