VoL67,No.2,pp.l73-186.&200I The Council for Excepiioiial Children

Exceptional Children

Rewarded by Punishment:Reflections on the Disuseof Positive Reinforcementin Schools

JOHN W. MAAGJJn iversity ofNebraska-l. inco In

ABSTRACT: Most uppToaches foT dealing with student disruptions involve the use of %>ariousforms of punishment such as removals from the classroom, fines, restitiitional activities, in-school and out-of school suspensions, and expulsions. Although some of these approaches maymake schools safer hy removing the offending students, they have little effect on encouragingstudents to perform socially appropriate behaviors. There are many reasons why educatorsfind punishment a more acceptable approach for managing students" challenging behaviorsthan positive reinforcement. This article delineates these reasons and argues for educators toplan the occun-ence of positive reinforcement to increase appropriate behaviors rather thanrunning the risk of it haphazardly promoting inappropriate behaviors.

Perhaps no other discipline hasreceived as much criticismfrom various factions of soci-ety as has public education.This statement should come as

no surprise because public education has alwaysbeen a convenient political whipping post forsome fanatical ideologues to explain a variety ofsocial ills (Reid, 1997). Criticisms often resonatewith the public because many of them cannot bedisproven. For example, there is no way to re-fute the contention that 'education has failed"because it is inconceivable to experimentally testthis belief by forming two groups of children—atreatment group that receives education and a

control group that does not receive education.Sagan (1996) cogently pointed out how asser-tions that cannot be tested and are immune todisproof are functionally useless regardless of tbedegree of popular support they may enjoy.Other more specific criticisms of public educa-tion such as declining achievement test scores,unresponsive schools, and bloated or top-heavyadministrations are outright false (Berliner &Biddle, 1995).

There are, of course, some negative socialcommentaries on public education that may bejustified. For example, funding for public educa-tion has been inequitable and tbe infrastructureof many cities has been crumbling, which fiir-

Exceptional Children 173

ther detracts from the prospect of sendingmoney to inner-city schools (Kozol, 1991). An-other legitimate criticism of public education isthat it precipitously adopts policies and proce-dures that often amount to nothing more thanempirically groundless passing fads. The mostobvious example was the dissatisfaction with theteaching of mathematics, expressed mostly vo-cally by university teacher educators, which cul-minated after the launch of the first RussianSputnik in 1957. This criticism resulted in thewholesale implementation of (then) "new math"which, predictably, was introduced into theschools without any discernible theory of howchange was to be effected nor criteria by whichits effects were to be evaluated (Sarason, 1982).A further important criticism central to this ar-ticle and with wide-reaching educational imph-cations—especially given the inclusionZeitgeist—is the inadequate way teachers areprepared for managing the increasingly chal-lenging behaviors of students that attend puhlicschool. Students' behaviors become challengingwhen traditional approaches to manage themhave failed.

Ironically, hehavior management has heenconsistently mentioned by teachers as an area inwhich they would like more training (Maag,1999). This omission is amazing consideringthat the technology for proactively and posi-tively managing students' behaviors has existedsince Skinner's (1953) seminal work in develop-ing, and elucidating upon the use of, principlesof operant learning theory. Since that time,techniques based on positive rein-forcement—such as applications of tokeneconomies, behavioral contracts, and group-ori-ented contingencies—have been well developedand empirically validated (Maag & Kotlash,1994). Novel applications of positive reinforce-ment include the use of chart moves, lotteriesand raffles, 100 square chart, mystery motiva-tors, and the compliance matrix (see Rhode,jenson, & Reavis, 1995, for a description ofthese novel techniques based on positive rein-forcement).

Positive reinforcement is a universal prin-ciple that is in effect regardless of the age,gender, culture, or disability of a child(Wielkiewicz, 1995). Why, then, is it infre-

quently incorporated into college and universityteacher training programs? A more perplexingquestion may be why behavior managementtechniques based on positive reinforcement areroutinely rejected, and even abhorred, by educa-tors and the general public?

Ironically, behavior management hasheen consistently mentioned by teachers asan area in which they would like moretraining. . . :

Probably more than any other recent pub-lication, Kohn's book. Punished by Rewards(1993), crystallized the rejection of techniquesbased on positive reinforcement, and struck achord that continues to resonate throughout ed-ucation and society. Although Kohn's argumentshave been well received by much of the educa-tional profession, his conclusions ignored signif-icant bodies of literature that provided moresupport for hehavioral procedures than he ac-knowledged (Cameron & Pierce, 1994). Never-theless, ideas such as Kohn's have found anapparently wide and receptive audience. Axelrod(1996) helieved that techniques based on posi-tive reinforcement lack popular and professionalacceptability because they are time-intensive,offer little compensation for educators, contra-dict popular views of developmental psychology,threaten special interest groups, are socially un-acceptable, and demean humans. Ironically,punishment—also a behavioral technique—iswidely accepted because it agrees with popularnotions about scbool discipline. Axelrod latersuggested more optimistically in the same articlethat the remedy for the criticisms positive rein-forcement has generated is for professionals tocontinue to work in areas in which they are wel-come, to take advantage of opportunities inemerging areas of acceptability, and to employlanguage and procedures that are more pleasingto practitioners.

Educators do not readily welcome Axel-rod s (1996) recommendations even thoughtechniques based on positive reinforcement havehad a tremendous impact on managing students'challenging behaviors. Instead, they emhrace

Winter 2001

punishment because it is easy to administer,works for many students without challengingbehaviors, and has been part ofthe Judeo-Chris-tian history that dominates much of our society.Therefore, the purpose of this article is to con-sider why educators find punishment to be amore acceptable approach for managing stu-dents' behaviors than positive reinforcement andto argue tbat the latter is mucb more effectivethan the former.

