pos psy and edu

8/9/2019 pos psy and edu

1/15


2/15

associated with a sense of being in control, highly focused attention, mental enjoyment of anactivity for its own sake, and a match between the task at hand and ones own skills. Essentially,it is a description of doing something enjoyable with such adeptness and ease that the experienceseems to just ow or occur with little or no effort. Csikszentmihalyi interviewed hundreds of

people in an attempt to assess common threads of a ow experience independent of the behavioritself. The behavior could be any activity that was enjoyable and required a challenging degree of skill. His research determined that endeavors such as sports, artistic activities, and hobbies oftenlead to such ow experiences, considered optimal in nature (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Clearlycompetency and the ability to perform a task without thinking are part of the ow experiencebecause they involve a sense of mastery over a behavior that is recognized and valued by others.

Two skills recognized and valued in school environments are academic abilities and socialskills. The main focus of schools is acquiring academic knowledge and abilities. Social skillsfacilitate this by helping students adjust to school environments by getting along with others,learning how to problem solve, and forming friendships. Academic ability and social skills, how-

ever, are lacking in the repertoires of the majority of externalizing students (Dishion, Andrews, &Crosby, 1995; Hinshaw, 1992b; Patterson et al., 1992). Students with externalizing behaviors arelikely to be decient in a variety of academic skills, especially reading (Hinshaw, 1992a; Rutter &Yule, 1970). Similarly, the social interactions of externalizing students tend to be abrasive, unco-operative, and unstable (Dishion et al., 1995; Patterson et al., 1992). Thus the two sets of skillsrequired and valued in school settings (academic ability and social skills) will not provide anoptimal ow experience for many students with externalizing behaviors. At best the school expe-rience will be a struggle for these students.

Optimism is a persons positive hope for the future. Having a positive outlook on the futurehas been linked to positive mood, perseverance, effective problem solving, academic success, and

a long life. A lack of optimism has been linked to social estrangement, depression, passivity, andfailure (Peterson, 2000). Optimism about the future appears to be a dual function of the accumu-lation of past successful experiences and recognition of positive aspects of a persons currentenvironment (Peterson, 2000; Seligman, 1991, 1997). Externalizing students, however, often ndit difcult to be optimistic about the future, especially in school.

Some evidence suggests that nearly 50% of the variance associated with a subjective feelingof well being and happiness is inherited (Tellegen et al., 1988). Highly genetically determinedpositive temperaments identied in infancy are closely linked to successful adaptation to theenvironment and feelings of well being (Diener, 2000). The importance of temperament has longbeen recognized. In fact, La Rochefoucauld noted as early as 1940 that happiness and misery

depend as much on temperament as on fortune (p. 23). Unfortunately, students with externalizingdisorders have disproportionately high rates of difcult temperaments (Chess & Thomas, 1984;Gelfand et al., 1996; Patterson et al., 1992). Educators do not have much tolerance for difculttemperament-related behaviors, especially in the structured environment of schools (Carey, 1998).If handled inappropriately, this poor t between temperament and the educational environment issaid to produce a reaction pattern of oppositional and aggressive behavior (Carey, 1998, p. 522).From a temperament perspective, characteristics determined at birth put externalizing students ata disadvantage in terms of optimal positive school experiences.

Having preferences, choices, and decisions respected, or being allowed to act in self deter-mined ways, have been shown to increase happiness and a sense of well being, and motivation hasbeen directly linked with the degree of self-determination experienced by an individual (Ryan &Deci, 2000; Schwartz, 2000). Externalizing students are often characterized as unmotivated, espe-cially in academic environments. These students often have limited educational choices, and deci-

68 Jenson, Olympia, Farley, and Clark


3/15


4/15

this curriculum of noninstruction (Gunter et al., 1993) is that when students behave appropri-ately, nothing positive will happen, but when they misbehave, they will be punished. If this is theprimary predictable event in a childs school environment, optimism about the future will surelysuffer.

Why Is It So Negative?

If a positive educational environment is considered valuable in obtaining an optimal educa-tional experience, why are negative interactions so common? There are several reasons that neg-ative procedures are used with such high frequency and especially with students who haveexternalizing disorders. Many negative interventions are less time intensive than positive proce-dures, easier to administer, and result in a rapid (although temporary) suppression of problematicbehavior (Maag, 2001). The fast but temporary suppression effects of punishment are obviouslyreinforcing to teachers.

