Now that we've abandoned the "no pain, no gain" slogan for teaching, let's examine the principles of educational psychology a little further.
According to Nye (page 20), :"In Skinner's opinion, it is unfortunate that so much of social behavior is influenced by negative reinforcement. In an improved society we would be controlled more by positive reinforcement".
But before going any further we need to have clarification of these educational psychology terms and the teaching-learning-educational framework within which they exist.
*****************
Nye tells us "The most important of Skinner's behavioral concepts is reinforcement". (page 16). And as stated in Lesson_3, a positive reinforcer (also called reinforcement) has to do with stimulus conditions which increase the future probability and/or strength of a response when they are PRESENTED. We will add "strength" to the definition because if a response is emitted just one more time after reinforcement and it is a stronger response (eg more "enthusiastic") , then we know that learning has occurred.
In Skinnerian terminology a negative reinforcer is that which increases the future probability and/or strength of a response when REMOVED or withdrawn. It is common to confuse negative reinforcement with punishment but they are very different in Skinnerian terminology. Negative reinforcement takes place by escape from or avoidance of, punishing conditions. For example, unpleasant conditions may prevail in the classroom (eg criticism, belittling etc.) day after day until the student learns to escape them by mastering the subject matter. Thereafter the student may avoid these unpleasantries altogether by learning the subject matter quickly.
Just as there is positive and negative reinforcement, there is positive and negative punishment. A positive punisher lessens the future probability of a response and/or its strength when it is presented. A negative punisher lessens the future probability and/or strength of a response when it is removed. For example, an employee's continuing inflow of funds through a salary may be be interrupted now and then by penalties. The penalizing removal of funds is a negative punisher, intended to weaken the punished behavior (eg not meeting production quotas).
Despite the new terminology of positive and negative reinforcement (which is recognized throughout the profession of psychology, by the way) the framework of Skinnerian psychology is clearly that of REWARD and PUNISHMENT as the latter are understood in the vernacular.Then why should we not adhere to that terminology in studying the framework of human learning? Nye gives an answer. "Rewards may or may not strengthen behavior. For example, a teenager may behave contrary to his parents' wishes, despite the fact that they heap rewards (a car, money, freedom and so on) on him." (page 16). Skinner therefore defines a reinforcer as that which always strengthens behavior. For an unknown reason, Skinner does not follow through with his neologisms. Punishers as understood in the vernacular, do not always weaken behavior. Very stubborn people, masochists and martyrs may be punished greatly without having their behavior weakened.
Thus the following table presents the framework of reward and punishment in learning with phrases as used in the vernacular given first and Skinnerian expressions given in brackets.
FRAMEWORK OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT IN LEARNING
Presentation of Reward: POR Removal of Reward: ROR
(Positive Reinforcement) (Negative Punishment)
Presentation of Punishment: POP Removal of Punishment: ROP
(Positive Punishment) (Negative Reinforcement)
This is the framework within which HABIT STRENGTH is increased or decreased. Habit strength is another widely usely psychology expression which substitutes for "increasing the probability and/or strength of a response".
Remember that the table above gives the circumstances under which reward and punishment occur. It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that rewarding circumstances always increase habit strength while punishing circumstances always reduce habit strength. Clearly this is not so. It "depends on the circumstances". Punishing circumstances, for example, may increase habit strength by allowing the subject to escape from these circumstances. The escape behaviors are strengthened by the punishing circumstances.
Clearly we as teachers want to increase the habit strength of what we are teaching. My recent experiences with GT's "psychopathology of everyday things" are punishing circumstances. If I learn to master GT, I can escape the punishment. But the inflicted punishment, eg confusion and significant amounts of wasted time, causes me to be somewhat angry with Yahoo-Geocities management. Is that a desired pedagogical effect?
That punishment also tends to discourage me from returning to the lessons. Is that a desired pedagogical effect? Thus we see the reason why learning through ROP is not the best way to proceed.
One small point should be cleared up to avoid confusion. The word "reinforcer" is usually used to designate a rewarding stimulus. However, "reinforcement" sometimes refers to a rewarding stimulus (the same as reinforcer) and sometimes refers to a punishing escape or avoidance procedure which reinforces, ie increases habit strength,
"SIDE-EFFECTS"
Skinner's emphasis on the use of positive reinforcement for teaching (including his teaching machines) was not misguided. Positive reinforcement is the only one of the four sets of circumstances above which has no obvious "side-effects" in producing undesired behavior. POP has obvious side-effects. Rats punished, eg with electric foot shock,are observed to engage in intropunitive aggression, like tail-biting, and extropunitive aggression when they attack creatures and objects around them. ROP circumstances may reinforce extraneous behaviors as described above in reaction to GT. ROR may lead to similar effects. Long term exposure to POP, ROP and ROR circumstances may lead to demoralization, depression and other chronic clinical disorders.