Operant Conditioning in a School Setting

Abstract

Skinner’s Operant Learning Theory projected individuals are more likely to repeat behavior when and if they are rewarded. Positive reinforcement may have a favorable effect on middle school aged children because it will motivate the students to perform well in school and provide lasting effects on their behaviors. A review of literature has indicated school programs such as Positive Behavior Supports or School-wide Positive Behavior Supports have been found to provide affirmative environments for students because the programs rely on positive reinforcement instead of punishment. Schools serve a diverse group and some of the students may have comorbid disorders, so researchers expect instructors and school administration to learn to differentiate disruptive behavior from learning or emotional disabilities. There is a lack of research in secondary school, so it is recommended that further research take place in middle schools in order to reach children at that critical human development period. 

Introduction

The capability to perform well in school often depends on students’ levels of achievement motivation. In some cases, children are driven to perform at high academic standards, while other students may wonder if homework assignments or certain classroom subjects hold any value. Nevertheless, at one-point, high achievers may have learned to strive for academic success because good grades, parental satisfaction, and self-worth were their rewards for their hard work. Thus, it is possible that low achievers or students with behavioral problems never learned the value of hard work because they were never rewarded for their achievements. 

Otherwise known as Radical Behaviorism, B.F. Skinner’s Operant Learning Theory proposed individuals are more likely to repeat behavior when and if they are rewarded. Much like the learning behavior theory, they eventually stop their negative behavior because they are unrewarded. Skinner’s infamous Skinner box uncovered empirical evidence that implied negative and positive reinforcement were more effective than punishment when modifying behavior. Using rats as his subjects, Skinner explained that food pellets were reinforcers because they provided sustenance and were treats, or rewards, for the animals. Eventually, the rats learned that certain acts, such as pressing a bar, would reward them with the food pellets. Along with reinforcers, Skinner also incorporated negative reinforcement in the form of an electrical surge. However, in this case, Skinner conditioned the rats to press the lever in order to stop the electrical surge. Subsequently, Skinner found that both positive and negative reinforcement changed the rats’ original habits. Fundamentally, operant conditioning results in learning to expect certain consequences from certain actions. Moreover, Skinner’s theory also implied that “the directions in which we develop depend very critically on external stimuli…rather than on internal forces such as instincts, drives, or biological maturation” (Shaffer, D., 2009, p. 46). While Skinner’s theory developed in the 1950s, his findings continue to impact modern civilization in regard to parental and educational discipline. While corporal punishment in Western schools is strictly prohibited, other forms of punishment may include expulsion, detention, or suspensions for unruly behavior. Nevertheless, in order to provide constructive external stimuli in schools, instead of doling out punishments to teach students, positive reinforcement may have an affirmative effect on middle school aged children because it will motivate the students to perform well in school and thus provide lasting effects on their adult behaviors. 

Literature Review

Fields (2012) proposed children who demonstrate undeveloped social skills or anti-social behavior may depend on their schools and teachers for healthy environments. In particular, Fields (2012) expressed children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) often had negative upbringing. In fact, it appeared that many of the children suffered either mental or physical abuse at the hands of their parents (Fields, 2012). Subsequently, the parents’ harsh discipline often intensified the negative behavior, so Fields (2012) has suggested that professionals attempt to modify parental behavior. Essentially, it is children’s home environments that provide valuable portions of external stimuli. Subsequently, Fields (2012) has revealed that modifying students’ behaviors depend on the two environments they spend the most time in. In this case, children from the ages of approximately five through eighteen spend a considerable portion of the time in schools, so it is appropriate for school administrations to consider options they can control. 

Incidentally, while children who suffer from ADHD often have pharmaceutical relief, OOD relies on other types of interventions such as programs that reinforce good behavior by rewarding well-behaved children (Fields, 2012). School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) is an approach designed to encourage and reward good behavior (Fields, 2012; Feuerborn & Chinn, 2012). Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) agreed with SWPBS’s approach because it focuses on the affirmative instead of the negative. In addition, schools who utilize this approach do not rely on detentions, suspensions or other negative discipline actions (Feuerborn & Chinn, 2012). Significantly, children with behavioral problems also flourish in this environment (Fields, 2012; Feuerborn & Chinn, 2012). 

