Understanding Child Development

This assignment explores the multifaceted field of child development. It examines established theories that explain cognitive, social, emotional, and physical growth across childhood. The assignment also analyzes relevant research studies and highlights practical applications of these theories in educational and developmental settings. Understanding how children develop is crucial for fostering their well-being and providing effective support.

Running head: OPERANT CONDITIONING
Operant Conditioning
Student Name
Institution Name

OPERANT CONDITIONING 2
Operant Conditioning
Introduction
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.
Classroom Behaviors of Primary Five Students
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

OPERANT CONDITIONING 3
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.
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.

OPERANT CONDITIONING 4
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.
Application of Operant Conditioning in the Scenario
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.

OPERANT CONDITIONING 5
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. According 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

OPERANT CONDITIONING 6
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.
Strength and weakness of Operant Conditioning compared to Kohlberg’s Theory
The operant 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

OPERANT CONDITIONING 7
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.
Judgement On Operant Conditioning effectiveness
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

OPERANT CONDITIONING 8
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.

OPERANT CONDITIONING 9
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 health 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.

OPERANT CONDITIONING 10
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.