Both rewards and punishments, says Punished by Rewards author Alfie Alfie, we educators use punishment quite a lot, but we've come to. Punished by Rewards. The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, / / ) (Tantor audio. Punished By usaascvb.info - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
new PDF Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes Full Online, new PDF Punished by Rewards. Robert T. Whipple, MBA CPLP. The following review is taken from a pivotal article by Alfie Kohn in The paper can be ordered from . Alfie Kohn's six previous books include Punished by Rewards and No Contest: The Case Against Competition, as well as Beyond Displine and What to Look for .
To assess sequence knowledge, training was bookended by early and late probes in which participants performed three blocks arranged random - sequence - random. Participants were then tested for sequence knowledge without feedback 1-hour, hours, and days after learning. C Serial reaction time task. Participants were instructed to press the corresponding button on a controller as fast and accurately as possible.
After ms, the X changed back to an O, and participants were given valenced feedback for their performance on that trial. Performance in the SRTT was based on reaction time and accuracy of the button press.
If participants were accurate and faster than they performed on their previous 96 trials, a participant would receive positive feedback reward, or absence of punishment on that trial. If they were slower or inaccurate, they would receive the negative outcome either punishment or absence of reward.
D Force-tracking task. Participants held a force transducer in their right hand and saw a black circle start position , a blue circle target , and a white circle cursor. Participants were instructed to squeeze the force transducer to keep the cursor as close to the center of the target as possible.
The target moved continuously during the trial 12 seconds , followed by a 2 second break between trials. The distance of the cursor from the target was the measure of performance. If the participant was closer to the center of the target than he were on their previous 8 trials, they would receive positive feedback. During sequence blocks the target followed one of six trajectories, D, left whereas during random blocks the target would follow a random trajectory.
Full size image Participants were able to learn both tasks successfully and the skill learned was almost entirely retained at 30 days. Overall, we saw little effect of reward on either learning or retention.
Punishment had no effect on skill retention, but had significant, task-dependent effects on learning. In the SRTT punishment improved speed with minimal impact on accuracy.
In contrast, punishment impaired performance on the FTT. These results suggest that the effect of feedback varies depending on the skill being learned, and while feedback impacts online performance, the benefit of reward reported to retention may be less robust than previously demonstrated. Results Punishment improves online performance of the serial reaction time task We investigated the impact of reward and punishment on SRTT sequence learning in three different ways.
First, we compared sequence knowledge during sequence knowledge probes either early in learning immediately following familiarization when valenced feedback was first introduced or late in learning at the end of the training session see Fig. During these probes, we estimated sequence knowledge by calculating the reaction time RT difference between fixed and random blocks Fig. These results suggest that feedback facilitates rapid sequence learning on the SRTT.
Feedback did not affect retention at any time point lower right panel. Box plots show median, crosses show within group outliers. Full size image Second, to examine the effect of valenced feedback on learning rate, we compared the median reaction time across the six consecutive sequence training blocks immediately following the early sequence knowledge probe using a repeated measures ANOVA with Block 1—6 and Group as factors.
The lack of a significant Group by Sequence interaction in the post- probe highlights that this is a general, rather than sequence-specific, improvement. Finally, we examined the impact of valenced feedback on retention.
There was no influence of feedback Group on retention.
Collectively, these results show that both reward and punishment increased early learning of the sequence with punishment additionally having a marked effect on performance during training. Punishment impaired performance of the force-tracking task We conducted the same three analyses on data from FTT Fig.
A description of the trial-by-trial performance in the FTT is available in the supplemental materials. First, sequence knowledge during the feedback period was evaluated by comparing the mean squared error during sequence and random blocks in the early and late sequence knowledge probes using repeated measures ANOVA Time-point x Sequence x Group. Figure 3: Punishment impairs to performance on the FTT.
Unlike the SRTT, feedback had no influence on sequence specific knowledge lower left or performance during the training period inset. As was found in the SRTT, feedback did not affect performance during the retention probes lower right. One outlier from punishment in the post-training period is not pictured in the boxplot [Random — Sequence sq err. Full size image Second, we examined performance during the six consecutive sequence training blocks using repeated measures ANOVA, with Block and Group as factors.
Finally, we examined the effect of valenced feedback on retention in the FTT. Five participants did not complete the retention probes due to timetabling. This left us with 10 control, 9 reward, and 11 punishment participants for retention analyses. There was no main effect or interaction with feedback Group on retention.
Collectively, these results show that the primary effect of feedback in FTT was for punishment to impair learning from the pre- to post-training probe time points.
We found that punishment had opposing effects on performance of the two skills. During performance of the SRTT, training with punishment led to improved reaction times overall with minimal detriment to accuracy.
In contrast, punishment impaired performance of the FTT. These effects were only present whilst feedback was being given; there was no effect of training with feedback on general or sequence-specific retention measured at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 30 days in either task. Our results refute any simple model of the interaction between feedback and performance. Instead, we show that the impact of feedback depends on the training environment and the skill being learned.
There may be a number of reasons for this task-specific effect of feedback. While both tasks rely on sequence learning, they differ with respect to the mechanism that facilitates improvement. The motivational salience of punishment i. However, a purely motivational account cannot explain the deleterious effect of punishment to performance on the FTT. Therefore, we need to consider alternative explanations that may account for the differential effects of reward and punishment to performance these two tasks.
The two tasks also differ with respect to their motor demands. Within the motor system, others have reported that reward-related dopaminergic activity reduces motor noise 19 , while dopaminergic activity associated with punishment leads to an increase in motor variability, i. We found that punishment impaired general i. After one-hour, during the retention test without feedback, the punishment group performed as well as the reward and control groups.
We think that our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that punishment may increase motor noise, which may have led to impaired performance by the punishment group during training. Because increased motor variability was not directly measured in our implementation of the SRTT, participants would not be penalized for any variation in movement that did not impact reaction time directly. If an assessment of motor variability was considered in the evaluation of SRTT performance, one might find that punishment impairs this dimension of performance.
Our implementation of the SRTT and the FTT do not have a direct measure of motor variability and we cannot explicitly address this issue in the present study. Classifications Dewey Decimal Class R48 K65 The Physical Object Pagination xiv, p. Readers waiting for this title: Check nearby libraries with: WorldCat Library.
download this book site. Share this book Facebook. History Created April 1, 10 revisions Download catalog record: Wikipedia citation Close. June 24, Edited by ImportBot. The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "Intrinsic motivation". Detrimental effects of reward. Reality or myth? Planned Activities Training for mothers of children with developmental disabilities. Community generalization and follow-up.
Behav Modif. Breaking the structuralist barrier. Literacy and numeracy with fluency. Contingency contracting with disadvantaged youths: Improving classroom performance.
Cognition and causation in human experience.