However, some schools are unwilling to implement new procedures and instead depend on old fashioned punishment. Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) wondered if primary school teachers would be more likely to use SWPBS approaches than secondary instructors. Because SWPBS is a new concept, Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) included elementary and secondary educators from urban and rural schools in their qualitative study to reduce potential bias. Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) acknowledged that their sample size of 69 may have heard of SWPBS, so they were more likely to understand and apply this approach in their classrooms. In fact, 22 instructors indicated that their schools used some measures of positive reinforcement instead of punishment (Feuerborn & Chinn, 2012). Using four fictitious student profiles, Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) asked participants to identify the student’s individual needs and prescribe appropriate direction for their specific cases. Fields (2012) had noted that there was little research based on SWPBS and preschoolers and elementary students; however, Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) based their profiles on fourth graders because this is “the age at which students are most often identified with emotional and behavioral disorders” (p. 221). Incidentally, 39% of the respondents believed negative reinforcement would effectively decrease the fictitious students’ disruptive behavior, whereas, 67% reported family information was an essential component to the children’s behavior (Feuerborn and Chinn, 2012). While instructors and parents commonly attribute punishment to detentions and such, children may be inclined to believe parental contact is punishment as well if parents react negatively to the instructor’s contact. In addition, parents may have negatively reinforced their children to believe that any outside contact from school systems are consequences to avoid regardless if instructors are calling to commend their children’s achievements. On the other hand, school contact may continue to have negative connotations because of educational systems’ unwillingness to incorporate positive reinforcement. 

In addition to SWPBS, other programs such as Positive Behavior Support (PBS), Behavior Education Plan (BEP), First Step to Success (First Step) and Check-In Check Out (CICO) have been tested in a variety of school settings with various results. Scott, Alter, Rosenberg, and Borgmeier (2010) have found that PBS’s flexibility has allowed its success. Fundamentally, each child has individual characteristics that make him or her unique. Thus, any program that schools put in place to change or encourage behavior will ultimately rely on the individual. For instance, Scott et al. (2010) described CICO as a choice program for students who are comfortable with adults. On the other hand, BEP and First Step are often best suited to “students with performance deficits” (Scott et al., 2010, p. 514). Nevertheless, PBS is flexible because it is a “framework under which systems identify predictable problems [and] select logical strategies” (Scott et al., 2010, p.515). For the most part, behavioral problems indicate certain patterns in students’ actions. Subsequently, identifying individual patterns in problem students will allow educators to predict solutions. 

At the same time, students’ uncertainty of the consequences may inhibit their good behavior. For example, in their study, Funamizu, Ito, Doya, Kanzaki, and Takahashi (2012) investigated the impact of uncertainty in our decision-making using rats. Comparing the Bayesian Q-learning model and the standard Q-learning model, Funamizu et al. (2012) found that the Bayesian Q-learning model indicated “rats consider the uncertainty for action selection, and that the uncertainty-dependent action choice and learning are both essential for choice behaviors." (p. 1188). In other words, the rats were unable to base their actions on the likelihood of rewards. With that in mind, students who strictly perform well because they expect a reward do not necessarily change their behavior. Instead, they have learned that some actions will provide rewards. In the event students are unsure their actions will provide rewards; they may show ambivalence in their decision making. Ultimately, the aforementioned programs use different tactics in order to achieve specific results. School administrators, educators, and parents’ maturity provides them the means to understand, or at least attempt to investigate, the reasons behind students’ behaviors in school and learning. On the other hand, students in elementary and secondary schools are in the process of development. Development is an evolution that depends on outside and internal factors. 