Three propositions are put forth to sup-port these assumptions. First, positive reinforce-ment is ignored and misunderstood because of astrong cultural ethos tbat encourages punish-ment. Second, the punishment paradigm tbatpermeates education distorts teachers' knowl-edge of several important terms associated witbmanaging students' behaviors. Third, althoughcontrary to the beliefs of many educators andKohn (1993), positive reinforcement is a univer-sal principle that occurs naturally in every class-room. Therefore, educators should plan itsoccurrence to increase appropriate behaviorsrather than running the risk of it haphazardlypromoting inappropriate behaviors.

Techniques based on positive reinforce-ment have heen, and continue to he,ignored and misunderstood.

The information presented in this articleis intended for both special and general educa-tion teacbers at the elementary and secondarylevels. Elementary teacbers may appear to havean advantage in using techniques based on posi-tive reinforcement because they often interactwith the same set of 25 to 30 students for mostof the school day. Conversely, secondary teach-ers may see as many as 180 to 200 studentsacross six to seven periods a day. This actualitymay add greater difficulties and complexities.However, the difficulties and complexities areno greater than those currently encountered bythose teachers who have found the use of pun-ishment ineffective for managing challengingbehaviors of students. In addition, the threepropositions described in this article lead to spe-

cific implications for practice that educators,parents, researchers, and tbe general public canuse to plan for the occurrence of appropriate be-havior rather than reacting to the occurrence ofproblem behavior.

W H Y P O S I T I V ER E I N F O R C E M E N T I S I G N O R E DA N D M I S U N D E R S T O O D

Techniques based on positive reinforcementhave been, and continue to be, ignored and mis-understood. Disavowing the effectiveness ofpositive reinforcement is a common, albeit falla-cious, way to avoid critically analyzing its appli-cations and contributions to education.Explanations for this misunderstanding may begrounded in a basic cultural ethos: The percep-tion of living in a society in which individualsare free to do as they wish—as long as they doso in a socially appropriate manner—withoutcoercion. In this context, coercion is simply theabsence of external pressure—being internallymotivated to behave well. Tbis societal valuecontributes to the widespread acceptance of apunishment mentality that ignores data indicat-ing the effectiveness of techniques based on pos-itive reinforcement.

FREEDOM VERSUS COERCION

Techniques based on positive reinforcement areoften perceived to threaten individuals' freedomas autonomous human beings. Ironically, pun-ishment, which is the opposite of positive rein-forcement, appears much more acceptablebecause of the perception that it does notthreaten individuals' autonomy—people believethey are free to choose to behave in responsibleways to avoid punishment (Maag, 1996). Thedefinitions of both terms are deceptively simple.Positive reinforcement increases tbe probabilitythat the behavior it follows recurs. Punishmentdecreases the probability that the bebavior it fol-lows recurs in the future. The deceptive natureof these terms is described shortly. The salientpoint here is that positive reinforcement hasbeen erroneously viewed as being externally ap-plied, thereby intimating those individuals havebebaved in certain ways not because they were

Exceptional Children

internally motivated hut because they werebeing coerced (Maag, 1999). Skinner (1971)placed punishment and motivation in the fol-lowing perspective:

The trouble is that when we punish a personfor behaving badly, we leave it up to him todiscover how to behave well, and he can thenget credit for behaving well . . . . At issue is anattribute of autonomous man. Men are to be-have well only because they are good. (p. 62)

As well as being perceived as less coercive thanpositive reinforcement, punishment is alsoviewed as a highly effective way for society tocontrol its memhers. This view was expressedseveral centuries ago by Macbiavelli (1903,1935) when he discussed the attributes of con-trolling men: "it is much safer to he feared thanloved . . . for they are entirely yours; they offeryou their hlood, their goods, their life, and theirchildren" (p. 90). Skinner further noted:

If we no longer resort to torture iu what we callthe civilized world, we nevertheless still makeextensive use of punitive techniques in hothdomestic and foreign relations. And apparentlyfor good reasons. Nature if not God has createdman in such a way that he can be controlledpunitively. People quickly become skillfiil pun-ishers (if not, thereby, skillful controllers),whereas alternative positive measures are noteasily learned. The need for punishment seemsto have the support of history, and alternativepractices threaten the cherished valued of free-dom and dignity, (p. 75)

This well-ingrained historical and culturalethos has resulted in a kind o{ paradigm paraly-sis—"a condition of terminal certainty"—thatprevents people from understanding techniquesbased on positive reinforcement and acknowl-edging tbeir effectiveness. The paralysis hascompletely fortified the punishment mentalitythat permeates education and much of society.

THE PUNISHMENT PARADIGM

A punishment paradigm has evolved, and beenadvocated for, since biblical times and is re-flected in the proverb "spare the rod and spoilthe child." Besides having history on its side, apunishment mentality has heen perpetuated for

the simple reason that punishing students hastraditionally been highly reinforcing to teachers.

Punishment often can produce arapid—although often temporary—suppressionin most students' inappropriate behaviors(Maag, 1999). Furthermore, because punish-ment techniques may he quickly and easily ad-ministered, teachers have found them quitedesirable to suppress a variety of classroom dis-ruptions. For example, a teacher may find a stu-dent's "obnoxious" behaviors to be aversive.Being sent out of the classroom to sit in the hallor principal's office may be punishing if the stu-dent finds exclusion from others aversive. Con-sequently, the teacher has been reinforced forsending the student out of the room becausethat act terminated the unpleasantness of thestudent's behavior. Technically, the teacher hasbeen negatively reinforced. This principle is ineffect when any behavior (e.g., sending a studentout of the room) results in the removal of anaversion (e.g., a student's obnoxious behavior).Consequently, the behavior that terminated anaversion is more likely to he performed in thefuture (Axelrod & Hall, 1999}- In the case ofpunishment, a vicious cycle is perpetuated:Teachers are negatively reinforced for punishingstudents which, in turn, increases the use ofpunishment, which then reinforces teachers forusing it.

