the contributions of teaching type and perceived task difficulty on competency

Running Head: TEACHING, DIFFICULTY, AND COMPETENCY 1

The Contributions of Teaching Type and Perceived Task Difficulty on Competency

Sasha C. Albrecht

University of Wisconsin – Madison

TEACHING, DIFFICULTY, AND COMPETENCY

Operant conditioning has a constant presence in everyday life. It is innate

human behavior to repeat behaviors that elicit a positive response and ignore or

quell behaviors that elicit a negative consequence. This process is known as operant

conditioning. Naturally occurring behavior is strengthened through the method of

reinforcement. Reinforcement can either be positive, the addition of a pleasant

stimulus (such as a hug) or negative, the removal of an unpleasant stimulus (such as

the decrease/absence of pain after taking medication). Conversely, behavior is

weakened through punishment. Punishment can also be positive, the addition of a

negative stimulus (such as physical abuse) or negative, the removal of a pleasant

stimulus (such as taking away a child’s allowance). One application of operant

conditioning is shaping. Shaping describes the process of rewarding successive

approximations of a desired behavior until the entire behavior can be produced.

For example, when teaching a dog to shake, at first just lifting the paw off the ground

would be reinforced. When this behavior can be performed on command, the

instructor may only reward the dog after it bends its leg as well. This process

continues until the dog performs a successful shake.

Marschark and Baenninger (2002) applied the technique of operant

conditioning to teach dogs a more complicated behavior, sheep herding. The

researchers observed shepherds and their herding dogs over several months to

determine the most effective methods of operant conditioning for sheep herding.

When the dogs performed the correct behaviors they were negatively reinforced

with access to the sheep. Access to the sheep is negative reinforcement because the

trainer would get out of the way of the dog, removing their body from between the

2


dog and the sheep. On the other hand, when the dogs performed incorrect

behaviors, they were negatively punished with blocked access to the sheep. By

observing the effects of each method of training, Marschark and Baenninger

concluded that punishment can be equally as useful as reinforcement, if not more so.

Moreover, the researchers challenged the belief that positive reinforcement was the

key to behavior training and that negative reinforcement and punishment can be

effective alternatives.

Operant conditioning can also be used to study human behavior. Vallerand

(1983) studied the relationship between the amounts of positive reinforcement, in

this case verbal praise, with intrinsic motivation of hockey players. The athletes

completed a decision-making task concerning hockey scenarios and received no

feedback or one of four amounts of feedback ranging from occasional praise to

praise on every trial. After the task, the players completed an intrinsic motivation

questionnaire and a competency self-report. Vallerand found significant differences

between the control and every reinforcement condition. No significant difference

was found between the reinforcement groups. The results from Vallerand’s study

suggest that it is not the amount of positive feedback that affects intrinsic

motivation and competence; it is just the presence of reinforcement that increases

the two.

Another variable that can influence motivation and competence is perceived

difficulty of a task. Hong (1999) studied the perception of test difficulty in relation

to text anxiety. In Hong’s experiment, participants in the study completed

questionnaires measuring anxiety levels at different stages of the exam. A student’s

3


perception of the test’s difficulty was shown to have a direct effect on his/her

resulting worry and emotionality. These two factors were then shown to have a

direct effect on test performance. Those who perceived the test to be challenging

expressed more worry and emotionality than those who perceived the test to be less

challenging. Hong also found that the perceptions of difficulty during and after the

exam had a stronger effect on the arousal of worry and emotionality than the

perceptions before the exam.

Feather (1963) also studied the perception of task difficulty on competence,

except Feather manipulated these perceptions. Instead of relying on the individual’s

perception of difficulty, Feather told participants that an anagram task was

relatively difficult or that it was rather easy to complete, when in fact the task was

incredibly challenging. Participants in the difficult condition reported less

confidence in their ability before beginning the task. Conversely, participants in the

easy condition reported more confidence in their perceived ability to complete the

task. According to Feather’s measures, the confidence of the individuals in the easy

condition decreased rapidly throughout the task as the participants realized they

were not readily succeeding. At the conclusion of the task, participants in the easy

condition reported more disappointment in their performance and anxiety than

individuals in the difficult condition. Individuals whose initial expectations of

difficulty were met, the difficult condition, experienced greater competency in the

task than individuals whose initial expectations were not met, the easy condition.