Nevertheless, while positive reinforcement has been demonstrated to encourage good behavior, secondary schools may continue to rely on punishment. School expulsions or suspensions are rare in the elementary school setting, but they are a standard protocol in many middle schools and high schools. However, Bohanon et al. (2006) reported that when an urban high school implemented PBS, there was a decrease in discipline referrals. Urban schools often have discipline and behavioral problems because the majority of their students often live in poverty and may be subject to racial tensions and language barriers (Bohanon et al., 2006). Thus, in their case study, Bohanon et al. (2006) proposed that the students’ challenges based on their life experiences would naturally extend into their school and learning experiences, so PBS in large school settings would decrease disciplinary actions. The setting for the researchers’ three year case study was Chicago Public Schools based on its size and student diversity, and they measured quantitative data based on “process” with the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) and “outcomes” with the Effective Behavior Support (EBS) Survey (Bohanon et al., 2006, p. 133). In addition, Bohanon et al.’s (2006) qualitative data included interviews with the school’s staff.  The goal of the study was to ascertain if positive reinforcement would encourage positive behavior and in turn eliminate disruptive behavior. As an example, the school administration conducted information sessions for each grade level that specifically revealed the school’s expectations of responsible behavior, such as students’ behavior while they walked through the school’s halls (Bohanon et al., 2006).  After the sessions, students were observed and rewarded with praise if they exhibited “respectful walking” (Bohanon et al., 2006, p. 138). Ultimately, after the implementation of PBS, there was a decrease of suspensions and detentions, and the researchers also found that the overall GPA was slightly increased; however, the progress was only viewed in children who did not suffer from comorbid factors such as anxiety or depression (Bohanon et al., 2006). While psychological disorders are often inherent factors, external factors such as environments may exacerbate their effects. Subsequently, punishment does not improve nor diminish mood disorders or behavioral disorders, so the remainder of this literature review will explore the small percentage of students who may need individualized support and positive reinforcement other than school wide methods. 

Bernier, Simpson, and Rose (2012) have emphasized in their literature review that research has found positive reinforcement effectively teaches students to understand that good behavior will result in a reward. In addition, negative reinforcement is effective because it removes unpleasant attributes. In studying behavior, in 1948, Skinner revealed that “a pigeon’s behavior could be conditioned to display the same topography based merely on when reinforcement was made available” (Bernier, Simpson, & Rose, 2012, p. 45). Subsequently, Skinner suggested that most individuals could be conditioned. With that in mind, Lane, Wehby, Robertson, and Rogers (2007) have noted that instructors who identify students’ underlying factors, such as depression, ADHD, or anxiety, often find measures to encourage responsiveness.  In their study, Lane et al. (2007) proposed that students would have different reactions to programs such as SWPBS because it depended on their internal factors. Skinner has explained the importance of external stimuli, but in cases of school-wide programs, often problematic students may need other resources that help them to identify their internal stimuli. Lane et al. (2007) asked English instructors to nominate the 178 participants, 117 males and 61 females, based on “four categories: externalizing, internalizing, comorbid, and typical, using a modified version of the SSBD” (Lane et al., 2007, p. 7). The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) has been used in elementary school settings, so Lane et al. (2007) modified it to reflect this age group’s behavioral patterns and development. Lane et al. (2007) found that “Students with externalizing behaviors” (p. 8) often exhibited negative behaviors such as aggressiveness or an unwillingness to follow instructions. On the other hand, those students with “internalizing behaviors” (Lane et al., 2007, p. 8) were quiet and withdrawn, and they often avoided social interactions with their peers. In addition, Lane et al. (2007) found that “students with comorbid behavior” revealed internalizing and externalizing features, whereas, typical behavior categorized students demonstrated behaviors that were reflective of their ages. After the English instructors nominated students for each sub-category, they would provide students with PBS tickets that depended on their expectations such as appropriate behavior in classrooms (Lane et al., 2007). In this case, the researchers used positive reinforcement, in the form of tickets, in order to understand if only certain characteristics would benefit from this type of recognition. Lane et al. (2007) found that students who demonstrated comorbid behavior and high incidence groups had an overall decrease in their GPA; however, the other two groups only showed a small improvement. In addition, the positive reinforcement did not seem to have a significant impact on tardiness and disciplinary meetings (Lane et al., 2007).  Moreover, each group did not have “significant differences…in terms of disciplinary contacts, suspensions, or unexcused tardies” (Lane et al., 2007, p. 15).  Nevertheless, Lane et al.’s (2007) findings suggested instructors only evaluate students on their “academic performance” (p.15). In other words, instructors may lack understanding of the other indicators that may predetermine disruptive or excellent behavior. Regardless, based on the review of literature, it appears that learning institutions may benefit from positive behavior support programs because it does not harm individuals, but it may offer others who are less inclined to gain positive reinforcement chances to experience positive rewards for their positive behaviors. 