The property of punishment that teachersfind reinforcing (e.g., sending a student out ofthe room) leads to a related, and undesirable,phenomenon called the "negative reinforcementtrap." Patterson (1975) coined this term to ex-plain coercive relationships that sometime evolvehetween parents and children, although itsemergence can also be observed between teach-ers and students. In the previous example, a stu-dent was removed from the classroom forengaging in behaviors the teacher found obnox-ious. If the student lacked the necessary skills forperforming the stipulated assignment or foundit boring, then being removed from tbe class-room negatively reinforced the student's perfor-mance of ohnoxious behaviors because thesehehaviors terminated the perceived unpleasant-ness of the assignment. Consequently, teachersand students have often been caught in a trap inwhich both individuals were negatively rein-

1 7 6 Winter 2001

forced for engaging in counterproductive behav-iors.

There is another very powerful reason whypunishment continues to be used—it works forabout 95% of students attending public schools(Maag, 1999). Despite the fact that students' be-haviors have recently become increasingly vio-lent and challenging for teachers to manage(e.g.. General Accounting Office, 1997), moststudents attending public schools neverthelessbehave fairly well. Consequently, mild forms ofpunishments, such as the use of verbal repri-mands, fines, or occasional removals from theclassroom, typically control most students' be-haviors. However, these types of consequencesare ineffective for about 5% of students who dis-play the most challenging behaviors (i.e., thosethat do not respond to traditional forms of pun-ishment}.

The paradigm paralysis mentality pro-ceeds in the following manner: Because mildforms of punishment work for most students,then the solution for teachers with the 5% ofstudents with the most challenging behaviors isto simply punish them severely and more often.This reaction, although easily foreseen, results inthe application of linear interventions (Watz.law-ick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974}. For example, if astudent stays after school for misbehaving, theproblem is presumed to have been addressed bythe consequence. But what if the student misbe-haves again? The linear solution would be tokeep the student after school for 2 days, then 3,and so forth. This type of solution is simply"more ofthe same" and seldom works. In fact, ifpunishment were effective, it would be used lessrather than more frequently, a point that is elu-cidated upon shortly.

ICNORINC DA TA

Researchers have typically relied on empiricaldata to convince people of the effectiveness of aparticular technique, model, or approach. If thistactic worked, applications of positive reinforce-ment would have already enjoyed much morewidespread acceptance and implementation be-cause the successful clinical, educational, andreal-life applications are truly remarkable. Theeffectiveness of this body of research has beenwell documented in various journals and books

over the past 20 years (Martin & Pear, 1996}.Unfortunately, empirical data has little effect be-cause people often only see that for which theyare looking. For example, Kuhn (1970) foundthat scientists had considerable difficulty per-ceiving data that did not match the expectationscreated by their paradigms. In some cases, theysimply ignored unexpected data. Other times,they distorted the data until they fit their para-digm rather than acknowledging them as an ex-ception to the rules. Tn extreme cases, Kuhndiscovered that scientists were physiologically in-capable of perceiving unexpected data—for allintents and purposes the data were invisible.

Ktihn (1970} studied scientists in disci-plines such as biology, chemistry, and physics.However, this phenomenon can also be observedin other fields. Two examples from the specialeducation literature come immediately to mind:modality-based instruction and facilitated com-munication (Bilken, 1992; Dunn, 1990}. Inboth instances, proponents have had a vested in-terest in perpetuating their use and have tena-ciotisly clung to the belief that they are effectiveeven though well-accepted empirical methods ofinquiry have proven otherwise (e.g., Green,1994; Kavale & Forness, 1987}. Another tellingexample can be found in the following quote byGresham and MacMillan (1998) in their reviewof the study published by Lovaas (1987) con-cerning the efficacy of his Early InterventionProject (EIP} for children with autism: "TheEIP authors seem unwilling to admit anymethodological flaws in the sampling, design,and analysis ofthe data" (p. 5}.

The solution to this problem may not beto keep trying to inculcate teachers with datasupporting the effectiveness of positive rein-forcement. At worst, teachers will reject it evenmore because techniques based on positive rein-forcement do not match their paradigms. Atbest, they will simply say that its effectivenesscannot be disproved. Sagan (1996} clearly ex-plained this propensity by using the analogy ofsomeone purporting to have a dragon in hisgarage: It is difficult to disprove this assumptionif the dragon is invisible, floats in the air,breathes heatless fire, and is incorporeal. There-fore it cannot be seen, spreading flour on thefloor cannot capture its footprints, an infrared

Exceptional Chilelre7i

sensor cannot monitor the fire, and paint willnot stick to its skin. The misleading, yet plausi-ble, conclusion is that the dragon "exists" be-cause its existence cannot be disproved. Instead,the solution is to describe positive reinforcementin a way that is congruent with teachers' existingnotions about behavior management and pre-sent techniques as easy to apply. Specific recom-mendations for doing so are described in the lastsection of this article.

P U N I S H M E N T P A R A D I G M :D I S T O R T I N G R E A L I T Y T O P E R -P E T U A T E M I S U N D E R S T A N D I N G

Neale and Liebert (1973) ended their textbookon research methods by saying how faith is read-ily confused with evidence, evidence is freelymisunderstood, and misunderstanding is easilyperpetuated. Their cogent observations apply toany discipline. In tbe field of education, perhapsin no area as much as behavior management hasit been evident that teachers have lacked a solidworking knowledge. The paradigm of punish-ment tends to distort reality and perpetuatesmisunderstanding of four common and impor-tant terms associated with sttidents' behavior:discipline, punishment, reinforcement, and re-wards (Maag, 1997}.

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT ANDDISCIPLINE

Positive reinforcement is often misunderstoodbecause it is rarely associated with discipline. In-stead, many teachers and parents wrongly as-sume the terms "discipline" and "punishment"are synonymous. For example, a quick glance atthe disciplinary practices appearing in the poli-cies and procedures handbook of any publicschool in this country would reveal an exclusivefocus on punishment: in-school and out-of-school suspension, exptilsion, fines, detention,restitution, and even corporal punishment insome states. Yet according to the American Her-itage Dictionary, discipline refers to "trainingthat is expected to produce a specific characteror pattern of behavior, especially training thatproduces moral or mental improvement." A keyword in this definition is improvement thatmeans "to increase, develop, or enhance." Con-

versely, punishment, by definition, does onething—decreases behavior. Simply because a stu-dent's inappropriate behavior may be suppressedwith punishment does not guarantee that thestudent knows what appropriate behavior shouldbe performed in its place. Rutherford and Nee!(1978) stated that in many cases, the use of pun-ishment leaves the development of desirable be-haviors to chance. There is a perverse ironywhen adults evoke punishment with the phrase"I'm going to teach you a lesson." Teaching in-volves giving children skills and knowledge, notsuppressing or eliminating behavior. The pointof this discussion is to help teachers refocus on agoal of education: to help students acquireknowledge and skills.