The present experiment analyzes both the effects of operant

conditioning and perceived task difficulty on participant competence in a game with

4


a goal of finding a treasure chest and avoiding a bomb. This study incorporates both

positive reinforcement and positive punishment on competence level, unlike the

Marschark and Baenninger (2002) study, which focused on negative reinforcement

and punishment, and the Vallerand (1983), which solely examined positive

reinforcement. Moreover, the experiment expands on the ideas of Hong (1999) and

Feather (1963) by looking at the relationship between perceived difficulty level and

task competence. Both conditioning and perceived task difficulty were studied to

determine whether conditioning type: positive reinforcement or positive

punishment and perceived difficulty level: difficult, easy, or control had main effects

and interactions. Individuals in the positive reinforcement condition were told

“yes” when they made a correct move, i.e. toward the treasure chest. Participants in

the positive punishment condition heard “no” when they made an incorrect move,

i.e. toward the bomb. Before the game began, participants were read one of three

instructions, which informed them that the game was rather difficult, rather easy, or

did not refer to the difficulty level of the game, the control condition.

Based on the previous studies, the type of operant conditioning used in the

game is predicted to cause a main effect. It is expected that positive reinforcement

elicits higher competency ratings compared to positive punishment because

previous studies with human participants have shown that positive reinforcements

boosts intrinsic motivation and feelings of competence. A main effect is also

expected based on perceived difficulty level, such that individuals in the easy

condition will rate their competence as lower than those in the control and in the

difficult condition. The control and the difficult conditions may have no significant

5


differences. Unlike Hong’s (1999) experiment, the participants were told what to

perceive. Thus, the results should more closely correspond with Feather’s (1963)

study, where participants in the easy condition experience more anxiety than

individuals in the difficult condition. An interaction between the conditioning of the

teaching method and the perceived task difficulty is expected. Individuals in the

positive reinforcement condition will have similar competency levels in the control

and the easy condition, but higher levels in the difficult condition. Participants in

the positive punishment condition will have similar levels of competency in the

control and difficult conditions, but lower levels in the easy condition.

Method

Participants

Experimenters were undergraduate students at the University of Wisconsin,

who conducted the experiment as a course requirement. Each experimenter

selected two participants for the study for a total of 92 participants. Ages varied

between 18 and 58 years old (M=22.57, SD=8.15) and consisted of 33 males and 59

females. Experimenters treated the students in compliance with the APA’s “Ethical

Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” (American Psychological

Association, 2002).

Design

The experiment utilized a 2x3 mixed factorial design. The first independent

variable, teaching type, had two levels: positive reinforcement and positive

punishment. The second independent variable, perceived task difficulty had three

6


levels. These levels were: difficult, easy, and control. The dependent variable was

competency rating, based on a questionnaire with four questions ranging on a scale

from 1-7.

Materials

The experimenters read aloud from an instructor’s script. Each participant

sat at an individual station and received four 8x8 grid game boards. After playing

the first two rounds of the game, each participant completed a questionnaire

measuring his/her competency. This questionnaire was also filled out after the final

two rounds of the game. The questionnaire contained four questions on a Likert

scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The questions were based on the

participants feelings of frustration, competency, progress made in the game, and

irritation. The questions regarding frustration and irritation were reverse scored.

The mean score from all four questions was recorded as the individual’s

competency rating.

Procedure

Experimenters were split into pairs and assigned a perceived task difficulty

condition to manipulate. Experimenters alternated which teaching method was

used in which rounds. For example, one experimenter began with two rounds of

positive reinforcement and the other began with positive punishment. Four

treasure chest and bomb locations were given to the experimenters, who alternated

the locations of the chest and the bomb with their teaching condition. For example,

one used two locations for positive reinforcement and the other used the same two

locations for positive punishment. One experimenter conducted the study one-on-

7


one with a subject. The goal of the game was to locate the treasure chest in as few

moves as possible while attempting to avoid the bomb. Before beginning the game,

experimenters read a set of instructions that contained information about the

difficulty level of the task. Those assigned to the difficulty condition were informed

that the task was incredibly challenging. Those in the easy condition heard the task

was relatively simple. The individuals in the control did not receive any information

regarding the difficulty level of the game.

