1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
One of the highest functions of the human brain is performance. This is due to the fact that only man can perform, obey, or understand orders. Indeed, performance is an important learning tool. That is why educators developed "rewards and punishments" as a component to uncover motivations that will encourage interest and effort on the part of the student (Ahmed 2012). Teachers acknowledge the impact of incentives and punishments as a motivator, which is a necessary prerequisite for learning.
Teachers typically used a variety of tactics, including the use of sanctions, to deal with undesirable conduct. Such an approach may appear to aid a youngster at first, but it is no longer helpful in the long run. Punishment is a bad strategy, and using it as a disciplinary method is harsh. Many have resorted to rewarding praise and acts of recognition of students, which are probably healthy indications to offer children with a sense of security and belonging, as well as the desire to study more (Ahmed 2012).
Uzor, (2002) investigated the effects of reward and response cost on the performance and motivation of 40 children with ADHD and 40 controls in their study. Under one of three situations (reward, response cost, or no contingency), participants completed an arithmetic problem. Pretest attributional measures, direct performance measurements, self-rated performance and motivation, and a post contingency "free-choice" behavioral motivation measure were among the dependent variables. Children with ADHD had a less adaptive attributional style than controls, and their attributions for predicted good and poor performance differed. Response cost enhanced accuracy on the arithmetic task and resulted in better motivation in the second part of the behavioral motivation measure for children with ADHD compared to reward; nevertheless, reward had a considerably more salutory effect on self-rated motivation. Neither the reward nor the response cost had any detrimental influence on perceived performance or willingness to complete the task.
Beeter (2009) conducted a study to see how continuous, partial, and non-contingent incentive schedules, as well as reward withdrawal, affected the performance of hyperactive and normal control children on a delayed reaction time test. Although non-contingent reward caused control participants to have faster reaction times, hyperactive subjects' performance declined under non-contingent reward and improved when it was removed. Moreover, during extinction, control reaction times remained superior to baseline, whereas hyperactive performance returned to baseline. These and other data were said to hint to hyperactive toddlers having an extraordinary sensitivity to rewards.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Teachers might react in a variety of ways to students who do not meet academic standards. Some of these reactions are purely utilitarian, while others are purely punishing. Many authors like Uzor, (2002) looked into these reactions, as well as the circumstances that affect when these various techniques are likely to be applied. Both undergraduates playing instructors and genuine high school teachers used tributional information to influence their responses to academic failure in a similar way. Punitive and retributive tactics are elicited by controllable reasons of failure, whereas utilitarian responses are elicited by lack of controllability. Teachers' responses to failing students are moderated by the cause's stability (Umoh 2015). Inferences of responsibility, emotional reactions of anger and sympathy, and beliefs in the efficacy of the intervention are mediated in part by inferences of responsibility, emotional reactions of anger and sympathy, and beliefs in the efficacy of the intervention. In terms of student motivation and classroom performance, the ramifications of this paradigm are examined.
Gonzalez (1987) stated that when a child's behavior becomes so disruptive that it interferes with his academic performance, some effort to improve student behavior appears to be appropriate. He goes on to say that regulations, praise, and ignoring all played a part in resolving disruptive behavior in the classroom.