European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.

(4), № 4

Copyright © 2014 by Academic Publishing House Researcher

Published in the Russian Federation

European Journal of Psychological Studies
Has been issued since 2014.
ISSN: 2312-0363
E-ISSN: 2409-3297
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 174-180, 2014

DOI: 10.13187/ejps.2014.4.174
www.ejournal12.com

Relevance of Skinner’s Theory of Reinforcement on

Effective School Evaluaution and Management

1 O. Austin Omomia
2 T. A. Omomia

Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria

Ago-iwoye, Ogun state, Department of religious studies
E-mail: [email protected]
School of Technical Education Yaba College of Technology, Nigeria
Yaba, Lagos
PhD
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
B. F. Skinner’s theory of reinforcement emphasizes on the relevance of reward and
punishment. This has impacted, to a large extent on the promotion of teaching and learning.
In effect, Skinner’s theory has been applied often in most educational institutions. Students’
educational outcomes can be improved upon on the basis of positive reinforcements. This paper
therefore, examined the relevance of skinner’s theory of reinforcement on school evaluation and
effective school management. The paper applied psychological and sociological methodology in its
research design. There is immense value in reinforcement (positive or negative) as a means of
feedback to students, teachers and administrators. It is recommended that adequate feedback
should be given to teachers to improve their output. And learners should be rewarded in order to
improve their educational outcomes.
Keywords: Effective management; Reinforcement; Relevance; School evaluation.

Introduction
The focus of this paper is the relevance of Frederic Skinner’s behaviourist theory on school
evaluation and effective school management. The basic aim of education is the effectiveness of
teaching / learning. The Classroom management theory of Frederic Skinner is said to have been
incorporated in the school system in various ways. Most of the behaviour management systems
applied in schools are said to be strongly influenced by his work. He argued in favour of
―immediate praise, feedback, and / or reward when seeking to change troublesome or encourage
correct behaviour in the classroom.‖ Skinner also advocated for teachers to identify and reflect on
the environmental effects on students’ behaviour‖ (Wikibooks, 2011).
Skinner’s operant conditioning in education has five educational innovations attributed both
directly and indirectly to operant conditioning principles. They include: (i) Instructional objectives,
(2) Programmed instruction (and its offshoot, computer-assisted instruction), (3) Mastery
learning, (4) Contingency contracts, and (5) Applied behaviour analysis. Operant conditioning
works on a system of reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is meant for behaviour to be

174
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

increased, while punishment should be used effectively. This means that the right guidelines for
punishment should be followed (Behavioural Theory, 2011).
The teaching / learning process in the school can be positively enhanced if the actors (in this
context, the learners, administrators / principals and teachers) are adequately motivated through
rewards. This can be catalyzed through a consistent process of reinforcement. Akinboye (1992) in
Omomia (2008) argued that reinforcement is a central concept in human acquisition of skills and
performance competence. The skills / tools for teaching, learning and administration are thus
sharpened through the process of reinforcement. By extension, it could be argued that
reinforcement is any ―factor which when made to follow a response immediately will increase the
probability of the occurrence of the response to a conditioned stimulus or stimulus event‖ (Oladele,
2004; Adenigbade, 1997; Akinboye, 1992; Chauhan, 1992). The direct implication is that any
―consequence that follows behaviour must be contingent upon the behaviour (Elliott, Kratochwill,
Littlefield-Cook and Travers, 2000).
In applying Skinner’s theory in the classroom, we can do the followings: ―set up
reinforcement schedules with our students, especially those with behaviours that need quick
intervention to reinforce positive behaviour. For example, if a student gets out of his seat
frequently, we can set a timer for, say ten minutes, and each time he remains on his seat after that
duration, a token (reward) is given to him. Another example is the creation (in some occasions with
the contribution of students) of a system of positive incentives for the class. This could be by
rewarding positive behaviour before punishing negative behaviour. For example, if students are
asked to turn in their home work, you reward those who turned in their home work consistently.
Those who did not turn in their home work, even without being punished will likely be induced to
follow suit with those rewarded for turning in their homework consistently. It is suggested that
positive reinforcement should be immediately applied so as to easily associate it with the positive
behaviour being rewarded.
The theory of B.F. Skinner could be said to be different from that of his predecessors who
based theirs on classical conditioning. On his part, he studied operant conditioning. That is
voluntary behaviours used in operating on the environment (Mergel, 2011). According to him, he
based his operant conditioning on the following mechanisms:
(i) Positive Reinforcement or reward: Responses that are rewarded are likely to
be repeated. For example good grades reinforce careful study.
(ii) Negative Reinforcement: Responses that allow escaping from painful or
undesirable situations are likely to be repeated. For example, being excused from writing a final
examination because of good term work.
(iii) Extinction or Non- Reinforcement: Responses that are not reinforced are likely
to be repeated. For example ignoring student’s misbehaviour should extinguish that behaviour.
(iv) Punishment: Responses that bring painful or undesirable consequences will be
suppressed. But they could reappear if reinforcement contingencies change. For example,
penalizing late students by withdrawing privileges will likely stop their lateness (Mergel, 2011).
In other words, the deep assumption of the theory of behaviourism is that ―behaviour is
determined by a desire to gain positive reinforcement and to avoid negative reinforcement.‖
The consequence is that, ―positive reinforcement tends to cause behaviours to be repeated.
While negative reinforcement motivates behaviour in the attempt to remove or avoid some
undesirable effect‖ (Grice, 2011). On their part, Giffith and Hamza (2006) had argued that
―behaviourism is primarily concerned with the consequences of behaviours that are tangible and
observable responses or behaviours. Five fundamental steps guide the behaviour change process
under the behaviourism guidelines:
(i) Set behaviour goals
(ii) Determine the appropriate reinforcers
(iii) Select procedures for changing behaviours
(iv) Implement procedures and record results and
(v) Evaluate progress and revise as needed (Skinner, 1953). On the strength of this,
Griffith and Hamza, (2006) posited that, behavioural principles influence the development of both
programmed learning and Computer Aided Instruction (CAI).
Skinner’s Behaviourist theory has some impact with respect to school evaluation and effective
management. It is argued by Hofman, Dijikstra and Hofman (2006), that ―Educational systems
175
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