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT ANDPUNISHMENT: FUNCTION OVER FORM

In order to understand discipline better, it ishelpful to examine the concepts of positive rein-forcement and punishment more thoroughly.Positive reinforcement and punishment were de-fined previously. The key consideration in thedefinitions is that positive reinforcement andpunishment are not things but rather effects. Theeffects are to either increase or decrease a behav-ior. Therefore, the statement made by someteachers, "IVe tried positive reinforcement, andit doesn't work," is oxymoronic because, by defi-nition, if a consequence did not function to in-crease behavior then it was not a reinforcer.Nevertheless, many teachers continue to believethat positive reinforcement and punishment are

Positive reinforcement is often misunder- -stood because it is rarely associated withdiscipline. Instead, many teachers andparents wrongly assume the terms "disci- ;pline" and "punishment" are synonymousJ^,

things that are either received or removed. Thefollowing examples may help clarify the distinc-tion between things and effects.

A student is yelling and running around aclassroom excessively. As a consequence, theteacher spends a few minutes talking "therapeu-tically" with the student, conveying warmth and

178 Winter 2001

caring, empathic understanding, and uncondi-tional positive self-regard for the precipitatingcircumstances in the student's life. As a result ofthis communication, the student stops yellingand running. By definition, the teacher's atten-tion was a punisher because it had the effect ofdecreasing the untoward hehaviors. The oppo-site effect can also occur. For example, as a con-sequence for a child placing his hand too close toa hot burner, a parent may say a stern "No" andslap the back of the child's hand. This actionmay create pain and even temporary reddeningofthe skin. Yet, if the child repeatedly places hishand by the burner for several ensuing days,then the slap was not punishment but ratherpositive reinforcement because the behavior in-creased. Adults sometimes look upon these chil-dren, who seem to continue behaving poorlyeven after presumably receiving "punishment,"

Adult attention, even if it is negative, is apowerful reinforeer—especially forstudents with the most challenging behav-iors who typically receive very littlepositive attention.

as disordered or even masochistic. What adultsoften fail to understand is that the attention achild receives from the parent may be more rein-forcing than the pain the slap inflicted is punish-ing.

The two previous examples were meant toillustrate that their effects on behavior definepunishment and positive reinforcement func-tionally. Alberto and Troutman (1995) pointedout how this definition is often misunderstoodbecause of the colloquial way in which punish-ment is viewed as unpleasant things done topeople who behave poorly. In the last example,the faulty, yet common, assumption was thatpunishment was the "thing" administered—thephysical slap—not its effect. Ironically, if pun-ishment were effective, it would be used lessrather then more frequently with a particularstudent because the desired effect would be toreduce the inappropriate behavior. However, stu-dents who repeatedly receive verbal reprimands,are sent out of the classroom, or receive suspen-

sions are not being punished: They are insteadbeing positively reinforced. The adage "negativeattention is better tban no attention" certainlyapplies here. Teachers expect students to behavewell, and consequently ignore them when theydo so, but usually give them negative attentionwhen tbey behave poorly {Maag, 1996). Adultattention, even if it is negative, is a powerftil re-inforeer—especially for students with the mostchallenging behaviors who typically receive verylittle positive attention.

Many researchers also experience difficultyunderstanding the functional definition of posi-tive reinforcement and punishment. Unfortu-nately, because researchers are often viewed as"experts," their misunderstanding perpetuatesthe myth to teachers that positive reinforcementdoes not work. For example, Biederman, Davey,Ryder, and Franchi (1994) conducted a study onthe effects of interactive modeling versus passiveobservation. They reported that verbal reinforce-ment detracted from the performance of chil-dren with developmental delays during theinteractive modeling condition. They furtherspeculated that the reinforcement^rewardingcomments such as "good job"—may have con-ftised the children and distracted them from per-forming the desired behavior. In his response totheir assertions. Ward (1995) correctly pointedout how reinforcement cannot be said to haveoccurred unless the behavior it followed in-creased. Therefore, simply because "verbalpraise" sounds like a reinforeer in an everydaysense does not automatically mean it functions SLSa reinforcer.

The distinction between form and func-tion is similarly not well understood when ap-plied to the use of punishment. Here is a tellingexample encountered by the author. A teacherwas disturbed that a student frequently did notbring his reading book to class. As a result, thestudent was required to write 100 times, "I willremember my book." Most teachers would prob-ably view this consequence as a kind of punish-ment. Yet what bebavior is the teacher trying todecrease—remembering the book? This unfortu-nate case illustrates how punishment is oftenmisunderstood and can be misapplied withcounterproductive results. Not coincidentally,the student in this example was embarrassed

Exceptional Children

about his learning disability in reading. There-fore, "forgetting" to bring the book to classserved the futiction for him to avoid what hecotisidered to be more aversive—being embar-rassed in front of his peers when asked to read—than having to repeatedly write sentences.

