|
|
This paper will be evaluating and reflecting on two conflicting arguments. The first, by Paul Chance, seeks to convince the reader that learning is best facilitated by shaping the actions of individuals through positive reinforcement contingent on success. Alfie Kohn disagrees with this assessment saying that rewards decrease motivation and lead individuals to see learning as means rather than an end. Both have various strengths and weaknesses, which invariably lead the reader to their own conclusion. The first article, The Rewards of Learning, champions the argument that by rewarding individuals, specifically students, learning can be facilitated. Paul Chance is of the belief that not only is some reinforcement needed in the classroom setting, but a lot of it. In these opening pages he argues that the American system vastly under uses reinforcement and lists several examples of why this is. The heart of Chance’s article seems to center around motivation, rewards, and learning. He acknowledges that if rewards do reduce interest than it is significantly important to classroom teachers (Chance, 1992, in Slife). He refers here to findings that too many extrinsic rewards can reduce future motivation in the same tasks. The best predictor of this, the author argues, is the reward contingency. He reflects on research done by Alyce Dickinson and the three kinds of reward contingencies that she came up with and concludes that ‘success-contingent’ rewards are the most effective. The author finds things like encouragement and intrinsic rewards as motivating, but not teaching and as less rewarding than say the intrinsic pleasure created from friend’s laughter. He concludes his article with some guidelines for how to reward without stifling motivation. He recommends teachers do things like give the weakest reward possible, reduce the rate of rewards as time goes on, and reward only behavior they want repeated.
|