have developed towards accountability policies in which schools maintain autonomy for their
pedagogical, instructional and organizational policies (internal control). At the same time, they are
held accountable for the quality level of their school’s education to public authorities (external
control)‖.
The focus of evaluation is to consistently redirect the school system towards the value of
quality in the total life of the school. This is with regards to the quality of leadership (management),
teachers, curriculum, school facilities and so on. It is the pivotal role of the administrator to ensure
feedback so as to reinforce teachers’ behaviour. It is opined that in ―quality focused schools, the
existence of regular performance feedback is never questioned, and viewed as a critical part of the
work. Teachers expect to get feedback and see it as the most valuable tool for improving their
skills‖ (Ramiah, 2007). In a research study carried out by Hinkin & Schriesheim (2004) using 243
employees of two separate hospitality organizations, they discovered that ―employees who received
feedback from their managers, whether positive feedback or negative / corrective feedback, showed
improved performance.‖ They also discovered in the study that ―omission of commentary on good
performance diminished workers’ effectiveness and reduced worker satisfaction.‖ Operant
conditioning suggests that any behaviour that is often totally ignored will ultimately be
extinguished.
Skinner’s operant conditioning has found outstanding relevance in various settings. For
example, in clinical (for behaviour modification), teaching (for classroom management),
instructional development (for programmed instruction) and management (for organizational
behaviour management) (Encyclopedia of Business, 2011).

The Theory of Reinforcement and Teacher Evaluation

According to Skinner, the purpose of instruction is to alter behaviour in the desired direction.
Hence, the evaluation of instruction is intended to determine whether the behaviour changed in the
expected direction (Hannum, 2011). He further argued that, Skinner’s ideas about ―learning are the
basis of criterion- referenced testing, and this derives the test items directly from the stated
learning objectives. Evaluation should therefore, assess the student’s behaviour before and after
instruction to see whether what they learned (learning, according to Skinner equal behaviour
change) brought about behavioural change.
In applying Skinner’s theory in the classroom, he believed that teachers should supply
immediate feed-back to students. That is, not allow students to complete a complete worksheet
before giving feedback. The teacher should work with the students on one question at a time, not
allowing the students to continually make the same mistakes repeatedly‖ (WikEd, 2011).On the
other hand, he also argued that teachers and school districts determine classroom rules and what
are the punishments and reinforcements that go along with breaking or obeying such rules‖
(WikEd, 2011). According to Wolfgang (2001), negative reinforcement is not the same as
punishment. He argued that negative reinforcement is ―where a student has something that is
unpleasant, taken away from him/her for doing something good (for example, give the student a
―no homework pass‖). Punishment is ―a consequence following a behaviour that decreases the
likelihood of the behaviour occurring again‖ (for example, when a student does something bad, he
could be given an extra essay assignment, or a preferred activity is taken away from him).
Teachers are often faced with behavioural management in the classroom. As a consequence of this,
behaviour management methods advocate that students should be rewarded when they conform to
school expectations and punished when they run foul to school expectations. This means positive
reinforcers for favourable behaviour and negative reinforcers to discourage inappropriate
behaviours.
What is the impact of reinforcement behaviours on teacher’s performance? It is argued by
Ramiah (2007) that when ―teachers are not informed whether they are doing poorly or doing well,
uncertainty will surround their performance.‖ According to him, the consequence of this will be
negative outcomes such as reduced satisfaction, increase in office politics and lack of commitment‖.
It is generally believed, from the standpoint of Skinner’s theory, that the application of
reinforcement will shape behaviour. Connecting this with teachers’ performance, the position of
Hinkin and Schriesheim (2004) is quite appropriate. They considered the link between
―subordinates‖ performance and the supervisor’s ―non-response behaviour or omission‖.