THE CONTRADICTION OE

REINFORCEMENT AND REWARDS

The functional definition of positive reinforce-ment frequently does not belp some teachers getpast tbe stereotypical notion that it is a manipu-lative tool created to coerce students into behav-ing appropriately. Conseqtiently, reinforcementcontinues to be viewed by some educators astantamount to bribery, undermines students'abilities to become self-directed, and quells in-ternal motivation {Kobn, 1993). Tbe problemwitb this assertion is that many teachers incor-rectly equate the terms reward and reinforce-ment. Unlike reinforcement, a reward is, in fact,a thing given to acknowledge an accomplish-ment. Other words for reward are "merit" or"prize." A reward may or may not function as areinforcer. For example, an athlete may begintraining to compete in tbe discus throw severalyears before the summer Olympics begin. Dur-ing this time, bis discus-throwing behaviorwould occur at a high rate as part of his trainingregime. Consequently, be wins the goldmedal—certainly the ultimate reward—and de-cides to retire from competition. The subse-quent frequency of discus-throwing behaviorcertainly would decrease over the level displayedprior to competing in the Olympics. Therefore,the "reward" (i.e., gold medal) functiotied aspunishment because its effect was to decrease fu-ture discus-throwing behavior. On the otherband, if the athlete places a disappointing 10thand subsequetitly spends more time practicingthrovi^ng the discus to compete more effectivelyin the next Olympiad, then bis poor showingfunctioned as reinforcement because it had theeffect of increasing later discus-throwing behav-ior.

The point of the examples of the studentrunning and yelling in the classroom, the childwho places his band by tbe hot burner, and theOlympic athlete the teachers find very difficultto comprehend because they challenge popular

views of reinforcement and punisbment. Manyteachers are puzzled as to how talking nicely to astudent, for example, could be punishment be-canse punisbment certainly must be somethingunpleasant. However, once teachers understandthat reinforcement and punishment are effectsratber than things, tbeir ability to managing stu-dents' challenging behaviors will increase dra-matically. But first, it is important to address theissue of external reinforcement stifling motiva-tion.

There is an irony in the belief that Kohn(1993) and many teachers hold that providingexternal reinforcement will stifle children's inter-nal motivation: These individuals often have fewqualms that administering external punishmentwill cause the same problem. In other words,why would externally applying reinforcementbut not punishment stifle internal motivation?The answer has nothing to do with motivation,but ratber tbat misapplications and misunder-standings are perpetuated by a cultural ethoscondoning punishment and eschewing reinforce-ment.

T H E N A T U R A L L Y O C C U R R I N GP H E N O M E N A O F P O S I T I V E R E I N -F O R C E M E N T A N D P U N I S H M E N T

Some teachers have said, "I don't believe inusing reinforcement." This statement is as logi-cally absurd as saying, "I don't believe in grav-ity." Just because someone may not likesomething does not consequently abolish its ex-istence. Reinforcement and punishment are nat-urally occurring phenomena—all bebaviors arefollowed by certain consequences. If a behaviorincreased, then the consequence functioned as areinforcer; if a behavior decreased, then the con-sequence functioned as a pnnisher. Social reci-procity provides an example of reinforcementnaturally occurring. Social reciprocity is a termused to describe mutually reinforcing interactiveexchanges between individuals (Strain, Odom,& McConnell, 1984). Social interaction can beconceptualized, analogously, as a tennis match:One player bits the ball (initiates a conversation)to another player wbo, in turn hits the ball back(responds). However, if one player does not hit

Winter 2001

the ball back (fails to respond), then tbe volley(interaction) ends. In other words, if a personasks someone a question and that person re-sponds positively, then question asking has beenreinforced and tbe interaction will continue. Onthe other hand, if a person asks someone a qties-tion and that person either walks away or re-sponds negatively, then question asking has beenpunished and the interaction will terminate.

THE PROPRIETY OE REINFORCEMENT

With great effort, opponents of reinforcementcan sometimes be convinced tbat it is a naturallyoccurring phenomenon; nevertheless, they con-tinue to argue with its propriety. Their specificobjection is usually to its planned use to elicitcertain behaviors in others. This position on re-inforcement is as ridiculous as arguing whethergravity is good or bad^both are naturally oc-curring phenomena. Furthermore, tbis positiontakes teachers' foci away from the meaningfultask of analyzing interaction patterns and rein-forcement contingencies that exist in classroomsin order to restructure them to increase desirablestudent behaviors. To ignore this ecologicallyimportant aspect of behavior management is toallow reinforcement to occur randomly and runthe risk of it increasing students' inappropriatebehaviors. Nevertheless, many teacbers continueto believe that techniques based on positive rein-forcement have been tried and have failed. Thisbelief is not only a self-contradiction but alsofallacious. Techniques based on positive rein-forcement bave rarely represented a dominantapproach to managing students' behavior (Maag,1999).

Perhaps part of the problem educatorshave in understanding and correctly using tech-niques based on positive reinforcement is tbeperception that they either require too much ef-fort or do not work well enough. This percep-tion makes it easy for people to fall intodichotomous thinking—techniques based onpositive reinforcement either work perfectly orthey do not work at all. This irrational beliefmay prompt some teachers to abandon empiri-cally-tested techniques and be easily bamboozledby the latest educational fads such as neuro-repatterning, facilitated communication,megavitamin therapy, electroencephalogram

(EEG) biofeedback, and optometric vision train-ing, to name only a few, and none of whichenjoy much, if any, empirical support (Kauff-man, 1997; Mercer, 1997).

GOOD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH

It is easy to fmd abundant examples of childrenwho display inappropriate behavior. Some chil-dren display problem behavior to sucb a seriousand chronic degree tbat their independence insociety is limited. If, as indicated throughout theempirical literature, behavioral procedures areeffective, why have students' behaviors becomeincreasingly challenging in recent years?Granted, part of the problem may have resultedfrom an ever-changing society in which childrenare increasingly impacted by sex and violence ontelevision, free access to the Internet, and less su-pervision from parents who are working longhours to make ends meet. There are also a hostof factors—homelessness, sexual and physicalabuse, divorce, and substance abuse—that placechildren at risk for displaying a wide range ofchallenging behaviors. Nevertheless, youngstersspend more time in school than in most struc-tured environments outside the home and havetheir most consistent and extensive contact withteachers who can scrutinize their behaviors onan ongoing basis. The structure of the classroomprovides the opportunity for teachers to apply avariety of techniques based on positive reinforce-ment that have empirical support regardless ofstudent characteristics or home situations(Wielkiewicz, 1995).

