Operant Conditioning and Humanistic Approach
Interacting with students is a demanding task. One of the critical factors to consider while dealing with children is discipline. Teachers are entrusted with the responsibility of bringing up all-rounded individuals from the students. Administering discipline is always a complex task due to the mentality of punishment held by most people. Most people take discipline as a form of punishment given to people who fail to adhere to specific rules. However, discipline is always a positive way of correcting children and instilling positive behaviors at early ages. Operant conditioning encourages positive reinforcement of discipline and has a final goal of getting the desired behavior when applied in a classroom environment. The operant conditioning may differ from the humanistic approach in a classroom environment. Children cannot be allowed to practice freewill as a humanistic approach would encourage.
The theories developed by B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers have been applied in psychology to solve the debate that exists on discipline. A case occurred during a mathematics class when several students were observed to be absent. After enquiring from their classmates, it was found that the students had complained not to like the mathematics class in particular. The issue of contest was on the right action to take to have the students not repeat the same mistake. Skinner’s operant approach and Carl Roger’s humanistic approach were the two viable psychological approaches to take. First, the operant conditioning approach is based on the assumption that negative reinforcement works perfectly to deter negative behaviors. The humanistic approach, on the other hand, is built on the premise that children should be allowed to develop from the inside. Also, every correction should be made with love so that the students do not feel threatened.
The first difference that comes between operant conditioning and the humanistic approach is on the issue of consequences. Psychologists argue that every action is accompanied by outcomes, which may either be good or bad. If an individual is comfortable with the consequences, the chances are that they will repeat the action (Jarvis, 2015). If on the other side, the consequences are undesirable, the individual will most likely not repeat the action. Skinner, therefore, uses the psychologists’ perception to encourage both positive and negative enforcement of discipline. Carl Rogers, on the other side, believes that human beings can use their inner self to make the world a better place without having to be forced. Therefore, two solutions are available according to the argument on consequences.
The students could be subject to different treatments according to the first difference in the approaches. First, the students took an action that should be followed by consequences. The immediate consequence that is likely to happen is that the students may be disciplined. Although disciplining the students may be viewed as a punishment, the reality is that the disciplining will be aimed at sparing the students from failing in their exams for not missing more classes. In this case, the discipline may be reinforced negatively either through caning or another form of a disciplinary method as outlined by the school’s guidelines.
Moreover, the students may be subjected to a tender process of correction according to the humanistic approach. Besides, the students are aware of the consequences of not attending classes. Therefore, a way should be found to ensure that the students are taught a better idea of addressing the issue of disliking the mathematics classes. For example, the method of teaching may be changed to meet the requirements of the students.
Alternatively, operant conditioning and humanistic approach may be used to provide a better solution to the issue of missing classes. Students who miss classes may be assumed, and the other students are used as a way of changing the perception of others. Operant conditioning allows praise as a way of rewarding positive behavior (Skinner, 1963). The teacher may praise the students who remain in class, and the word passed to the others who missed the classes. By using praise, the students who missed classes may be made to admire the praises and choose to remain in class the next time the teacher comes. Also, the humanistic approach may be applied by showing concern to the students who missed classes. The teacher may explain to the other students how much they would like to have all the students attend the classes. Also, the teacher may remind the students that the sacrifice made by the parents to bring children to school is out of love. Generally, operant conditioning and humanistic approach can be used together to provide better solutions.
In the event the combination of approaches does not apply, operant conditioning offers further solutions to classroom problems. For example, rewarding performers works perfectly to challenge non-performers to put more efforts. In the case of missing classes, the teacher could come up with a system that rewards students for attending all classes. However, the rewarding should not be overdone as it could lose its intended meaning. The rewarding system should be made to motivate students to attend more classes. Also, the teacher could create a rapport with the students in the way of teaching to avoid cases of boredom. For example, the teacher could improve personal contact with students so that the students do not feel secure when they miss classes. The use of the operant approach should generally be aimed at positive reinforcement of discipline so that students do not find peace in missing classes. The reason why the operant approach is widely applied is that the approach is simple.
The application of the operant approach is simple and preferred in the classroom environment. The solutions found from operant conditioning do not have to be forced. A teacher is responsible for the success of their students. Therefore, discipline is not a choice. Furthermore, several alternatives are available, and the best is always chosen. For example, negative reinforcement will give the students fear the next time they plan to miss in classes. On the other side, rewarding performing students who attend classes will create a feeling of guilt on the students who miss classes. Therefore, operant conditioning is flexible and does not have limitations. Generally, the application of operant conditioning does not give the recipient of disciplinary actions the chance to make crucial decisions.
Unlike the humanistic approach, the operant conditioning does not give the recipient of discipline the chance to make crucial decisions. For example, students who miss classes are not allowed to choose the disciplinary action to be taken on them. The teacher has the power to decide on the approach to use in addressing the case of the students. Besides, the students are only allowed to do what the teacher chooses. Generally, the teacher is obliged to have expectations that should be met by the students. The expectations are used as a benchmark to decide whether students are misbehaving or not. Also, the school has delegated the responsibilities of bringing up students to the teacher and not the students. Therefore, the operant conditioning approach believes in having someone in charge of behavior change. The humanistic approach differs from the operant conditioning in that human beings are expected to be responsible for their transformation.
The humanistic approach is built on the assumption that human beings develop their character from the inner self. Karl Rogers believed that human beings continue to change in a way that makes their environment better than they found it (Peters, 1970). Although the humanistic approach makes sense to some extent, the application of the approach in a classroom setting may be complicated. Most students are not able to make crucial decisions in life. Giving freedom to children with the hope that they will know what to do may have undesirable outcomes. For example, if students are allowed to decide to continue missing classes without intervention, more students will join in missing classes, and eventually, the class will be empty. Also, the application of the approach appears complex in that solutions has to be altered to fit the different cases. Generally, the humanistic approach views behavioral change as a personal decision that should be left to the individual.
The interpretation of the humanistic approach is not clear. For example, Karl Rogers argued that discipline is not a must and that human beings eventually change to become better people. However, the lack of discipline is risky and could have severe consequences (Kaplan & Patrick, 2016). Students could, for example, fail in their exams and end up failing in life. Besides, the teacher will be blamed for bringing up undisciplined students. Fortunately, the solutions found after overcoming the complex procedures are reliable. For example, showing students love, and care may work perfectly to change their perspectives concerning mathematics classes. Also, the allowance of freedom to make decisions may make the students self-actualizing. Therefore, the humanistic approach can be applied, although the risk associated with the approach is high and could lead to undesirable consequences. Thus, the application of humanistic approach should be made in cases where individuals are willing to take the risk.
In sum, the operant conditioning may differ from the humanistic approach in a classroom environment. The operant conditioning approach is based on the assumption that negative reinforcement works perfectly to deter negative behaviors. The humanistic approach is built on the premise that children should be allowed to develop from the inside and that every correct should be made with love so that the students do not feel threatened. The example of the class attendance can utilize both approaches, although the operant conditioning approach is the most effective. Generally, operant conditioning and humanistic approach can be used together to provide better solutions.
References
Jarvis, M. (2015). Theoretical approaches in psychology. Routledge.
Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2016). Learning environments and motivation. Handbook of motivation at school, 2, 254-274.
Peters, R. S. (1970). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Interchange, 1(4), 111-114.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American psychologist, 18(8), 503.