176
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

They averred that, ―employees need relative feedback, but the managers might be unwilling or lack
the ability to satisfy these needs. Extended further, they argued that ―the absence of response or
feedback will possibly reinforce undesired behaviour and affect the feeling of the subordinates and
results in confusion and dissatisfaction‖ (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2004).

Their position is well captured in the table below:

Subordinate’s Leader’s Response Behaviour

Behaviour Positive Punishment Omission (No reaction
Reinforcement displayed)
Good Performance Increases likelihood Decreases likelihood Decreases likelihood of
of future good of future good future good
performance performance performance (OP)
Poor Performance Increases likelihood Decreases likelihood Decreases likelihood of
of future poor of future poor future poor
performance performance performance (OP)

(Source: Hinkin & Schrisheim, 2005)

Taxonomy of Leader Response Behaviour-Subordinates Performance Effect
We can deduce from the table above (Taxonomy of Leader Response Behaviour –
Subordinates performance Effects) the effect of reinforcements. According to them:
1. ―Positive reinforcements for a subordinate’s good performance will increase the
likelihood of future good performance.
2. Positive reinforcement for poor performance will increase the likelihood of future poor
performance.
3. Leader’s punishment behaviour for subordinates’ good performance will decrease the
likelihood of future good performance.
4. If punishment is given to poor performance, it will decrease the likelihood of poor
performance
5. If no reaction is given for good performance, this would decrease the likelihood of future
good performance.
6. They were not certain of the effect of poor performance.

The Theory of Reinforcement and Effective School Management

The role of the administrator (the principal or ―manager‖) can also be considered under
Skinner’s behaviourist theory. It is common knowledge that students’ learning is the basic function
of schools. It is on the strength of this that ―administrators can reinforce and enhance teaching
practices that will contribute to the improvement of students’ learning‖ (Fischer, 2011). This can be
effected through the effective supervision of instruction. This can be done as administrators
―skillfully analyze performance and appropriate data, thereby providing meaningful feed-back and
direction to teachers that can have a profound effect on the learning that occurs in each classroom
(Fischer, 2011). In carrying out teacher evaluation, the administrators must be skilled in the
following areas: ―what to evaluate, how to observe and analyze classroom observation information
and other data, and how to translate the results of observations and the summary of the data into
meaningful conference feedback that guides and encourages teachers to improve instruction‖
(Fischer, 2011). The feedback that the teacher receives is a form of reinforcement as this will
indicate if the teaching practice contributes to the improvement of the students’ learning. By
extension, the administrator should be able to ascertain if the teachers are using the different
formative and summative diagnostic processes in planning their instruction.
In examining behaviourism and its instructional premises, Dawe (2006) captured vividly, the
role of instruction in schools. He argued that ―students in a number of schools admit that
behaviourist style teaching principles are in operation. They go through instructions from the
teacher, who attempts to cover the curriculum content. After a while, the students are expected to
write a test on the material presented to them. The level of performance will indicate if the student
truly absorbed the material. If he / she get good marks, then that is the reward.