Coercive interaction between a student and a teacher is another mechanism that maintains

negative exchanges (Maag, 2001; Shores et al., 1993). In these situations, the degree of aversive-ness increases between the teacher and the student. For example, the teacher issues a commandand the student resists with an aversive behavior. This process escalates until either the teacherwithdraws the command or the student relents and follows through with the request. The wholeprocess is rewarded with a strong variable schedule of reinforcement that shapes increasing aver-sive and intense behaviors (Patterson et al., 1992; Gunter & Coutinho, 1997). To stop this ever-increasing negative environment, very often positive management techniques are recommended(Maag, 2001; Shores, et al., 1993). The question then becomes Are positive techniques effectiveenough?

The Debate Over Positive Behavior Management Techniques

It seems simple. To rectify a negative environment all that is needed is an increase in positivetechniques used in that environment. However, it is not that simple. Many educators and research-ers have questioned the damaging effects of positive procedures and their overall effectiveness inchanging disruptive behavior (Kohn, 1993; Pffner, Rosen, & OLeary, 1985; Rosen et al., 1984;Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). An important, yet controversial publication concerning the det-rimental effects of positive behavior management procedures is Ale Kohns (1993) Punished by Rewards .

Instead of systematically using positive techniques in the classroom, Kohn promotes a trio(The Three Cs) of educational alternatives, the rst consisting of academic content which

should be useful, interesting, and worth learning for the student. Second, there is communityor the cooperative learning community in which students feel safe, feel free to ask for help, andcome to care for one another. The third is choice where students are asked to think about whatthey are doing, and what they must do to make good choices. Kohn states:

You show me a school that really has those three Cs-where students are working with one another in acaring environment to engage with interesting tasks that they have some say in choosingand Ill showyou a place where you dont need to use punishments or rewards (interview by Brandt, 1995).

Although Kohn is not a researcher, he makes several important points in his book, includingthe impact of using techniques to effectively praise students if it is absolutely necessary. Anactive research-based debate bolstered by several large-scale studies provides contradictory evi-dence to Kohns position. This debate has culminated in two extensive meta-analyses on the issue(Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) and extensive reviews of the meta-



5/15

Henderlong, & Gingras, 1999). More research is needed before the true relationship betweenrewards and motivation is revealed.

It is interesting to note that the effects of reward on student motivation may be less of anabsolute effect (i.e., reward used or reward not used) and more subject to the nature of the con-

tingency between the behavior and reinforcement (Chance, 1992; Dickenson, 1989; Eisenberger& Cameron, 1996). The danger is then twofold; rst, undermining motivation by simply givingrewards noncontingently, and secondly, the use of inappropriate reward contingencies (Dicken-son, 1989). The lesson appears to be clear when using rewards with externalizing students. First,if rewards are given for low performance based (busy work) tasks, motivation will be compro-mised. Second, if rewards are given only for exceeding high performance with unrealistic goalsleading to frequent failure, motivation suffers and problematic behaviors increase. Educationalenvironments, in which rewards are contingently given for successful performance towards real-istic goals are far more likely to enhance motivation and decrease problematic behaviors.

Praise and Positives: Are They Enough?Aside from the arguments on whether rewards decrease or increase intrinsic motivation, there

is the question as to how effective positives only are in changing behavior. This is a crucialquestion for externalizing students. Rosen et al. (1984) showed that when teachers stopped pro-viding negative feedback to externalizing students who had previously been successful, theiracademic and social behavior markedly deteriorated. Similarly, Pffner et al. (1985) tried anall-positive approach to classroom management for externalizing students in which all negatives(i.e., verbal reprimands and privilege loss) were minimized. The research found that if praise wasused alone it was an ineffective management strategy; however, if something more than praise wasgiven, that is, augmenting praise with special privileges or incentives, student behavior was as

appropriate as a classroom that mixed positive and negative consequences. For externalizing stu-dents, praise may not be enough and must be enhanced with other positive motivational strategies.