Participants began the task in the center of the board on a circle. Their first

move could be one of the four squares bordering the circle. From then on,

participants had to choose a square adjacent to their current square. This means

any square that was vertically, horizontally, or diagonally bordering their former

square. When a participant selected a square to move to, he/she placed an “x” on

that square. Once a square was marked with an “x,” the participant could not move

there again. If, however, that square blocked another square they desired to move

to, the participant could “jump” the square and skip over it. In the positive

reinforcement condition, the experimenter said, “Yes” if the participant moved

closer to the treasure chest, while giving no information regarding the location of

the bomb. If the participant did not move closer toward the treasure chest, the

experimenter said nothing. In the positive punishment condition, the experimenter

said “No” if the participant moved closer to the bomb, while giving no information

regarding the location of the treasure chest. Once again, if the participant did not

move closer to the bomb, the experimenter said nothing. When the participant

landed on the treasure chest square, the experimenter said “Correct!” and the game

8


concluded. After each round of the game, participants completed a questionnaire

measuring their competency. To conclude the experiment, participants were

debriefed.

Results

A main effect for teaching method was predicted such that individuals in the

positive reinforcement condition would have higher competency ratings than

individuals in the positive punishment condition. A 2x3 mixed ANOVA found a

significant difference in competency ratings between the two instruction conditions,

F (1, 89) = 68.1, p < .001. Individuals in the positive reinforcement condition (M =

5.86, SD = 1.01) scored significantly higher than individuals in the positive

punishment condition (M = 4.49, SD = 1.46).

Another main effect was expected for the perceived difficulty condition.

Participants in the easy condition were expected to have lower competency ratings

than participants in the other two conditions (control and difficult), who were not

expected to significantly differ. No significant difference was found between the

conditions, F (2, 89) = 2.01, p = .14. Individuals in the easy condition (M = 4.95, SD =

1.3) did not significantly differ in competency ratings from the control condition (M

= 5.13, SD = 1.2). Participants in the easy condition did not significantly differ from

the difficult condition (M = 5.44, SD = 1.01) in competency ratings either. Moreover,

there was no significant difference between the ratings of the control and the

difficult conditions, which was expected.

An interaction was expected to occur such that individuals in the positive

reinforcement condition will have similar competency levels in the control and the

9


easy condition, but higher levels in the difficult condition. Moreover, participants in

the positive punishment condition will have similar levels of competency in the

control and difficult conditions, but lower levels in the easy condition. The ANOVA

found no significant interaction, F (2, 89) = 1.3, p = .28. The error bars on Figure 1

show significant overlap between the teaching methods for each difficulty condition.

This overlap supports the claim that no interaction was found. A LSD post-hoc with

a critical value of 0.57 at the .05 level was used. The LSD compared teaching method

levels across the perceived difficulty levels (i.e. the mean difference between

positive reinforcement and positive punishment was calculated in the control, easy,

and difficult conditions). All three groups met the criterion, therefore significant

differences in the means existed for each perceived difficulty condition. Individuals

in the control condition had higher competency ratings in the positive

reinforcement level (M = 6.01, SD = 0.87) than in the positive punishment level (M =

4.25, SD = 1.59). Moreover, participants in the easy condition had higher

competency ratings in the positive reinforcement condition (M = 5.56, SD = 1.17)

than in the positive punishment condition (M = 4.34, SD = 1.43). Similar results

were found in the difficult condition. Individuals in the positive reinforcement

condition (M = 6, SD = 1.06) had greater competency rankings than in the positive

punishment condition (M = 4.87, SD = 1.36).

An inter-item reliability analysis was run to determine the quality of the

competency questionnaire. The analysis found a Cronbach’s alpha value of .828.

The Cronbach’s alpha if the frustration question was deleted was .763. The value for

10


the competency question was .802. Cronbach’s alpha for the progress question

was .79. Lastly, the value for the irritation question was .776.