177
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

Reinforcement theory can be applied in management setting. This is said to be relevant tool
for changing employee’s behaviour. This is done by manipulating the consequence (Kio, Ogunyomi
& Ojodu, 2011). The implication, according to Fagbohungbe and Longe, (2011) is that, when you
know that there is a high level of motivation for you to do a particular thing, there is the tendency
that you will be willing to do it. This is strengthened by the reward tied to it, for example, the
benefits received by sales agents (commissions). These rewards reinforce them positively to strive
towards high sales. ―Employees are highly motivated because the quality is reinforced with pay
rises, promotions (etc) that employees find desirable. Workers learn various behaviours in a
business or company setting. These behaviours can be rewarded or punished. Therefore, operant
conditioning can be applied to organizational setting (Encyclopedia of Business, 2011). The school
setting can be considered to be an organization, albeit, saddled with educational activities and
pursuing learning outcomes.

Criticisms of B. F. Skinner’s Theory of Reinforcement

In spite of the roles associated with Skinner’s operant conditioning in Education, there have
been some marked criticisms. One of the major critics of Skinner’s theory is Alfie Kohn. Khon, who
is also a prominent educational theorist, argued that, ―rewards and extrinsic motivation yields
compliance, which is not, as Skinner suggested, a natural behaviour devoid of willful choice.
Furthermore, Kohn posited that it trains humans to expect rewards to such a large extent that they
fail to find motivation in the absence of a promised reward‖. He further postulated that the ―more
often rewards are used, the more humans become used to them and expect them, and the more
they are needed‖ (Kohn, 2004). Although Kohn acknowledged the role of rewards and punishment
in Behavioural Psychology, he argued that most of the experiments, studies and practices in this
regard, often involved animals other than humans (Classroom Management Theorists and
Theories, 2011). Rand and Chomsky (2011) also agreed with Kohn’s criticism of Skinner’s theory.
Rand disagreed, however, with the argument that ―memory is not influential in human choice, that
humans can simply be conditioned to adapt to particular environmental factors‖.
On his part, Chomsky argued that Skinner’s ―empirical evidence is non-transferable to the
complexity that exists in human’s ability to communicate and respond to a variety of
environmental influencers. The position of Hannah (2011) appeared to be more objective. In her
critique of Skinner’s theory, she argued: ―I see legitimacy in the classroom management and
learning theories of Skinner. His theories make sense and are familiar to me as a teacher, but I also
agree with arguments against his studies' reliance upon laboratory experiments with animals. Yet, I
also think that other theorists such as Kohn are quick to reduce Skinner’s prescriptions for the
classroom to an entirely superficial system of rewards and punishments. Skinner’s ideas are more
complex than this, beyond rewards and punishment. He stressed that the environment of a
classroom and school, both physical and temporal, should be conducive as possible to students’
learning. It should not be an environment that necessarily attempts to control that learning with
what we popularly called consequences.‖ In summary, Skinner’s theory, beyond praise and reward,
stresses immediate feedback, scaffolding and ensuring student’s success. According to Hannah,
these are teacher actions, and are the manipulation of the classroom environment. These can
hardly be critized by any educational theorist.

Conclusion
Skinner’s theory has varied relevance in school evaluation and effective management.
The focus of any school system is learning outcomes. As a result of this, an effective management
will desire the inputs from adequate evaluation. The entire process of classroom evaluation, teacher
evaluation, curriculum evaluation, leadership / management evaluation, and facilities evaluation,
all converge at the application of the right theories geared towards teaching and learning.
No doubt, there may have arisen some level of criticisms associated with Skinner’s theory, however,
we must be quick to add that it has tremendous relevance in the determination of teaching and
learning outcomes.

178
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

Recommendations
 Adequate feedback should be given to teachers to assist them in carrying out effective
self-evaluation.
 Learners should be rewarded so as to effectively improve on learning outcomes
 The administrators should be able to harness the strengths of the teachers for the right
management tools to enhance effectiveness.
 Teachers and administrators should be rightly remunerated in order to get the best
educational outcomes.
 The entire School System should apply Skinner’s theory, as this would lead to consistent
feedback and rewards in order to reinforce all segments in the system.

