Arguments Between Players In The Education Sector | Discussion And Analysis

Classroom Behaviors of Primary Five Students

Discuss About The Arguments Surfaced Between Several Players?

In the recent times, arguments have surfaced between several players in the education sector and psychologists on the appropriate mode of teaching students. With education serving to enhance the psychological, intellectual, physical, and social development in children, there have been debates if there is a holistic mode of attaining this goal. These discussions have been intensified with deferring personalities in school children. The divergent personalities illustrated by students implies that it is the role of educators to select the best method to handle their students. Over the years, psychologists have offered different models of managing students. Specifically, the operant conditioning framework is among the popular models applied by teachers to address the various issues in a classroom setting. The operant conditioning perspective has been hailed and criticized by different players in the education sector. Some critics argue that the model have adverse implications on the students’ behavioral change. On the other hand, the proponents of this model claim that it motivates the students to embrace positivity. Although operant conditioning theory can have positive implications on the student behaviors, its application on the students presented in the case can further deteriorate the situation. 

Students in the primary five level of education in Singapore have an age range of ten to eleven years. In this respect, these are children who are in their formative age.  According to Marshall (2014), children within this age exhibits increased social interests and are friendly. However, Marshall (2014) is quick to point out that the behavior of some children can be bizarre and confusing.  Interestingly, Keenan, Evans, and Crowley (2016) posit that students at this level value friendship and tend to react as a group. Furthermore, the students are highly sensitive to negative social stimuli like aggressive people. In this respect, it is possible that the negative behaviors exhibited by the students in Jane’s class are due to exposure to social stressors. The stressors can be Jane’s teaching methodologies, unconducive learning environment, or poor and unfriendly parenting.

According to Watkins (2005), students between 10-11 years are in the process of intensive emotional development. This emotional development makes the children worry more about self-image and how other people view them. Consequently, this focus on self- image and other people's perception makes the students be embarrassed by being corrected in public. The view presented by Watkins (2005) is supported by Cliff et al. (2016) who expounds that this fear of what other people make the students to be withdrawn in classroom activities. The claims by Cliff et al. (2016) describes the situation in Jane's class perfectly. In fact, it proves that the reserved nature of Jane’s students is not related to the complexity of the materials being taught. Instead, it emanates from emotional development that inflicts fear of embarrassment in class among the individual students.

Application of Operant Conditioning in the Scenario

Furthermore, the students at this level like to test the established classroom rules and boundaries. For instance, the students know that they can be punished for not completing their homework. However, they will intentionally not complete the assigned task to see the reaction of the teachers.  According to Bergese (2006), teachers should relate the delinquent state of students at this level to complex psychological changes they are undergoing and direct them accordingly. Moreover, Ray (2015) outlines that students at this age are organized, structured, and logical and desire to be accepted by their peers. In this respect, the students tend to act as a unit. The collective conduct by children at this stage explains the typical behavior illustrated by the students in Jane's class.

However, students at this level also demonstrate an advanced level of thinking compared to those at lower levels. According to Ray (2015), these students possess advanced analytical skills, are logical in their arguments, and love interactive learning strategies. This observation by Ray (2015) is very useful for educators like Jane who are eager to motive their students to be more interested in academic works. Additionally, the suggestion is important in designing learning instructions in the classroom. However, it is important to remember that students have different personalities and teachers have the responsibility of developing and inclusive teaching strategies to address the needs of all pupils.

The application of operant conditioning in Jane’s case can either lead to positive or negative outcomes. Psychologically, students in Jane’s class are at a delicate stage of development and need to be handled carefully. According to Bosworth and Judkins (2014), there are certain components of operant conditioning that can adversely affect behavioral change in students. With operant conditioning focusing on altering the environmental effects that shape an individual’s behavior, students can react negatively to the modifications. As Novak (2004) points out, operant conditioning involves the use of positive or negative reinforcements to impact behavioral change. Additionally, the method uses positive or negative punishment to influence change. In Jane’s situation, she can apply different positive reinforcements to stimulate her students’ academic participation.

According to Bosworth and Judkins (2014), a reward is one the positive influencers that Jane can use to motive her students academically. In this method, Jane can promise gifts to students who complete the assignments or participate in class. This strategy addresses the stipulations of motivational theories. As Deci and Ryan (2016) deliberate, teachers can use motivators like compliments or gifts to enhance the motivation levels of the students. Consequently, students will be motivated to participate classroom activities because they want to be rewarded. However, Skinner (2015) warns that the use of positive influencers like a reward can be detrimental in the long-run. Accounting to Skinner (2015), withdrawing the reward can make the students lose interest in learning activities. Additionally, it removes personal interest in education making the students think that their education only benefits their educators. Since education is for the good of self, the use of rewards damages the primary goals of education.

Alternatively, Jane can use punishment as a way of motivating her students to complete their academic duties. According to Bryd, Loeber, and Pardini (2014), punishment serves as an effective deterrent measure. For instance, Jane can decide to punish all the students who fail to participate actively in class or fail to complete an assignment by making them run around the class five times. With time, the students will participate in class activities and complete their homework as a way to avoid punishment (Byrd, Loeber, & Pardini, 2014). However, there are detrimental effects associated with the punishment approach. According to Miller et al. (2014), punishment can have an adverse implication on a child's psychological and social development. As earlier stated, children in level five are embarrassed when they are corrected or punished publicly.  Consequently, punishing the students for not participating in class activities or completing assignments can make them withdraw further from these activities.

Moreover, Bryd, Loeber, and Pardini (2014) state that punishment does not promote positive behaviors. Instead, it only tells the offenders what to avoid.  For instance, punishing the students for not completing an assignment will not support intellectual development as directed by the goals of education. In extreme cases, punishment can also make the children exhibit antisocial behaviors. According to a study conducted by Furukawa et al. (2017), it was observed that punishing children occasionally make them withdraw from learning and social activities. In this respect, applying operant conditioning in Jane’s case will not have positive implications on the intellectual and psychological development of the students.