Other studies have shown that combined positive techniques can be effective in reducingdisruptive behaviors in school settings. In an extensive meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of interventions to decrease problem behaviors, Stage and Quiroz (1997) reported a large effect size(.86) for positive techniques. However, when positive interventions were combined with appro-priate punishment interventions (i.e., response cost) the effect size was enhanced (.97). It is alsointeresting to note that when group contingencies were used for both positive and negative con-sequences, the effect size jumped to 1.02. This was the largest effect size obtained in the study,suggesting that group contingencies controlling inappropriate peer reinforcement may be one of

the most promising approaches to managing disruptive behavior for externalizing students.Guidelines for Optimal Environments

In designing an optimal and realistic environment for externalizing students several guide-lines should be used. First, positive reinforcement and negative consequences should be consis-tently applied to appropriate and inappropriate behaviors rather than randomly applied or used atnear chance levels (like those found in many classrooms) (Van Acker et al., 1996). Second, whenpositive consequences and praise are applied, reward contingencies should be for successful per-formance towards a challenging but realistic and attainable goal (Chance, 1992; Dickenson, 1989;Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Third, a mix of positive and negatives should be used, not an allor nothing application of positive or negative consequences (Cantrell, Stenner, & Katzenmeyer,1977; Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992). The ratio of the mix, however, should place a heavyemphasis on positives and a leaner emphasis on negatives. Fourth, setting events such as inappro-

Positive Psychology and Externalizing Students 71


6/15

in increasingly negative environments (Shores et al., 1993). Fifth, contingencies that reduce peerattention for inappropriate behavior and reward appropriate group behavior should be applied(Stage & Quiroz, 1997; Kehle et al., 2000). The remainder of this paper is a review of research-based strategies than can be used by, and with, externalizing students to increase positives and

effectively manage behavior.

Self-Management Strategies for Positives: Get em Yourself

Self-management strategies are some of the most effective approaches for students withexternalizing disorders to inuence the positiveness of their academic environment. This isbecause the student is taught the strategy rather than the teacher. Self-management strategiesgenerally include such techniques as self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and specic recruitment of feedback and praise from teachers. Through self-management students have demonstrated theirability to inuence the frequency of teacher praise, feedback, and reinforcement (Craft, Alber,& Heward, 1998; Seymour & Stokes, 1976; Stokes, Fowler, & Baer, 1978).

Teachers are often asked to change their own classroom behavior in order to effect changes intheir studentsbehaviors. Self-management strategies enable students to increase the rate of teacherpraise they receive by rst reviewing the quality of their own work and then appropriately request-ing teacher feedback. This intervention is cost efcient since students are trained to implement theintervention, not the teachers. Added benets of students learning and using self-managementskills are that they have been shown to be very effective in reducing disruptive behavior andgeneralizing to other environments (Hrydowy, Stokes, & Martin, 1984; Rhode, Morgan, & Young,1983; Seymour & Stokes, 1976; Stage & Quiroz, 1997). Teachers overall perceptions about stu-dents who use these skills are also likely to change in a positive direction. This is an especiallyvaluable benet for students with externalizing disorders who are frequently viewed negatively by

adults (Connell, Carta, & Baer, 1993; Craft et al., 1998; Stokes et al., 1978).Stokes et al. (1978) taught both nondisabled and behavior problem preschool children to self

monitor and assess the quality of their academic work and to cue teachers for feedback. Teachercueing included such comments as Have I worked well? and How is this work? In the initialexperiment, the children learned the cues with the trainer but failed to spontaneously generalizethem to new academic settings. However, when generalization training was introduced by teach-ing the students to vary their cues, raise their hands, spread cues across time, and wait for theteacher to be near, the rates of teacher feedback and praise signicantly increased. For childrenlabeled deviant, 1.0 praise statements were given per day at baseline, compared with 4.4 praisestatements per day in the generalization condition. The authors demonstrated that preschool

children can actively recruit a natural community of probable reinforcement (Stokes et al., 1978,p. 301) through self-monitoring and assessment coupled with learning how to solicit teacher praisewith natural and diverse recruitment behaviors.

