HE ROLE OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT ON STUDENT'S ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN SOME SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1.1 CONCEPT OF REWARD
This research describes the concept of reward as a motivator for children's education and development, more effective than a system of punishment. Such a system should be recognized on the basis of the relative impact of reward and punishment, i.e.. reward is powerful because of its connection with authority symbols, such as parents, and the reinforcement of attitudes in desirable and functional behavioral repertoires of development. Punishment has a contrary tendency to teach the behaviors that are punished, not to extinguish them.
Skinnerian logic on rewards is that it assists learning through reinforcing effective communication by which the acquisition of knowledge or information is enhanced. These are well-established social measures formulated as contingent relations between behavior and its consequences as cause and effect. That is, the effects of reinforced learning include feelings and actions whose connection with reinforcers is an important consideration in operant conditioning.
This is an extremely complex situation in which reinforcing consequences are contingent upon both behavior and the setting in which learning occurs. Rewards play an important role in regard to these reinforced contingencies including the process of behavior modification. Reward is an example of these reinforcers in that it is a positive reinforcer in behavior modification, i.e., the effective contingencies of reinforcement.
It has always been the task of formal education to set up or modify behavior which would prove useful or enjoyable later in a student's life. Punitive methods (punishments) do not merit the same value in learning as positive reinforcement (rewards) in a future context. The positive consequences that generate a useful behavioral repertoire need not be any more explicitly relevant to the future than were the punitive consequences of the past.
2.1.2 THE EFFECT OF REWARD ON LEARNING
Intrinsic motivation is important to the development of life-long learners, but is often hard to see in many classrooms. Many teachers, in both general and special education have come to rely on rewards and incentive programs in order to manage behavior and learning. For example, a teacher may give a boy a treat for entering the room quietly with the hope that the reward will increase the chance that the boy will enter the room quietly the next time. The teacher may think that she is promoting a productive classroom environment, but the boy only learns what behaviors earn a treat. He does not learn about the value o f a productive classroom environment. The field of behaviorism has contributed to the common use of rewards in the classroom. The field of behaviorism produced a theory in the 1950's that heavily influenced the use of rewards in schools. The theoiy of operant conditioning, developed by B.F. Skinner, works on the premise that if a reinforcer is delivered after a certain behavior is performed, then the strength of the behavior is increased (Cosgrove, 1982). A reinforcer is any stimulus given after a behavior that increases the chance of the behavior recurring. Past and present teachers are using the principles of operant conditioning when they give out stickers, treats, and praise. The powerful idea of operant conditioning is subject to cautionary statements. MacMillan (1973) states that many reinforcement techniques are targeted for use in populations with mild handicaps, and that care should be used when choosing reinforcement with a particular group. Even with the cautions, the principles of operant conditioning have seen a widespread implementation in education. The field of study on motivation was also going through some changes beginning in the 1950's. Motivation researchers and dissonance theorists began to reject Freud's idea that man is motivated only by drives and instincts (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959; White, 1959). White went on to explain that motivation is man's attempt to change his environment, and then feel satisfied when the desired change occurs. These ideas, along with Deci's identification of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation led to the completion of many research studies on the effects of motivation on behavior. As a result, the idea began to emerge that extrinsic motivators may have a negative effect on a person's internal motivation. Since many of the rewards given in school are extrinsic motivators, school became the setting for a large body of research. During the last 50 years researchers have thoroughly investigated the effects of rewards on all aspects of school. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) found that th payment of money to college students to lie about enjoying a dull learning task did little to change the student's opinion of the task. Similarly, Deci (1971; 1972) discovered that money as a reward has detrimental effects on motivation. Intrinsically motivated college students became less motivated when paid money as a reward. On the other hand, when intrinsically motivated students were given praise as a reward, their motivation was enhanced. In addition, in 1972 Deci found that when a person perceives a reward to be more that what is warranted for a given situation, the person puts forth more effort in an activity. The type and amount of a reward have an effect on motivation and performance. The timing of a reward also affects motivation. In a study done at a nursery school, Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) assigned 51 children with a high interest in drawing to one of three experimental conditions. One group of students agreed to complete a drawing activity for a reward of a certificate and star, one group completed the drawing activity and then received a surprise reward, and the third group completed the activity but received no reward. The authors then studied the amount of time subjects spent with the drawing supplies during free choice time. Lepper et