Michael Caruso wrote:
> I agree that using the term "negative reinforcer" in this way would be
> confising to students. When I was instructing part-time in grad school,
the
> text I was given used the term negative reinforcer in this way. I didn't
> use that term in class, and I assume that most intro texts dropped using
> that term because it would make a difficult concept (negative
reinforcement)
> even more difficult for the novice to understand. I'm just pointing out
> that I don't think his graphics are technically incorrect. I do however
> think there are much better ways to try to explain the ideas to intro
> students.
Hmm. Again, I'm no expert, but I do think that the graphics are
technically incorrect, and I suspect that the book that you were given to
teach from in grad school was as well.
As others have pointed out, there seems to be general agreement that
"reinforcement" always involves increases in the probability of the behavior
(in fact, that "reinforcement" is defined that way). The use of "negative
reinforcer" as a synonym (or near synonym) for punishment runs directly
counter to that. I'd be interested in seeing a general definition of
"reinforcement" in that text that you were given - I'd imagine it would have
to be pretty convoluted, in particular because at least at times
"reinforcement" would be the _opposite_ of what you got from the use of a
"reinforcer". <insert icon with extremely curious and confused look here>
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