In spite of tbeir empirical support, tech-niques based on positive reinforcement are sel-dom used correctly. Part of the problem may bethat when techniques based on positive rein-forcement are used, they are often implementedhaphazardly and inappropriately. Many teachersstill believe that techniques based on positive re-inforcement consist of nothing more than pro-viding students with M&M candies or stickerswhen they are "being good" (Maag, 1999). Be-havior management is much more—^analyzingbehavior, deciding what to change, collecting in-formation on the behaviors of concern, usingschedules of reinforcement, and monitorineprogress—not to mention the plethora of tech-niques based on positive reinforcement that run

Exceptional Children 181

the gamut from those tbat are teacher-directedto tbose tbat are student-directed.

Managing students' cballenging bebaviorseffectively is a "good news-bad news" story. Tbegood news is that the technology has long ex-isted to develop, implement, and monitor effec-tive behavioral interventions for managingstudents' cballenging behaviors. The bad news isthat this process takes considerable time and ef-fort. One of the major impediments in havingeducators put forth tbe effort to develop and im-plement techniques based on positive reinforce-ment is that many do not believe it is their jobto manage students' behavior.

THE WAY THINGS ARE AND COULD BE

There is a prevailing view that teachers' primaryresponsibility is to teach students academic be-haviors and to control (i.e., bring into align-ment) their socially inappropriate behaviors.Some teachers, and even entire schools, bave de-veloped elaborate management plans to controlstudents' cballenging behaviors. This "controlmentality" is pervasive throughout educationand places teachers in a reactive, instead ofproactive, position wben managing students'challenging bebaviors. Managing students' cbal-lenging behaviors effectively will continue to bea frustrating endeavor until teachers view misbe-bavior as an opportunitj' for increasing positivesocial interaction rather than being something tobe punished (Maag & Webber, 1995). For exam-ple, most teachers would readily agree that whenstudents make mistakes in division, the goal isnot to "punish" or decrease division behavior.Rather, procedures are implemented to providestudents with the correct strategy and practice toincrease their competence in division. The samelogic should apply to students' challenging be-haviors.

Unfortunately, many teachers inaccuratelybelieve the correction of cballenging behaviors istantamount to effective instruction. Althoughmanaging cballenging bebaviors may be a pre-cursor to instruction, they are not synonymous.Correction occurs after an incident and, conse-quently, is reactive. However, academic instruc-tion is a planned event and, therefore, isproactive. Neel (1988) provided the followingexample using reading:

In a reading lesson, who schedules the time ofinstruction, seiecis the material, makes the pre-sentation, looks for responses, and then pro-vides correction? The teacher does. When abehavior problem occurs, who schedules it,provides the materials, evaluates the response,and decides if the incident need go on? Thestudent does. Who, then, is doing the learning?(p. 26)

Neel contended that managing students' chal-lenging behaviors is difficult because teachersplace tbemselves in the role of student, a rolethat they are not used to and often find uncom-fortable. As long as the management of students'challenging behaviors focuses solely on correc-tion techniques, teachers will continue to experi-ence failure and frustration. Teacbers sbouldspend as much time developing positive, proac-tive behavior management plans as they spenddeveloping instructional lesson plans.

In eschewing tbis last recommendation,teachers are likely to believe techniques based onpositive reinforcement simply do not work wellenough, or not at all, when the real problem isthat they have not been properly implementedconsciously, consistently, or appropriately Forexample, tbe literature is replete with studiesdocumenting very low, and in many instancesnonexistent, rates of positive teacher statementsdirected to students wben they perform desir-able bebavior (see Mastropieri & Scruggs,1994). Even more disturbing, teachers typicallygive students attention only when tbey performinappropriate behaviors (Maag, 1999). Ironi-cally, teacher praise bas been supported asamong one of tbe most empirically soundteacher competencies (Maag & Katsiyannis,1999). The irony is that because teacher atten-tion is so effective, it nevertheless is being usedprimarily when students misbehave.

It is equally disappointing tbat teachersfail to see the powerfully reinforcing value insuch natural human behaviors as eye contact,smiles, kind words, physical proximity, and so-cial interaction. All too often teachers justify notusing positive reinforcement by stating that they"expect" students to behave well. Ironically, theyhave no difficulty "reacting" to students whenthey behave poorly. Furthermore, simply havingthe expectation that students "should" behave

1S2 Winter 2001

well, especially those with the most challengingbehaviors, is a prescription for failure and frus-tration. The use of the word "should" is a classicexample of teachers engaging in a common typeof irrational belief: demandingness (Ellis, 1985).Demandingness is a magical and ineffective at-tempt to change events to a more desirable out-come without engaging in any behavior otherthan saying either the word "expect" or"should."

I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R P R A C T I C E

Effectively changing students' behaviors requiresteachers to also change their behaviors, which,in turn, requires that they understand how posi-tive reinforcement is congruent with their valuesand that the techniques are easy to apply. Thesegoals can he addressed when teachers prioritizetheir values. Was not helping children acquireknowledge and skills not a main goal for becom-ing a teacher? If this is a major goal, then teach-ers will find it easier to place other goals (such asthe student completing work independently) tothe side, at least dnring the time content knowl-edge and skills are being taught. Changingteachers' values is the most difficult aspect he-cause they have become well-ingrained—pre-senting easy-to-use techniques is simpler. Thereare a variety of easy-to-implement recommenda-tions for using positive reinforcement. Several ofthem are presented here.1. Catch Students Being Good. Catching stu-

dents heing good is one of the easiest andmost effective ways for dealing with studentswith challenging behaviors (Maag, 1999). Itis not used more often hecause many teachersbelieve students "should" behave well and,consequently, only give them attention fordisplaying inappropriate behaviors. Thesestudents have learned very early in theirschool career that the only way they get at-tention from teachers is to misbehave. As ageneral rule, the second time a teacher gives astudent a verbal warning should be a cue forthat teacher to catch the student being good.Ironically, and unlike punishment, teachersonly have to catch students being good occa-sionally. Intermittent reinforcement can

maintain high rates of students' appropriatebehaviors (Alberto & Troutman, 1995). Onthe other hand, punishment is most effectivewhen it is delivered continuously (Schmidt,1982). Iherefore, what takes less time andeffort: observing a student oceasionally topositively reinforce him or observing the stu-dent continuously to punish him?