References:
1. Adenigbagbe, O.G. (1997). Psychology of human learning. Abeokuta: Stains Link.
2. Akinboye, J.O. (1992). Behaviour therapy and other treatment strategies. Ibadan:
Paperback Publishers Limited.
3. Behavioural Theory (2011). Operant conditioning in education. Retrieved from
mhtml:file://E:/New%20folder%20(3)/DETAILS%20…%200perant%20conditioning%20;…Retrie
ved on 31/5/2011.
4. Chauhan, S.S. (1992). Advanced educational psychology. New Delhi: Vikas publishing
House PVT ltd.
5. Classroom Management Theories and Theorists (2011). http://www.intime. unedu/
model/ teacher /teac.3summary.html.
6. Crowson, R.L, Mcpherson, R.B. and Pinter, N.J. (1986). Managing uncertainty:
Administrative theory and practice in education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
7. Cruickshank, B.R, and Haefele, D. (2001). Good teachers, plural. Education leadership,
58 (5), 26-30
8. Dawe, C. (2006). Professional Development within the changing culture of
schools.―Learning Theories and professional Development Education 6620: Issues and trends in
education computing, Dec. 3 2006.Memorial University of Newfoundland.
9. Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield-Cook, J., and Travers, J.F. (2000). Educational
psychology: Effective teaching effective learning. U.S.A: The McGraw Hill Companies.
10. Encyclopedia of Business (2011). Operant conditioning. 2nd ed. Retrieved on 17/6/2011.
From: file:///E://evaluation/operantconditioning.htm.
11. Fagbohungbe, B.O. and Longe, S.O. (2011). An introductory psychology: Concepts and
principles. Lagos: Kotleb consults.
12. Fischer, F.C. (2011). Supervision of instruction. Retrieved on 17/6/2011. From
file:///E:/evaluation/chap.3.htm.
13. Grice, R. (2011). Where knowledge rules: Psychology. Retrieved on 16/6 From:
file:///E:/evaluation/1753679-Skinners-theory of personality.htm.
14. Griffith, K.G. and Hamza, M.K. (2006). You can lead a horse to water but can you make
him think? Human Cognition’s Impact on How Well our Administrators can Jungle
The management of Human performance in Today’s schools. National Forum of Educational
Administration and supervision journal; volume 23, Number 4.
15. Hannum, W. (2011). Application of theories goals and objective individual differences
motivation teaching methods. Retrieved on 17/6/2014. From file:///E:/evaluation/evaluation.htm.
16. Hannah, H.A. (2011). Classroom management theorists and file://E:New.folder
93)/Burrhus-Federic-Skinner.1
17. Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2005). Doing nothing as a managerial behavior:
Development and preliminary validation of leader omission and extinction scales paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of management.
18. Hinkin, T.R. and Schrieshem, C.A. (2004). If you don’t hear from me you know you are
doing fine: The effect of management non-response to employee performance. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (4) 362-372.
19. Hofman, R.H, Dijikstra, N.J; Hofman, W.H.A. (2006). School (self) evaluation and
student achievement. APERA conference, 28 – 30 Nov, Hong Kong.

179
 European Journal of Psychological Studies, 2014, Vol.(4), № 4

20. Jones, J. (1993). Appraisal and staff development in schools. London: Davidfulton
Publishers
21. Kio, J.S. Ojodu, H.O. and Ogunyomi, P.O (2011). Introduction to organizational
behaviour Lagos: Dartrade limited.
22. Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? Boston: Beacon press.
23. Mergel, B. (2011). Instructional design & learning theories. From:
file:///E:/evaluation/brenda. htm. retrieved on 16/6/2014
24. Oladele, J.O. (2004). Educational psychology. Lagos: John Lad publishers.
25. Omomia, T. A. (2008). Effectiveness of vicarious reinforcement and contingency
contracting techniques in the enhancement of academic achievement of impulsive Junior
Secondary School Students in Lagos State. Ph.D. Thesis. Dept. of Guidance and Counselling.
University of Ibadan. xiv + 223pp.
26. Ramiah, B.A/L. (2007). Headmasters’ reinforcement behaviour and teachers’
performance in primary school. 14th National Seminar on Educational leadership and management.
25th – 27th June. Kementerian pelajaran, Malaysia.
27. Rand, A. and Chomsky, N (2011). Classroom management theorists and theories.
Retrieved from file://E:New folder (3) Burrhus_Federic_Skinner. Retrieved on 31/52014
28. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human nature. NewYork: Macmillan.
29. Wikibooks (2011). Classroom management theorists and theories/Burrhus Frederic
Skinner. Retrieved from file:///E:/New Folder (3) Burrhus_Federic_Skinner.
30. WikEd. (2011). Skinner, B.F. Application in classroom and similar settings. Retrieved on
17/6/2014. From file:///E./ evaluation/skinner,_B.-F.htm.
31. Wolfgang, C.H. (2001). Behavioural analysis. Model (Glossary definitions). Solving
discipline and classroom management problems, 5th Ed. P.21-49. Wiley/Jossey. Bass Education.

180