Conclusion

Programs such as SWPBS or PBS have been found to create welcoming environments for students and instructors, but the effects of positive reinforcement may wholly depend on the individual. Fields (2012) Feuerborn and Chinn (2012) have maintained successful schools will implement school programs in order to achieve positive ways to balance teacher-child interactions. In addition, Bernier, Simpson, and Rose (2012) agreed with the latter authors’ assertions as they concluded positive reinforcement was the optimal choice other than punishment. Because positive reinforcement is more likely to encourage affirmative behavior, school administrations will have to devote time to educating the students and the school staff instead of relying on punishment as a deterrent (Hall, 2013). Because United States schools are becoming increasingly diverse, Bohanon et al. (2006) revealed positive support systems work well in urban school settings. Overall, the authors reviewed found that positive behavior supports successfully reduced overall discipline, so their findings suggest public behavior support may be valuable in urban school settings. On the other hand, any program’s success would need to rely on proper identification of internal and external forces (Lane, Wehby, Robertson, & Rogers, 2007; Funamizu, Ito, Doya, Kanzaki, & Takahashi, 2012). Thus, using measures such as functional behavior assessments will lead to individualized methods for every student (Scott, Alter, Rosenberg, & Borgmeier, 2010); however, it may be an expensive road to take. 

For the most part, the researchers agreed that positive reinforcement is more effective, but there is little research based on secondary educational systems such as middle schools and high schools. However, it is worth noting that children in middle school are at the age in which they begin to consider hypothetical situations in order to understand the world around them. Therefore, this research has revealed there is a significant gap in applying positive reinforcement to this critical age group. Often backing is minimal, so in order to make it count, further research and funding can implement PBS or SWPBS programs in middle schools in order to determine its long-term effects in high school and adulthood. 

References

Bernier, S., Simpson, C. G., & Rose, C. A. (2012). Positive and negative reinforcement in increasing compliance and decreasing problematic behavior. National Teacher Education Journal, 5(1), 45-51. Retrieved from http://www.ntejournal.com/

Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B., ... Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide Application of Positive Behavior Support in an Urban High School: A Case Study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,8(3), 131-145. doi: 10.1177/10983007060080030201

Feuerborn, L., & Chinn, D. (2012). Teacher perceptions of student needs and implications for positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 219-231. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/?q=node/9#overlay-context=node/2%3Fq%3Dnode/2

Fields, B. (2012). Getting the Balance Right: The Challenge of Balancing Praise and Correction for Early School Years Children Who Exhibit Oppositional and Defiant Behaviour. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(4), 24-28.

Funamizu, A., Ito, M., Doya, K., Kanzaki, R., & Takahashi, H. (2012). Uncertainty in action-value estimation affects both action choice and learning rate of the choice behaviors of rats. European Journal of Neuroscience, 37(7), 1180-1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08025.x

Hall, P. S. (2013). A New Definition of Punishment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 21(4), 22-26. Retrieved from http://reclaimingjournal.com/issues-49

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Robertson, E. J., & Rogers, L. A. (2007). How Do Different Types of High School Students Respond to Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Programs? Characteristics and Responsiveness of Teacher-Identified Students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 3-20. doi: 10.1177/10634266070150010201

Scott, T., Alter, P., Rosenberg, M., & Borgmeier, C. (2010). Decision-making in Secondary and Tertiary Interventions of School-Wide Systems of Positive Behavior Support. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(4), 513-535. doi: 10.1353/etc.2010.0003

Shaffer, D. (2009). Chapters 2, 6, and 7. In Social and personality development (6th ed.). Retrieved from www.cafescribe.com

