Punishment Discipline Behaviour
What is Punishment?
Introduction
Punishment usually involves the deliberate incision of ache, misery or the removal of rights and/or freedom. Basically, these actions are definitely wrong. However, our society are using this method particularly in law-breaking issues to maintain peace and order. During our childhood days, our parent usually imposed punishment to us if we got mistakes. Actually, this punishment affects our development as a child. It could have either positive or negative effects. With this regard, this paper seeks to realize why people permit the legitimation of this type of infiltration. In this paper, we will also explain why discipline relies on punishment and negative consequences to improve child's behaviour.
Discussions
Parents usually give punishment to their children just to discipline them. However, parents should be cautious in giving punishment. This might cause physical, emotional and mental problems or this may also results to rebellious behavior. Punishment is also observed in schools or in any learning situation. Studies claimed that reliance on such measures i.e. punishment have negative effects on the learners. In all styles of teaching and classroom management, there are proper ways of carrying out the strategies so that the ends to these styles may be met. In the case of assertion, there are positive and negative methods of reinforcing these strategies. As students' behaviour vary, the teachers' delicate role is to determine which would work best for the particular students. Learners will react differently to situations, and if every positive method does not work out with them, then negative reinforcement is called for. This is not to become unfair to the students. This is just to show them that there are regulations to be observed and authorities to be respected, as that virtue will better prepare them for life outside the confines of the school. There is no perfect way of teaching and classroom management. There are only receptive teachers who are attuned to individual students' needs, thus a successful implementation of the assertive style of teaching and classroom management.
In the report of Hill (1990) on an incident in preschool in which punishment was used to help children learn to obey rules. One of the punishment procedures was to write the name of the offending child on the board the first time non-compliance with rules occurred. The goal is impressive in that it make the most of learning time, but there were some unintentional depressing side effects. In this case, a child told to his parents the list of names of "bad kids" in the class, and the child also described how they were being reprimanded. The child also told to her parents that these kids had their names written on the board. In relation to this, the child asked his parents if being with the kids would make him become one of them. From the child's story, the mother decided to visit the school where she found a group of 5 and 6 year olds trying not to speak or move. As the parent observed, the teacher was diligently using rewards and punishment to mould the behavior of children. But every time a child giggled or laugh extremely or spoke without permission, another name went on the board. As the result, most of boys who came from families of lower socioeconomic background are found on that board.
It seems apparent that what the children had internalized from their experience of punishment, either literally or vicariously, was to focus on the behavior that the teacher found offensive. The children avoided such behavior at all costs, even if it meant behaving unnaturally and spending energy on pleasing the teacher instead of attending to the learning activities.
In relation to this, Kounin (1970) justified that the transfer of pupil attention to the child being punished is a usual phenomenon, and almost always results in less attention, rather than more, being paid to the desired learning outcomes. Every so often, the teacher's intent to help a child alter a behavior to one which is more acceptable to both the youngster and his superiors has tragic sequelae. Educators using disciplinary procedures perceived by the child as stringent and unfeeling can cause trauma. According to Hyman and Zelikoff (1987), the symptoms of this trauma are often similar to those observed in adults with Post Traumatic Stress Disorders. Symptoms seen in children include somatic complaints, avoidance of school, and sleep disturbances.
As Skinner emphasized, a behavior which is followed a positive reinforcing motivation or circumstance will result in an increased tendency or probability that the person will repeat such behavior, this concept also operates in the opposite direction wherein the person will have a decreased tendency to do an act from which he or she received a negative reinforcement in the form of punishment.
Instrumental or operant conditioning is somewhat different than classical conditioning. The primary distinction can be summarized by the terms elicited and emitted. In classical conditioning, the behavior (response) is elicited by the UCS, automatically and involuntarily, whereas in instrumental or operant conditioning the behavior (response) is emitted voluntarily, and the organism experiences some consequence to that behavior. For example, a hungry rat in a T-maze voluntarily leaves the start chamber and after turning left (behavior) finds food in the goal box (consequence). The rat will subsequently learn that its behavior (turning left) will result in reward (consequence).
According to Thorndike, the main business of thought surely is to guide and control action. To make it intelligent, adaptive, efficient, Thorndike's Law of Effect proposed an alternative means of achieving the same end. Effects, rewards and punishments, were seen as stamping actions “in” or “out” and selectively, intelligently, adaptively determining behavior. The effects of a given action thus altered redirected, controlled subsequent conduct and left no place or need for thought or intellect. While Pavlov's formulations, though different principle from those of Thorndike but similar in goal. Pavlov was likewise interested, not just in a theory of learning but also in the organism's total behavior, in what was later referring as the principles of adaptive action. Both trial and error learning and conditioning imply adaptation to the environment but this end was achieved in both cases mechanically, non-mentalistically without thought.
Two-factor learning theory in its version accepted Thorndale's theory of habit formation, essentially unmodified and in doing so, necessarily aligned itself with the thoughtless psychologies or behavior-zoologies, In admitting fear conditioning and in developing a feedback conception of punishment, the theory disposed itself toward what has become explicit. Now response facilitation as no less a matter of conditioning and meaning change than is response inhibition. And what is more immediately important, this new position, while in some ways just as mechanical and automatic as were the views of Thorndike and Pavlov. The prototype of knowledge in general are hopes and fears, both are internal events and such are assumed to be learned and after learning, to occur in a purely automatic, involuntary manner, These are mechanism and determinism. There is no simple and direct relationship between what an organism learns and what it does. Action, is the result of more or less intricate and elaborate processes intervening between the end result of more or less intricate and elaborate processes “intervening between the end results of learning and the execution of behavior.”
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