Self-monitoring and recruitment of praise can be important strategies for students with exter-nalizing disorders in changing the quality and positiveness of their environments. However, thesetwo strategies can be enhanced by a third strategy, self-evaluation and matching to an adultsevaluation. In a study by Connell et al. (1993) preschoolers with developmental delays weretaught to self-monitor their clean-up skills at transition time in the classroom. Picture checklistsand a sad face / happy face self-monitoring system were employed during training. In addition, theexperimenters reinforced students with small toys for matching self-monitoring ratings with theexperimenters ratings of the students work. While the students performance improved throughself-monitoring training alone, generalization to the classroom setting was poor. The addition of accurate matching and self-recruitment skills training for teacher feedback signicantly increased



7/15

Rhode et al. (1983) used a powerful shaping and fading procedure consisting of self-evaluation with matching to a teachers evaluation for disruptive externalizing students in a resourceclass. The students were gradually taught to self-evaluate their appropriate behaviors and matchtheir evaluation to the resource teachers evaluation. Students were reinforced primarily for cor-

rect matches rather than just for improving their behaviors. The self-evaluation skills (with correctteacher matches) helped to generalize their improvements in regular classroom settings.

The effectiveness of self-management has been documented across several researchers andin many settings with diverse disabilities (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987; Craft et al., 1998;Hrydowy et al., 1984; Shapiro & Cole, 1994; Sherman & Cormier, 1974; Young et al., 1991).Although self management can be an important strategy to enhance positive aspects of educationalenvironments for externalizing students, several variables must be addressed. First, expectingappropriate behavior to be recognized and praised by teachers is not enough. Students have toactively recruit praise and point out their improvements. Second, recruitment skills have to bediverse, natural, and appropriate to the classroom setting or they will be ignored or even punished.

Third, teaching students to accurately self-evaluate their behaviors and match them to the per-ceptions of the teacher increases feedback and praise from the teacher and also facilitates gener-alization. There also may be a fourth powerful approach, that of teaching teacher pleaser skills.

Social Skills for Recruiting Positives: The Teacher Pleaser Approach

Students with externalizing disorders often have to wage an uphill battle because of pastbehavioral excesses and the teachers perceptions of these students. Externalizing students havebeen especially difcult to include in regular education settings because of these past behaviorsand perceptions (Jenson et al., 1993; MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996; Shapiro et al., 1999).

Although the effectiveness of teaching externalizing students social skills has been questioned,this approach can be an important tool if steps are taken to promote generalization and if they arealso coupled with self-management skills for recruiting positives (Quinn et al., 1999; Sheridan,1995). Teaching these skills with recruitment and generalization strategies should improve theoverall positiveness of a students environment.

Graubard, Rosenburgh, and Miller (1971) initially proposed an intervention strategy thattrained students in the use of specic social skills in order to recruit positive teacher attention.Graubard et al. trained students with intellectual disabilities to make eye contact with teachers, tonod to teachers when material was both presented and understood, and to compliment teachers bymaking statements such as Now I understand or I like the way you taught that lesson. These

teacher pleaser social skills signicantly improved teacher and student interactions with signif-icantly fewer negative contacts reported by teachers.Cantor and Gelfand (1977) conrmed this approach by showing that students who actively

responded to adults in socially positive ways received more adult attention and were rated as moreattractive than children who acted unresponsively. Others have replicated the strategy with pre-schoolers (Connell et al., 1993; Stokes et al., 1978), elementary students with behavior disorders(Morgan, Young, & Goldstein, 1983), at-risk students (Hrydowy et al., 1984), students with devel-opmental disabilities (Mank & Horner, 1987), and students with autism ( Harchik, Luce, & Sher-man, 1990). Harchik et al. (1990) worked with four autistic children and adult workers in a grouphome environment. Each child was trained to make socially appropriate statements (e.g., check itout) or ask evaluative questions (e.g., how am I doing) to adults that could potentially set thestage for positive attention. Cues provided by the students resulted in positive praise from adults5084% of the time across both trained and untrained settings. Morgan et al. (1983) found sig-



8/15

nalizing disorders who were trained to prompt teachers for help and approval of their work andthen to praise teachers when the help and approval was provided.

One approach used a Teacher Pleaser social skills program to recruit positive teacher feed-back in transitioning externalizing students ( Jenson et al., 1993). The Teacher Pleasers program

was constructed to maximize the likelihood of successful transition from a restrictive specialeducation program into less restrictive neighborhood school programs. Students were taught in thecontext of a social skills program to initiate teacher pleaser statements and then self-monitortheir behaviors when they were exhibited in the less restrictive classroom settings. These studentswere taught to volunteer statements (i.e., Can I help you with something during recess?), solicitfeedback (e.g., How am I doing? or I want to do a good job in your classroom), or complimentand praise the teacher for help (e.g., Thanks, now I understand). Teachers in the new classroomenvironments were unaware the externalizing students had been taught the Teacher Pleaser socialskills.