Annotated Bibliography

Bernier, S., Simpson, C. G., & Rose, C. A. (2012). Positive and negative reinforcement in increasing compliance and decreasing problematic behavior. National Teacher Education Journal, 5(1), 45-51. Retrieved from http://www.ntejournal.com/

The authors explored and compared positive and negative reinforcement in order to find out which is more effective in decreasing problematic behavior in classroom or clinical setting in a literature review. They hypothesized that combining the two would increase an individual's compliance based on the current research. The authors concluded that positive reinforcement was the most effective as the subjects preferred it and it provided evidence of compliance. The authors also found that negative reinforcement was ineffective because it promoted destructive behavior. The authors are credible because they work within a university setting. This source is valuable to my research because it provided a starting point for my overall topic. Based on its information, I was able to narrow my focus concerning operant conditioning.

Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B., ... Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide Application of Positive Behavior Support in an Urban High School: A Case Study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 131-145. doi: 10.1177/10983007060080030201

The authors investigated positive behavior supports in a large high school setting. In addition, the subject school was an urban high school, so the student population was diverse. Their investigation included qualitative interviews and observations. The authors found that positive behavior supports successfully reduced overall discipline referrals and secondary and tertiary support, so their findings suggest public behavior supports may be valuable in urban school settings. The authors are credible, and the source is peer reviewed. In addition, the qualitative data provides more evidence for positive programs. This resource is important for my research because I plan to support positive reinforcement as part of education.

Feuerborn, L., & Chinn, D. (2012). Teacher perceptions of student needs and implications for positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 219-231. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/?q=node/9#overlay-context=node/2%3Fq%3Dnode/2

The authors contend that school wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS) encourages positive social, emotional, and behavioral growth. However, the authors have noted that most schools continue to use consequences as a tool to modify their students' negative behaviors. In their study, the authors provided a prompt to participants located in a small, yet diverse, suburban school and asked them to consider how they would approach four scenarios concerning 4th grade students. As part of their findings, the authors found that 23% of participants thought rewards-based strategies would reinforce an absence or decrease of negative behavior. The authors are credible in that they work within a university setting and their study was included in the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. This study is relevant to my research in that I would like to focus on behaviors within public schools.

Funamizu, A., Ito, M., Doya, K., Kanzaki, R., & Takahashi, H. (2012). Uncertainty in action-value estimation affects both action choice and learning rate of the choice behaviors of rats. European Journal of Neuroscience, 37(7), 1180-1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08025.x

The authors' empirical study used a mathematical model and quantitative study to reveal uncertainty plays a role in action modulation and learning. The authors used rats as the basis of their experiment and found that the Bayesian Q-learning model revealed that "rats consider the uncertainty for action selection, and that the uncertainty-dependent action choice and learning are both essential for choice behaviors." (1188). The authors and source are credible because they support their position with empirical evidence and the source is peer reviewed. This source ties into my research because my subject is operant conditioning. Because Skinner used rats as one of his subjects, I can relate this article to my Sniffy experiments as well as operant conditioning.

Hall, P. S. (2013). A New Definition of Punishment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 21(4), 22-26. Retrieved from http://reclaimingjournal.com/issues-49

The author revealed punishment is still a popular device for disciplining children. He briefly reviews Skinner's theory and John Locke's advice. In particular, the author focuses on case studies of children's experiences with punishment. The author maintains that punishment is merely an adult's tool to exert his or her power. The author is credible because he works with children who exhibit disruptive behavior. This article is useful to my research because it offers a humanistic approach to Skinner's theory.

Scott, T., Alter, P., Rosenberg, M., & Borgmeier, C. (2010). Decision-making in Secondary and Tertiary Interventions of School-Wide Systems of Positive Behavior Support. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(4), 513-535. doi: 10.1353/etc.2010.0003

The authors define secondary and tertiary interventions in school settings in order to develop decision-making guide that will consider a variety of strategies for multiple students. Using a functional behavior assessment, the authors suggest four questions will lead to smaller focus groups and eventually tap into individual student needs. The article is credible as it is peer reviewed; however, it is not a study. Instead, this article is useful for my research because it offers guides for a possible conclusion or proposed intervention.