The operations conditioning concept is a vital strategy in behavior management. According to Skimmer (2015), one of the key strengths of this method is that it deals it addresses a specific behavior.  The precise nature of operant conditioning makes it effective in handling undesirable traits within a short duration. On the other hand, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development looks at moral behaviors as a function of multiple interacting factors.  According to Parker (2017), Kohler theory argues that moral development is a progressive process that begins at childhood and shaped by several external factors. In this respect, Kohlberg’s theory is not effective in eradicating negative behaviors within a short timeframe.

The use of punishment and reinforcement make the students know what is wrong. For instance, when a student is rewarded for completing a task or punished for not tackling the assignment, they are likely to respond accordingly. The deterrent effects of operant conditioning make it useful in making the students to follow the available rules and regulation. In contrast, Kohlberg’s theory insists on the moral judgment of the students based on the way they have been raised.

However, as Parker (2017) point out, the Kohlberg’s theory is very efficient in propagating self-drive and responsibility in students. Unlike the operant condition which only focuses altering a specific behavior, the moral development theory aims at having an inclusive effect on an individual’s behaviors. Additionally, the operant conditioning focuses on the problem but not its cause. In this respect, the method is ineffective in creating permanent change in behaviors. According to Shaffer, Lindhiem, and Kolkeo (2017), operant conditioning elements like reward and punishment result in a temporal change in the undesirable behaviors. In Jane's case, the students will participate in class activities or complete their assignment as long as there is a reward or punishment. However, if the reward or punishment is withdrawn, the students have high chances of reverting to their initial condition.

Consequently, the operant conditioning methodology is not a long-term strategy in influencing positive change in a learning environment. When handling moral issues, it is vital to look at externalities that affect behaviors. For instance, the students in Jane's class might be reacting in that manner due to family problems, social complications, or poor teaching strategies by Jane. According to Skinner (2015), people are a result of multiple interacting social, psychological, and intellectual factors. In this respect, Jane should employ an inclusive strategy in handling her students’ behaviors.

For instance, Jane can utilize the learning by doing perspective proposed by American philosopher John Dewey.  According to Foster et al. (2016), Dewey advocates for an education system that relates to a child’s attribute and social changes.  In this respect, Jane can alter the attitude of her students by actively involving them in the learning process by using the modes that the pupils prefer. For instance, she can use visual presentations to provoke the thinking of her students. With Bergese (2006) promoting that children at level five love being recognized by their peers, Jane can also utilize group discussion as a way of enhancing students' participation in academic activities.

In Jane's scenario, operant conditioning will not be an effective mean of addressing the problem. Although the method provides short-term solutions to the problem facing Jane, it risks making the situation worse. In fact, Jane will have to either punish or reward the students consistently to ensure they perform their academic duties. However, this move removes the self-drive required for academic excellence. Consequently, Jane should utilize a more inclusive approach that examines and addresses the root of the current students’ behaviors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, operant conditioning is not a useful approach to address Jane's situation. The use of reward or punishment will make Jane a hostage to the students. In this view, Jane has to keep on rewarding or punishing the students for them to participate in classroom activities. Additionally, several studies have confirmed that punishment can make the student have antisocial behaviors. As illustrated by the theory of moral development, ethical behaviors are affected by multiple factors. Therefore, Jane should utilize an all-rounded approach to address that cause of the undesirable behaviors in her students.

References

Bergese, R. (2006). Understanding 10-11-Year-Olds. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bosworth, K., & Judkins, M. (2014). Tapping into the power of school climate to prevent bullying: One application of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 300-307.

Byrd, A. L., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Antisocial behavior, psychopathic features, and abnormalities in reward and punishment processing in youth. Clinical child and family psychology review, 17(2), 125-156.

Cliff, D. P., Hesketh, K. D., Vella, S. A., Hinkley, T., Tsiros, M. D., Ridgers, N. D., & Plotnikoff, R. C. (2016). Objectively measured sedentary behavior and healthcare and development in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta?analysis. Obesity Reviews, 17(4), 330-334.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students' motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. Building autonomous learners, 9-29.

Foster, M. E., Antony, J. L., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Williams, J. M. (2016). Improving mathematics learning of kindergarten students through computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 47(3), 206-232.

Furukawa, E., Alsop, B., Sowerby, P., Jensen, S., & Tripp, G. (2017). Evidence for increased behavioral control by punishment in children with attention?deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(3), 248-257.

Keenan, T., Evans, S., & Crowley, K. (2016). An Introduction to Child Development. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Marshall, N. (2014). The Teacher's Introduction to Attachment: Practical Essentials for Teachers, Carers and School Support Staff. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Miller, N. V., Haas, S. M., Waschbusch, D. A., Willoughby, M. T., Helseth, S. A., Crum, K. I., & Pelham, W. E. (2014). Behavior therapy and callous-unemotional traits: effects of a pilot study examining modified behavioral contingencies on child behavior. Behavior therapy, 45(5), 606-618.

Novak, G. (2004). Child and Adolescent Development: A Behavioral Systems Approach. London: SAGE.

Parker, E. (2017). Do Non-Classroom Interactions with Faculty Affect Moral Development among College Students? College Student Affairs Journal, 35(1), 3-13.

Ray, D. C. (Ed.). (2015). A Therapist's Guide to Child Development: The Extraordinarily Normal Years. London: Routledge.

Skinnner, B. F. (2015). "A world of our own. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 15(1), 21-14.

Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as Learning Communities: What's In It For Schools? London: Routledge.