- Email: [email protected]
Nonreinforcement for teachers: penalties for success
Journal o f School Psychology 1972 • Vol. 10, No. 1
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES AND PROGRAM EVALUATION MARY
JO MacGREGOR,
Editor
N O N R E I N F O R C E M E N T FOR TEACHERS: P E N A L T I E S FOR SUCCESS 1 MARYANNE
Q. B R O W N
Westbury Public Schools
Westbury, New York Advocacy of a psychology journal which reports only studies which obtain negative results does not seem to have met with any success. This state of affairs reflects an abiding interest in successful outcomes and tends to leave those who try to make use of such positive findings rather perplexed in coping with unexpected negative outcomes. The experience reported here, which describes what happened to a practicing school psychologist in implementing behavior modification programs in an early childhood center, is a case in point. The straightforward application of behavioral techniques in the classroom, as described by numerous authors (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; O'Leary & Becker, 1967; Osborne, 1969; Thomas, Becker, & Armstrong, 1968; Wolf, Giles, & Hall, 1968), led to some consequences which were neither anticipated nor positive in direction. Programs were initiated in several kindergarten and prekindergarten classes in a suburban metropolitan New York school. The school was staffed exclusively by experienced kindergarten teachers and was administered by a principal with 40 years of kindergarten experience. They had been operating within a framework that had survived successfully with little change for many years. They viewed the problems the children manifested as stemming from difficulties within the children themselves, such as less than average ability and lack of motivation, or to poor parental handling resulting from ignorance or permissiveness. Teachers and administrators saw the school psychologist as an outside agent who could change the child, help him, or remove him from the classroom; they were reluctant to consider a change in the system or 1This paper was presented at the A n n u a l Meeting o f the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1971. Journal of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972
79
80
Maryanne Q. Brown
routines within the classroom. These attitudes led to a continuous deluge of psychological referrals. As an alternative to dealing with the large number of referrals on an individual basis, the psychologist believed that the teachers themselves could facilitate positive growth in their students by using a behavioral approach. He soon discovered, however, that teachers are no exception to the experience of feeling threatened by new techniques, particularly teachers with many years of experience. For example, one teacher experienced difficulty with a youngster who repeatedly ran out of the room and then dared her to chase him. The chases usually resulted in several adults attempting to corner the child and trick or coerce him to return to the classroom. This was highly reinforcing to the child. When it was suggested that the teacher close her classroom door, which was always left open, she replied that closing the door would create a fire hazard and that removing him from the class would be a better solution. Before introducing any new programs it was necessary to remove some of the most difficult children and to refer others for outside help. When one teacher was convinced to try a behavioral approach, the results fell short of the success which had been anticipated because of several uncontrollable events. The teacher agreed to work with an acting-out boy; she was to monitor his behavior at regular time intervals during the day, and for each 15-minute period that he managed to conform to the classroom rules he was to receive a star on his chart (Mattos, Mattson, Walker, & Buckley, 1969). Each day the chart was sent home to the parents, who were to reward him accordingly. Unfortunately the teacher's frequent absences during the next two weeks resulted in intermittent reinforcement of the inappropriate behavior by a series of substitutes who had no interest in the program. This also led to confusion on the part of the parents, who did not understand why they were not receiving information on a daily basis. By the end of two weeks there had been no change in the child's behavior, and the teacher was discouraged and tired of the daily reports. To encourage her to persevere with the program, daily visits to her classroom were made in an attempt to reinforce her by praise. After almost one month the child's behavior began to show dramatic improvement. The teacher evidenced pride in her success, and she was able to continue to work with him alone. Unfortunately many teachers were made aware of the child's initial unresponsiveness to the behavior modification techniques and were satisfied that, as they had predicted, these methods were no better than their traditional approaches. As the school year progressed, a mounting number of children with behavior problems which the teachers were unwilling or unable to deal with were referred. It was at this point that a paradox was noted. Contrary to the principles of behavior modification techniques, the one teacher who successfully used the program began to receive negative reinforcement for all her time and effort. As the teacher's skills improved, attention was drawn to her classroom, and school personnel began to view her as extremely competent in dealing with difficult children. Since every school has a number J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 1 0 , N o . 1, 1 9 7 2
Nonreinforcement for Teachers
81
of behavior problems who must be carefully placed with a suitable teacher, she was given, by administrative fiat, more and more problem children, thus making her job more difficult. The teacher began to perceive that she was being punished for success, while the other teachers were being rewarded for their inability to deal with difficult situations. It is understandable that after a period of years the most adequate teachers may begin to feel somewhat persecuted when year after year their classes outnumber other classes in terms of problem children. Another source of negative reinforcement is the withdrawal of attention which may ensue from the teacher's developing more adequate methods for dealing with problems. Many teachers appear to derive positive reinforcement from talking about their problems with administrators and psychologists. In the typical school setting, teachers are able to secure the attention and time of others for what is essentially inadequate behavior, or the inability to deal with their problems without assistance and support. As the teacher's skills and feelings of confidence develop, this source of reinforcement is diminished. Providing teachers with attention for their inability to manage problem children often results in a few teachers receiving an inordinate amount of specialists' time. Behavioral techniques may be used to remedy this