al. found that the subjects who received no award or an unexpected reward spent significantly more time drawing than subjects in the expected award condition. Rewards contracted for before an activity begins appear to undermine interest in that activity later on, since students in the unexpected reward condition still spent considerable time drawing during free time. In addition to the type, amount, and timing of a reward, researchers also studied the effect of rewards on the process of learning. Rewards have been shown to interfere with the quality of learning taking place. A study by Masters and Mokros in 1973 showed that a reward of food distracted the subjects from the learning task, and resulted in less learning. The subjects, nursery school students, were given pieces of candy for correct answers in learning tasks dealing with building blocks, while a control group was not given anything for correct answers. The group receiving candy proved to be slower in acquisition of the new skill, and tended to make more errors than the control group. This study supports the idea that the learning task just becomes a way to receive reward, like the boy entering the room quietly in order to get a piece of candy. Rewards in this case have no place in the classroom because they cause students to make more errors and become distracted. Using the learning task just to receive the reward has been seen in other aspects of learning also. Garbarino (1975) studied the effects of rewards on the behavior of tutors in a cross-age tutoring situation. Fifth and sixth grade girls tutored first and second grade girls on how to play a new game. Half of the tutors were told before hand that if the younger girl learned the lesson very well, then the tutor would receive a reward in the form of movie passes. The other half of girls were told nothing, and served as a control group. Garbarino analyzed the language interactions and the emotional tone of the session, and tested the young girls on their knowledge of the new game. He found that the young girls in the reward condition made more errors and demonstrated less learning than the girls in the no-reward condition. Tutors in the reward condition tended to make more negative responses during the sessions, with the younger girls showing higher levels of frustration. The emotional tone of the no-reward condition was seen as much more positive, with the tutors being more concerned about the learning of the younger student. External rewards also interfere with the choices children make about their own learning. To make the most of educational potential, a child must continually challenge himself to new and more difficult tasks. An intrinsically motivated child takes risks and chooses more difficult tasks, therefore increasing his learning. Maehr and Stallings (1972) examined the way students challenged themselves when graded by a teacher, and when evaluated by themselves. Eighth grade students were given two tests of both easy and hard math problems. Students could choose a number of problems to work on, and were told that one test would receive a grade from the teacher, and that the other test was to be completed independently with the student evaluating himself. The authors found that students consistently chose easier problems when the teacher would be grading the problems, but chose the harder problems when evaluating themselves. What seems to be more important is a decent grade, and students will follow the easiest route in order to earn a good grade, even though when working on their own, students did prefer to challenge themselves. In order to make the most of the child's interest in challenging himself, the classroom environment must make him feel safe and comfortable in doing so. The results of this study indicate that the giving of grades does not promote such an environment, but takes child's attention away from the task of learning and to the task of getting the reward. The research has shown that rewards affect the learning process, and can undermine a student's intrinsic motivation. At this point, though, the effect of rewards and students with mild handicaps or learning disabilities has not been mentioned. After all, many reward or token systems are aimed specifically at these populations of students, and have been traditionally used in special education classrooms (Schultz and Switzky, 1990). Many behavior oriented programs have been shown to produce an increase in academic performance of children with learning disabilities (Torgesen, 1986), but the problem with these approaches, Torgesen explains, is that the studies have focused on very narrowly defined skills, and there is no evidence of the long term effects of these approaches. Similarly, Schultz and Switzky (1990) state that in order to sustain long-term academic growth, ...instructional approaches need to be tied to a broader teaching strategy or model that ultimately focuses on the internalization and the development of a intrinsic orientation toward learning. If teachers of children with learning problems are going to sustain this level and generalize the effect of their instruction, this long-term goal must be the ultimate objective of each child's Individual Education Program, (p. 15) Including strategies to foster the development of intrinsic motivation should be a part of every special child's educational plan. Contrary to events taking place in most classrooms today, the use of rewards has a detrimental effect on the intrinsic motivation of students, and consequently affects student achievement in a negative way. It cannot be said, though, that extrinsic motivators have no place in school. With the many objectives that children are expected to achieve, it is unrealistic to expect children to be one hundred percent motivated all of the time (Stipek, 1993). Extrinsic motivators should be used sparingly, and so that they do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation has been shown as a very important quality to have in order to be successful in school. The challenge is for teachers to arrange the classroom environment in a way that allows intrinsic motivation to develop.
