The theory of operant conditioning
According to the theory of operant conditioning, the form and frequency of behavior can be changed through manipulation of consequences, either positive or negative. This hypothesis is partially derived from Ivan Pavlovs experiments. He argued that by providing an incentive (a reward or punishment)) one could turn responses of the subject into habitual actions and skills (Jarvis et al 2003). This idea lies at the core of many teaching and learning approaches. Operant conditioning involves the use of such motivational methods as reinforcement and punishment in order to intensify or weaken a certain type of conduct.
Motivational forces
There are two kinds of reinforcement: positive and negative. Both of them aim to increase the occurrence of a behavior. The first type (positive reinforcement) can be understood as giving an impetus to the subject immediately after the response, for instance, when a teacher praises a student for successful performance or good answer. Negative reinforcement targets the same goal, but this form of motivation is based on the removal of aversive or unpleasant stimuli (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). This technique is widely adopted by parents when they frequently release the teenager from home duties in hope that he or she would concentrate on studies.
In sharp contrast, punishment intends to eliminate some kind of conduct or at least reduce it to a minimum. Positive punishment is of one of the most widespread tactics among teachers: each case of misdemeanor is followed by penalty, for example, when a cheating student is given a bad mark or suspended from school. On the whole, negative punishment pursues the same objective, but under such scenario, the experimenter deprives the subject of a pleasant stimulus such as limiting pocket expenses.
Assessment of methods
It is rather difficult to assess the effectiveness of these methods, because each of them can be used effectively. The outcome strongly depends on the power of stimulus and the personality of the subject. But if we are speaking about education, positive reinforcement appears to be the most prudent strategy because it relies on persuasion rather than compulsion. The child or teenager decides to act in a certain manner on his own accord. Most importantly, he or she does not sense the influence of a teacher and has no fear of penalty. Naturally, there are cases when penalty is the only possible measure, but as a rule it is the last resort which should be normally avoided.
A hypothetical scenario
Operational conditioning has a vast range of applications and we can construct a hypothetical situation. A child has only entered primary school, and it is necessary to arouse his or her interest in studies. Punishment and prohibition are hardly of any use under such circumstance, because they will make the child fearful and stifle the desire to acquire knowledge. Giving a reward is the most suitable solution, such notion as “reward” does not mean only money, in fact, a simple praise is often sufficient. Naturally, sometimes it is permissible to give money but parents should bear in mind that a child may grow accustomed to monetary rewards. As regards the schedule, it seems that partial reinforcement will be most efficient. It means that good conduct of a child is reinforced at certain intervals, for instance once in a fortnight or a month (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003, p 120). This will make the child more independent and self-sufficient.
Conclusion
Operational conditioning is still regarded as the most powerful way of influencing the individual. It lays the foundations for many teaching approaches. Perhaps, the preference should be given to positive reinforcement because it gives autonomy to the student (child, teenager, adult). Furthermore, it does not rely on fear and compulsion.
Reference List
Jarvis. P. Holford. J. Griffin. C (2003). The Theory & Practice of Learning. London. Kogan Page.
Hergenhahn B. R. Olson M. H (2008). An introduction to theories of learning. New York, Prentice Hall.
Staddon. J. E. R. Cerutti D. T (2003). Operant Conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, p 115.