2. Think Small. There is an interesting reactionsome teachers have to students with challens-ing behaviors: They expect students withchallenging behaviors to behave better thanstudents without behavioral challenges(Maag, 2000). For example, some teachersexpect students with attention-deficit hyper-activity disorder (ADHD) to sit quietly andpay attention longer than students withoutthis disorder (Reid & Maag, 1998). In otherinstances, students pose such behavioral chal-lenges that teachers frame the problem as alaundry list of misbehaviors that must beeliminated. The solution is for teachers to setsmall goals for students and then reinforcesuccessive approximations of behaviors to-ward that goal. For example, if a student ischronically late to class by 10 min or more heshould be reinforced when he makes itthrough the door in 5 min. Once he beginsto make improvements in the desired direc-tion, future behavior changes become mucheasier.

3. Have a Group Management Plan. There aretwo reasons why it is easier to manage spe-cific students with challenging behaviorswhen the entire class is well behaved. First,group management plans make use of inter-mittent reinforcement that maintains highlevels of appropriate behavior (Maag, 1999).Second, it is easier to implement a more in-tensive individual positive reinforcement in-tervention once a classwide management planis in place. There are several novel ways toimplement a group management plan. It isbeyond the scope of this article to describeeach in detail. However, Rhode et al. (1995)presented a detailed description of three ap-proaches: 100 square chart, compliance ma-trix, and mystery motivators. An additionalapproach is the Good Behavior Game. Threeappropriate behaviors are listed on the chalk-

Exceptianal Children 1B3

board. Prerecorded random tones are piayedon a tape recorder during a lesson. Wben atone sounds, the teacher places three marblesin a jar if everyone in class is engaging in oneof the three appropriate behaviors. Tbe classearns a reinforcer (e.g., movie or popcorn onFriday) if the jar is filled witb marbles by theend of the week (Maag, 1999).

4. Prevent Behavior Problems. Punishment isless likely to be used wben teachers anticipateand prevent behavior problems from occur-ring. It is easier to prevent behavior problemsthan to try to reestablish control. The follow-ing strategies work to enhance a positiveclassroom climate for both students witb andwithout challenging bebaviors (Rhode et al.,1995). First, teacbers should establish class-room rules that specify appropriate bebaviorsand the positive reinforcement students earnfor performing tbem. Second, teachersshould strive to bave 70% of their day de-voted to students being academically en-gaged. Tbird, teachers sbould not letstudents with challenging behaviors sit nextto eacb other. Fourth, teacbers should spendas much time as possible walking around theclassroom to monitor students' behaviors andsubtly reinforce them.

5. Use Peer Influence Favorably. Peer influenceexists in every classroom. Students with chal-lenging behaviors have learned that the easi-est way to get peer attention, either positiveor negative, is to misbehave. Therefore,teachers should use peer influence in a so-cially constructive manner. A common mis-take some teachers make is to override theinfluence of peers with punisbment. For ex-ample, a teacher may punish a student formaking animal noises in class. Flowever, thestudent may be receiving reinforcement frompeers in the form of smiles, comments, snick-ers, or subtle gestures (Rhode et al, 1995).The punishment must be severe to overridethe reinforcing value of peer attention. Themost effective way to use peer influence posi-tively is to implement a group managementtechnique such as one described previously.

The most effective behavior managers areteachers who acknowledge that reinforcementand punishment occur naturally and, conse-

quently, analyze and modify environmental, cur-ricular, and instructional variables to promoteappropriate behavior. These teachers work hardto positively reinforce appropriate student be-havior and ignore misbehavior when it does notinterfere with other students' learning, class-room routines, or is otherwise reinforcing. Theyalso sparingly use reprimands and only in aneven-handed, matter-of-fact tone. Students viewthese teachers as people whose attention is val-ued, whom they want to be around, whom theyenjoy interacting with, rather than as a watch-dog to be feared because of the punishment theymay dole out.

Perhaps there are not more teachers whoengage in these activities because they are not re-inforced for doing so. Teachers are paid whetheror not students display appropriate bebaviors.Their workloads are not based on how effectivethey manage behavior, or on how much theirstudents leam. More conceivably, teachers whouse positive reinforcement techniques effectivelymay be punisbed: Administrators may see themas the likely candidates to deal with studentswith the most challenging behaviors. Theseteachers, in turn, may receive the preponderanceof these students and that represents a dauntingtask, even for special educators trained in behav-ior management with small case loads andparaeducator assistance. The unintended resultmay be to punish good behavior managementskills.

R E F E R E N C E S

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1995). Applied be^havior analysis for teachers (4th ed.). Columbus, OH:Merrill.*Axelrod, S. (1996). What's wrong with behaviorg,na\ysisi Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 247-256.

Axelrod, S., & Hall, R. V. (1999). Behavior modifica-tion: Basic principles. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.*Berliner, D. C , & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufac-tured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America'spublic schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.'Biederman, G. B., Davey, V. A., Ryder, C , & Franchi,D. (1994). The negative effects of positive reinforce-ment in teaching children with developmental delay.Exceptional Children, 60, 458-465.