2.1.3 THE EFFECT OF PURNISHMENT ON LEARNING PROCESS
Students who are physically punished develop negative attitudes towards learning. Even such students when develop into adult possess no empathy for others. Research has shown that children who are beaten up by their teachers learn aggression (Boser, 2001; Friedman & Schonberg, 1996). They develop low self concept and see aggression as a means to solve problems of life. Studies further indicated that corporal punishment intimidates children. They develop low self-esteem and show dejection and hesitation to participate in learning activities (Flynn, 1994; Brezina, 1999; Straus, 2003). This type of behavior has wider implications as it leads to bigger violence later stages of life (Patel, 2003). The use of corporal punishment inculcates a strong belief in the impressionable minds of students that force is justified to control unwanted or undesirable behaviors. Ultimately, this promotes the attitudes of children that use of force or aggression is an acceptable act in the society (Straus, 1991; Baumrind, 1996; Roos, 2003). According to Roussow (2003) students who receive corporal punishment show symptoms of dejection in studies, poor performance in the tests and also do not participate in the teaching and learning process enthusiastically.Morrel (2000) found that use of corporal punishment influences attendance of school children. Students remain absent from school and this situation of longer absenteeism leads to withdrawal from schools. According to Vally (1998) the effects of physical punishment of students develop more severe psychiatric and traumatic conditions in children. Students in such an environment consider schools to be an unsafe place and thus they avoid coming to schools. This type of attitude of students is the direct result of harsh corporal punishment and unsupportive learning environment where physical punishment is the norm (Gershoff, 2002; Kaur, 2005; Tharps, 2003) Attitude of students towards learning depends upon many factors such as classroom environment, teacher attitude, curriculum and resources. According to Daskalogianni and Simpson (2000) attitude towards learning means the pattern of students’ beliefs and emotions associated with classroom environment. Hannulla (2002) found that students’ performance, efficacy, motivation and achievement in different subjects are essentially related to their attitude towards learning Mitchell (1999) argued that students’ attitude towards learning is closely connected to their academic success in that particular subject. The role of teacher in providing guidance to students regarding understanding of a subject is highly crucial and it determines the degree of the motivation of students toward learning of that subject. Gracia and Herrero (2006) found that teacher attitude and beliefs deeply influence students’ attitude towards learning. In this regard this same writer further elaborates that the clarity of teachers’ instruction deeply influences students’ understanding of concept and their attitude towards learning in a subject.Swan, Bell, Phillips, and Shannon, (2000) argued that size of the class and its environment also determines students’ attitude toward learning. In a friendly and spacious classroom environment, students take interest in the activities. Whereas, in an authoritarian and rigid classroom, student feel dejected and less actively participate in the learning process. Whiten (2007) found that commitment, care and help from teacher’s side ensure student’s conceptual understanding of a subject. Students who enjoy learning of a subject perform better than those students who do not. In this regard, the factor of enjoyment increases motivation of level of students. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) articulated that poor attitudes of students in a subject and high anxiety are associated with attitude of teachers towards students and students’ own attitude towards the subject.Cater and Norwood (1997) discovered that home environment, educational background of parents and society also some of the factors that influence the attitudes of students toward learning. Earnest (2004) pointed out toward the general public image of mathematics as a subject in the minds of students and teachers alike that it is a dry subject. Students do not take high interest in it.However, despite the difficult nature of the subject of mathematics, many students continue to like it and have relatively positive attitude towards it. In this regard, the role of teacher is highly important (Rice, 1987; Iqbal, 2003). Teachers can promote the interest of students towards learning by creating a friendly, motivating and interesting teaching and learning environment in a classroom, where students feel safe, encouraged and respected (Cohen, 1996; Ma and Kishor, 1997; Richards, 2003).
2.2 THEORITICAL FRAME WORK
2.2.1 EQUITY THEORY
A very simplistic yet logical theory of workplace motivation was developed by John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, in 1963.Equity theory is based on the premise that employees will put forth a particular level of effort that they feel compares to the reward potential. It comes down to a straightforward formula of inputs must equal outputs.