situation. For example, one teacher had been spending a great deal of time in the psychologist's office. She frequently shouted at the children, and there was usually a child standing outside her door. At times she would drag a crying child to the office to tell of his misdeeds, thereby eliciting some kind of attention for her plight. The first step in dealing with the situation was to ignore her outbursts. When she brought a child to the office she was told that he could not be seen at that time, and children standing outside her room were sent back. Simultaneously, the teacher was monitored for the times when she had her class under good control, and these opportunities were taken to praise her and the children. Occasionally, when it was observed that the class was functioning well, the psychologist would take over her class so that she could take a short break. This new approach had several almost immediate consequences. The teacher's initial feelings of chagrin at having to deal with the emergency situations by herself began to dissipate as she received praise and attention for her more adequate performance. Her reputation for competence in dealing with difficult children grew, as did the other teachers'. As the teachers became more adept at utilizing behavioral techniques it was found that less time had to be devoted to crisis intervention and that time was available to work with the other teachers who became interested in the techniques. In conclusion, it appears that although the application of behavioral techniques as described in the textbooks may be straightforward, there are a host of contingencies which must be carefully monitored and dealt with, such as: 1. Initial teacher resistance. 2. Unforeseen disruptions in carrying out a program, such as teacher
J o u r n a l of School Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972
82
Maryanne Q. Brown
absences or administrative decisions as to class placement for problem children. 3. The tremendous time c o m m i t m e n t exacted from teachers and psychologists when they undertake such a program. 4. Awareness that the same set of principles governs all behavior, children's and adult's alike, and that attention should be given to reinforce examples of adequate performance rather than at times of peak inefficiency. References
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M., Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences of disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 119-124. Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1-12. Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 139-150. Mattos, R. L., Mattson, R. H., Walker, H. M., & Buckley, N. K. Reinforcement and aversive control in the modification of behavior. Academic Therapy, 1969, 5(1), 37-52. O'Leary, K. D., &Becker, W. C. Behavior modification of an adjustment class: A token reinforcement program. Exceptional Children, 1967, 33, 637-642. Osborne, J. G., Free-time as a reinforcer in the management of classroom behavior. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 113-118. Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., & Armstrong, M. Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher's behavior. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 35-45. Wolf, M. M., Giles, D., & Hall, R. V. Experiments with token reinforcement in a remedial classroom. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 51-54. Maryanne Q. Brown School Psychologist Westbury Public Schools Westbury, New York 11590
Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, Vol. 10, No. I, 1972
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES AND PROGRAM EVALUATION MARY
JO MacGREGOR,
Editor
N O N R E I N F O R C E M E N T FOR TEACHERS: P E N A L T I E S FOR SUCCESS 1 MARYANNE
Q. B R O W N
Westbury Public Schools
Westbury, New York Advocacy of a psychology journal which reports only studies which obtain negative results does not seem to have met with any success. This state of affairs reflects an abiding interest in successful outcomes and tends to leave those who try to make use of such positive findings rather perplexed in coping with unexpected negative outcomes. The experience reported here, which describes what happened to a practicing school psychologist in implementing behavior modification programs in an early childhood center, is a case in point. The straightforward application of behavioral techniques in the classroom, as described by numerous authors (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; O'Leary & Becker, 1967; Osborne, 1969; Thomas, Becker, & Armstrong, 1968; Wolf, Giles, & Hall, 1968), led to some consequences which were neither anticipated nor positive in direction. Programs were initiated in several kindergarten and prekindergarten classes in a suburban metropolitan New York school. The school was staffed exclusively by experienced kindergarten teachers and was administered by a principal with 40 years of kindergarten experience. They had been operating within a framework that had survived successfully with little change for many years. They viewed the problems the children manifested as stemming from difficulties within the children themselves, such as less than average ability and lack of motivation, or to poor parental handling resulting from ignorance or permissiveness. Teachers and administrators saw the school psychologist as an outside agent who could change the child, help him, or remove him from the classroom; they were reluctant to consider a change in the system or 1This paper was presented at the A n n u a l Meeting o f the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1971. Journal of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972
79
80
Maryanne Q. Brown
routines within the classroom. These attitudes led to a continuous deluge of psychological referrals. As an alternative to dealing with the large number of referrals on an individual basis, the psychologist believed that the teachers themselves could facilitate positive growth in their students by using a behavioral approach. He soon discovered, however, that teachers are no exception to the experience of feeling threatened by new techniques, particularly teachers with many years of experience. For example, one teacher experienced difficulty with a youngster who repeatedly ran out of the room and then dared her to chase him. The chases usually resulted in several adults attempting to corner the child and trick or coerce him to return to the classroom. This was highly reinforcing to the child. When it was suggested that the teacher close her classroom door, which was always left open, she replied that closing the door would create a fire hazard and that removing him from the class would be a better solution. Before introducing any new programs it was necessary to remove some of the most difficult children and to refer others for outside help. When one teacher was convinced to try a behavioral approach, the results fell short of the success which had been anticipated because of several uncontrollable