Winter 2001

Bilken, D. (1992). Autism orthodoxy versus freespeech; A reply to Cummins and Prior. Harvard Edu-cational Review, 62, 242-256.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W D. (1994). Reinforcement,reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Re-view of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.Dunn, R. (1990). Bias over substance: A criticalanalysis ot Kavale and Forness' report on modality-based instruction. Exceptional Children, 56, 352-356.Ellis, A. (1985). Expanding the ABCs of rational-emotive therapy. In M. Mahoney & A. Freeman(Eds.), Cognition and psychotherapy (pp. 313-323).New York: Plenum,'

General Accounting OfFice. (1997). Safe and drug-freeschools: Balancing accountability with state and localflexibility. GAO Report to Congressional Requesters.Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 4l4 643)Green, G. (1994). The qualitj' of the evidence. In H.C. Shane (Ed.), Facilitated communication: The clini-cal and social phenomenon (pp. 157-225). San Diego,CA: Singular.*Gresham, K M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1998). Earlyintervention project: Can its claims be substantiatedand its effects rcpYicntedi Journal of Autism and Devel-opmental Disorders, 28, 5-13.Kauffman, J. M. (1997). Characteristics of emotionaland behavioral disorders of children and youth (6thed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.'Kavale, K. A., hi Forness, S. R. (1987). Substanceover style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testingand teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239.Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The troublewith go/J stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and otherbribes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.*Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children inAmerica's schools. New York: HarperPerennial.*Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Tbe structure of scientific revolu-tions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.*Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and nor-mal educational and intfllectual functioning in youngautistic children. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 55, 3-9.Maag, J. W. (1996). Parenting without punishment.Philadelphia: The Charles Press.'Maag, J. W. (1997). Parenting without punishment:Making problem behavior work for you. ReclaimingChildren and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behav-ioral Problems, 6(3), \76-l79.

Maag, J. W. (1999). Behavior management: From the-oretical implications to practical applications. SanDiego: Singular.*Maag, J. W (2000). Managing resistance. Interventionin School and Clitiic, 35, 131-140.Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (1999). leacherpreparation in E/BD: A national survey. BehavioralDisorders, 24, 189-196.Maag, J. W, & Kotlash, J. (1994). Review of stress in-oculation training with children and adolescents: Is-sues and recommendations. Behavior Modification,IS, 443-469.Maag, J. W., & Webber, J. (1995). Promoting chil-dren's social development in general education class-rooms. Preventing School Failure, 39(5), 13-19.Machiavelli, N. (1935). The prince. New York: Pen-guin. (First edition, 1903).Mariin, G., & Pear, J. (1996). Behavior modification:What it is and how to do it (5th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.'

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Effectiveinstruction for special education (2nd ed.). Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.^Mercer, C. D. (1997). Students with learning disabili-ties (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.*Neale, J. M., & Liebert, R. M. (1973). Science and be-havior: An introduction to methods of research. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.*Neel, R. S. (1988). Classroom conversion kit: Ateacher's guide to teaching social competency. In R. B.Rutherford, Jr. & J. W. Maag (Eds.), Severe behaviordisorders of children and youth (Vol. 11, pp. 25-31).Reston, VA: Council for Children with BehavioralDisorders.Patterson, G. R. (1975). Families: Applications of so-cial learning to family life. Champaign, IL: ResearchPress.*

Reid, R., (1997). Reforming educational reform, ybw?--}iai oj Behavioral Education, 7, 1-12.Reid. R., & Maag, J. W. (1998). Functional assess-ment: A method for developing classroom-based ac-commodations and interventions for children withADHD. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 9-42.Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1995).The tough kid book: Practical classroom managementstrategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.*Rutherford, R. B., Jr., & Neel, R. S. (1978). The roleof punishment with behaviorally disordered children.In R. B. Rutherford, Jr. & A. G. Prieto (Eds.), Severebehavior disorders of children and youth (Vol. 1, pp.

Except ion tit Children

69-76). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behav-ioral Disorders.Sagan, C. (1996). Tbe demon-batinted world: Scienceas a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine.*Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of tbe scbool and tbeproblem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn andBacon.*Schmidt, J. J. (1982). Understanding punishment andencouraging positive di\sc\^\\ne. fournal of HumanisticEducation and Development, 21, 43-48.Skinner, B. E (1953). Science and human behavior.NewYork: Macmillan.*Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity.NewYork; Bantam."Strain, P. S., Odom, S. L., & McConneli, S. (1984).Promoting social reciprocity of exceptional children:Identification, target hehavior selection, and interven-tion. Remedial and Special Education, 5{\)^ 21-28.Ward, P. C. (1995). A response to "The negative ef-fects of positive reinforcement in teaching childrenwith developmental delays." Exceptional Children, 61.489492.Watzlawick, R, Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974).Change: Principles of problem formation and problemresolution. NewYork: Norton.*Wielkiewicz, R. M. (1995). Behavior management intbe schools: Principles and procedures (2nd ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.*

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

JOHN w. MAAG (CEC #588), Professor, De-partment of Special Education and Communca-tion Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincolti.

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe sent to John W. Maag at emai l :jtnaagl@unl.edu

Manuscript received December 1999; acceptedApril 2000.

* To order books referenced in this journal,please call 24 brs/365 days: 1-800-BOOKS-NOW (266-5766) or 1-732-728-1040; or visitthem on the Web at bttp://www.Books-Now.com/Exceptional Childreti.btm. Use Visa,M/C, AMEX, Discover, or send check or moneyorder + S4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item} to:Clicksmart, 400 Morris Avenue, Long Branch,NJ 07740; 1-732-728-1040 or FAX-1-732-728-7080.

Early Interventionin Deaf Edncalioii

Fontbonne CollegeDepartment of CommunicationDisorders and Deaf Education

presents an interdisciplinary graduate program inEarly Intervention in Deaf Education

With mandatory newborn screening and early identification of hearingloss in children, skilled professionals are needed to work with youngchildren and their families.Fontbonne College seeks full-time graduate students for Summer, 2001The college, in partnership with St. Joseph Institute for the Deaf, has 40years of experience in deaf education.Students with an undergraduate degree in deaf education, earlychiidhood education, special education or speech language pathologymay apply. Full-tuition scholarships are available.Apply by February 1, 2001: Susan Lenihan, Ph.D., Director

Deaf Education ProgramFontbonne College6800 Wydown Blvd.St. Louis, MO 63105-3098314.889.1407slenihan@fontbonne.edu

bonne^eduKristeii Peiefson Pholography

186 Winter 2001