Inputs
refer to things like:
1. effort and enthusiasm
2. skills and abilities
3. flexibility and adaptability
4. loyalty and commitment to the organization
Outputs
include things such as:
1. financial compensation
2. praise and recognition
3. additional responsibility and autonomy
4. job security
5. a sense of career advancement or personal growth
When a balance is achieved between inputs and outputs, it is believed that employees will be more satisfied and willing to work toward higher levels of productivity. Many would argue that fairness is something that we should expect out of our employers. When it comes to fairness, employees rely heavily on perception; namely, what do they perceive to be fair and equal? When a reward is perceived as equitable to the level of effort that they must exert, positive outcomes and high levels of motivation should be the expected result.
2.2.1.1 the perception of equity theory
According to equity theory, employees expect to be adequately rewarded for their efforts. They also expect to be rewarded in the same way that other employees are, meaning if a potential reward is offered to one employee for a particular level of productivity, that same reward should be offered to any other employee who puts forth the level of effort required to earn that reward.Inequalities inrewardscan lead to lower levels of job satisfaction, deviant workplace behavior and low employee morale and can cause performance problems that negatively impact the entire organization.
When the perception is that one employee is being treated unequally when compared to another worker, you might see the following behaviors:
1. ask for more equitable treatment
2. look for ways to make their efforts look greater by comparison
3. Put in a lower level of effort
2.2.1.2 reward theory of attraction
Pawel Lewicki (1985) tested this liking-by-association principle. In one experiment, University of Warsaw students were virtually 50–50 in choosing which of two pictured women. Other students, having interacted with a warm, friendly experimenter who resembled woman A, chose woman A by a 6-to-1 margin. In a follow-up study, the experimenter acted un friendly toward half the participants. When these individuals later had to turn in their data to one of two women, they nearly always avoided the one who resembled the experimenter. (Perhaps you can recall a time when you reacted positively or negatively to someone who reminded you of someone else.)
Other experiments confirm this phenomenon of liking—and disliking—by association (Hofmann & others, 2010). Elaine Hatfield and William Walster (1978) found a practical tip in these research studies: “Romantic dinners, trips to the theatre, evenings at home together, and vacations never stop being important. . . . If your relationship is to survive, it’s important that you both continue to associate your relationship with good things.”
This simple theory of attraction—we like those who reward us and those we associate with rewards—helps us understand why people everywhere feel attracted to those who are warm, trustworthy, and responsive (Fletcher & others, 1999; Regan, 1998; Wojciszke & others, 1998). The reward theory also helps explain some of the influences on attraction:
1. Proximity is rewarding. It costs less time and effort to receive friendship’s benefits with someone who lives or works close by.
2. We like attractive people because we perceive that they offer other desirable traits and because we benefit by associating with them.
3. If others have similar opinions, we feel rewarded because we presume that they like us in return. Moreover, those who share our views help validate them. We especially like people if we have successfully converted them to our way of thinking (Lombardo & others, 1972; Riordan, 1980; Sigall, 1970).
REFERENCES
Adelman, H.S. (1989). Toward solving the problems of misidentification and limited intervention efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 22,608-612. Adelman, H.S., and Taylor, L. (1990). Intrinsic motivation and school misbehavior: Some intervention implications. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 21, 541-550. Amabile, T.M., and Gitomer, J. (1984). Children's artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personality and Social Psvchology Bulletin. 10.209-215. Brown, A.L., and Palincsar, A.S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In J.D. Day and J.G. Borkowski (Eds.), Intelligence and exceptionality (pp. 81-132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children's perceptions of control. Child Development. 6,281-293. DeCharms, R. (1972). Personal causation training in the schools. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2, 95-113. DeCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York: Irvington. Deci, E.L. (1971 ). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18.105-115. Fewell, D.H. (1984). TARGETS: A systematic instructional strategy designed to enhance intrinsic motivation. Chapel Hill, NC: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 200) Harter, S. (1981 ). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivation and informational componenis. Developmental Psychology. 17. 300-312. Haywood, H.C. (1971). Individual differences in motivational orientation: A trait approach. In H I. Day, D.E. Berlyne, & D.E. Hunt (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. P(û. Delta Kappan. 75,9-18.