Discussion

A significant main effect for teaching method was found as individuals in the

positive reinforcement condition had significantly higher competency ratings than

when in the positive punishment condition. This result supports Vallerand’s (1983)

study of hockey players. Vallerand found that any amount of positive reinforcement

increased the players’ intrinsic motivation and feelings of competency. This effect

also confirms the hypothesis that positive reinforcement would lead to higher

competency than positive punishment as a teaching method. These results suggest

that positive reinforcement may be a more effective teaching method for human

participants. Marschark and Baenninger (2002) found positive punishment was

possibly more effective for herding dogs. However, since the two studies focusing

on humans (Vallerand’s and the present study) both found positive reinforcement to

be a more effective teaching method, these are probably the most applicable to

human learning.

A main effect for perceived task difficulty was not found. No significant

differences in competency ratings existed based on whether the participants were

told the task was easy, difficult, or were not provided with information on difficulty

(control). These results are inconsistent with previous studies on perceived task

difficulty and the hypothesis, which expected participants in the easy condition to

have significantly lower competency levels than individuals in the other two

conditions. One possible explanation for the conflicting results is that the perceived

11


difficulty level was given to the participants before the participated in the task.

Hong (1999) found that the participants’ perceptions during the exam significantly

influenced their feelings of competency.

No significant interaction between teaching method and perceived task

difficulty was found. This differed from the original hypothesis, which expected an

interaction to produce significant differences in the easy condition and the difficult

condition based on reinforcement type.

The inter-item reliability analysis found a Cronbach’s alpha value of .828.

This is a relatively strong value, which means that the individual questionnaire

items correlated with the other items rather well to assess task competency. No real

outliers existed in the Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted analysis, meaning all of the

questions assessed competency similarly.

One of the blaring limitations of the experiment is that it was conducted by a

high number of experimenters. Each individual experimenter could contribute a

significant amount of confounds. These confounds could include how quickly the

experimenter reinforced or punished the participant, the vocal tone of the

experimenter, and the relationship of the experimenter to the participant. This

method of experimenting was selected to allow students a chance to be in the

experimenter role and was thus necessary for the experiment. However, in the

future, if the experiment were repeated, it would make sense to attempt to limit the

number of experimenters. Another possible problem of the experiment also related

to the experimenters. The experimenters were undergraduate students with

relatively no appearance of authority or mastery of the subject. Participants may

12


have taken the self-report less seriously since the task was administered by a peer

(or conversely someone younger). Results may be different if a professor or other

individual with authority administered the task, as he/she would appear to be a

legitimate authority figure and experimenter.

Research concerning teaching method and perceived task difficulty could be

expanded to physical tasks. The task studied in this experiment was mostly

cognitive and may have different results than a task concerned with physical

activity, such as learning a basketball play. Marschark and Baenninger (2002)

studied a physical task, sheep herding, with an animal species. A comparable task

for human participants could be used to examine if positive punishment was also an

effective training method for the task. An interaction between teaching method and

reinforcement type could also be explored.

This study concluded that positive reinforcement leads to higher competency

in a task than positive punishment. The perceived difficulty of the task before it

begins is insignificant. Moreover, the two factors do not lead to an interaction.

These results could potentially be generalized to other types of learning. Teachers

may be encouraged to solely use positive reinforcement with students in order to

help them feel competent in their studies. This method could also be used for

individuals who feel insecure or inept at performing a particular task. If the

individuals are re-taught the task with positive reinforcement, they may feel more

capable in their abilities. Positive reinforcement seems to be an effective method of

eliciting competence in individuals being taught how to perform a specific task.

13


References

Feather, N. (1965). Performance at a difficult task in relation to initial expectation of success, test anxiety, and need achievement. Journal of Personality, 33(2), 200-217.

Hong, E. (1999). Test anxiety, perceived test difficulty, and test performance: Temporal patterns of their effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 11(4), 431-447.

Marschark, E. D. & Baenninger, R. (2002). Modification of instinctive herding dog behavior using reinforcement and punishment. Anthrozoos, 15, 51-68.

Vallerand, R. J. (1983). The effect of differential amounts of positive verbal feedback on the intrinsic motivation of male hockey players. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 100-107.

14


Control Easy Difficult0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Positive ReinforcementPositive Punishment

Perceived Difficulty

Com

pete

ncy

Ratin

g

Figure 1. The interaction of teaching method and perception of difficulty on competency.

15

the contributions of teaching type and perceived task difficulty on competency

Documents