events. The teacher agreed to work with an acting-out boy; she was to monitor his behavior at regular time intervals during the day, and for each 15-minute period that he managed to conform to the classroom rules he was to receive a star on his chart (Mattos, Mattson, Walker, & Buckley, 1969). Each day the chart was sent home to the parents, who were to reward him accordingly. Unfortunately the teacher's frequent absences during the next two weeks resulted in intermittent reinforcement of the inappropriate behavior by a series of substitutes who had no interest in the program. This also led to confusion on the part of the parents, who did not understand why they were not receiving information on a daily basis. By the end of two weeks there had been no change in the child's behavior, and the teacher was discouraged and tired of the daily reports. To encourage her to persevere with the program, daily visits to her classroom were made in an attempt to reinforce her by praise. After almost one month the child's behavior began to show dramatic improvement. The teacher evidenced pride in her success, and she was able to continue to work with him alone. Unfortunately many teachers were made aware of the child's initial unresponsiveness to the behavior modification techniques and were satisfied that, as they had predicted, these methods were no better than their traditional approaches. As the school year progressed, a mounting number of children with behavior problems which the teachers were unwilling or unable to deal with were referred. It was at this point that a paradox was noted. Contrary to the principles of behavior modification techniques, the one teacher who successfully used the program began to receive negative reinforcement for all her time and effort. As the teacher's skills improved, attention was drawn to her classroom, and school personnel began to view her as extremely competent in dealing with difficult children. Since every school has a number J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 1 0 , N o . 1, 1 9 7 2
Nonreinforcement for Teachers
81
of behavior problems who must be carefully placed with a suitable teacher, she was given, by administrative fiat, more and more problem children, thus making her job more difficult. The teacher began to perceive that she was being punished for success, while the other teachers were being rewarded for their inability to deal with difficult situations. It is understandable that after a period of years the most adequate teachers may begin to feel somewhat persecuted when year after year their classes outnumber other classes in terms of problem children. Another source of negative reinforcement is the withdrawal of attention which may ensue from the teacher's developing more adequate methods for dealing with problems. Many teachers appear to derive positive reinforcement from talking about their problems with administrators and psychologists. In the typical school setting, teachers are able to secure the attention and time of others for what is essentially inadequate behavior, or the inability to deal with their problems without assistance and support. As the teacher's skills and feelings of confidence develop, this source of reinforcement is diminished. Providing teachers with attention for their inability to manage problem children often results in a few teachers receiving an inordinate amount of specialists' time. Behavioral techniques may be used to remedy this situation. For example, one teacher had been spending a great deal of time in the psychologist's office. She frequently shouted at the children, and there was usually a child standing outside her door. At times she would drag a crying child to the office to tell of his misdeeds, thereby eliciting some kind of attention for her plight. The first step in dealing with the situation was to ignore her outbursts. When she brought a child to the office she was told that he could not be seen at that time, and children standing outside her room were sent back. Simultaneously, the teacher was monitored for the times when she had her class under good control, and these opportunities were taken to praise her and the children. Occasionally, when it was observed that the class was functioning well, the psychologist would take over her class so that she could take a short break. This new approach had several almost immediate consequences. The teacher's initial feelings of chagrin at having to deal with the emergency situations by herself began to dissipate as she received praise and attention for her more adequate performance. Her reputation for competence in dealing with difficult children grew, as did the other teachers'. As the teachers became more adept at utilizing behavioral techniques it was found that less time had to be devoted to crisis intervention and that time was available to work with the other teachers who became interested in the techniques. In conclusion, it appears that although the application of behavioral techniques as described in the textbooks may be straightforward, there are a host of contingencies which must be carefully monitored and dealt with, such as: 1. Initial teacher resistance. 2. Unforeseen disruptions in carrying out a program, such as teacher
J o u r n a l of School Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972
82
Maryanne Q. Brown
absences or administrative decisions as to class placement for problem children. 3. The tremendous time c o m m i t m e n t exacted from teachers and psychologists when they undertake such a program. 4. Awareness that the same set of principles governs all behavior, children's and adult's alike, and that attention should be given to reinforce examples of adequate performance rather than at times of peak inefficiency. References
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M., Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences of disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 119-124. Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1-12. Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 139-150. Mattos, R. L., Mattson, R. H., Walker, H. M., & Buckley, N. K. Reinforcement and aversive control in the modification of behavior. Academic Therapy, 1969, 5(1), 37-52. O'Leary, K. D., &Becker, W. C. Behavior modification of an adjustment class: A token reinforcement program. Exceptional Children, 1967, 33, 637-642. Osborne, J. G., Free-time as a reinforcer in the management of classroom behavior. Journal o/Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 113-118. Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., & Armstrong, M. Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher's behavior. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 35-45. Wolf, M. M., Giles, D., & Hall, R. V. Experiments with token reinforcement in a remedial classroom. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 51-54. Maryanne Q. Brown School Psychologist Westbury Public Schools Westbury, New York 11590
Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, Vol. 10, No. I, 1972