These students were taught to use their Teacher Pleaser social skills in their new classrooms

and also completed a self-evaluation to rate their use of skills. Sixteen students were returned froma special school for students with externalizing disorders and tracked for a year. Fifty percent weresent to a regular classroom, 33% were placed in regular classrooms with resource help, and 17%were returned to a self-contained classroom housed in their neighborhood school. Students werealso observed to be on-task almost as much as their non-disabled peers (77% vs. 87%). Teachersalso reported acceptable levels of basic interaction and coping skills, appropriate peer socializa-tion, academic ability and stability of each student in their original placement.

Noncompliance, arguing, and disruptive behaviors characterize many students with external-izing disorders (Patterson et al., 1992). Noncompliance has been identied as a central (kingpin) behavior that affects many other related behaviors (e.g., arguing, temper tantrums, aggres-

sion). High rates of coercive noncompliance lead to a degradation of the students environmentresulting in poor social skills development, academic decits, poor social acceptance, delin-quency, and other deleterious outcomes (Patterson et al., 1992).

Neville and Jenson (1984) introduced the idea of a simple social skills program intended toincrease compliance and social acceptance by adults. With the Sure I Will program, students aretaught to identify a request from a teacher and respond with the phrase sure I will (and thencomply). Students are randomly reinforced for repeating the sure I will phrase followed bycompliance. The program was evaluated using ve elementary students with externalizing behav-iors, including high rates of noncompliance (Michielsen, 1990). Students were taught the Sure IWill program across 10 group sessions through a direct instruction format with modeling, role-

playing, drill and practice, and discrimination training. The students behaviors were then inde-pendently observed in their classroom with multiple probes by other staff across various schoolenvironments. Four out of ve students made signicant improvement in compliance from approx-imate baselines of below 40% compliance (i.e., to teacher requests) to above 80% after the intro-duction of the program. Findings were independently replicated by Martin-Le Master (1990)using the same Sure I Will program and a different group of students with externalizing disorders.Signicant increases in student compliance were supported by anecdotal reports of teachers doc-umenting increases in positive interactions with the student and the students overall improvementin social skills and adjustment. In Martin-Le Masters (1990) study, several of the externalizingstudents continued to exhibit the Sure I Will response, even when it was no longer reinforced inthe reversal phase of the single subject design and at follow-up.

Social skills behaviors that recruit teacher praise and which are highly valued by teachersappear to enhance the basic positive educational environment of externalizing students. Instead of



9/15

responding to a request with Sure I Will makes for a better positive t between teacher andstudent.

Teacher-Based Approaches: Changing the Classroom Climate

Many teachers want to be positive, particularly in daily interactions with students who havedisabilities. Time demands, overcrowded classrooms, and difcult students, however, can capturea large portion of a teachers time and attention. Further, the very nature of the behaviors thatdene externalizing students, i.e., noncompliance, aggression, arguing, and disruptiveness canmake this goal of using positive psychology difcult. However, if a teacher has the mindset thathis or her classroom will be positively managed there are several techniques that can ensure thatgoal. These techniques include random signaling programs, teacher self-management, public post-ing of positives, and teacher self-evaluation.

Random signaling programs have also been referred to as beep tape programs becausesounds are recorded at random intervals and played back in the classroom. When the sound goes

off the teacher determines if the student is behaving appropriately and if so, the student is thenreinforced. These programs have the benet of a predetermined number of sounds, which essen-tially guarantees a specied number of positives to be delivered to the students by teachers. Ran-dom signaling programs have been used successfully by teachers for several years, and theireffectiveness has been well documented in the research literature (Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1974;Maag, Reid, & DiGangi, 1993; McDougall & Brady, 1995).

Van Houten and Sullivan (1975) and van der Mars (1988) demonstrated the positive utility of audio signaling devices for increasing the rate of teacher praise. Similarly, Henderson, Jenson andErkin (1986) introduced a complete classroom management system using random signaling pro-cedures in 1976. The Practice Skills Mastery Program comes with pre-recorded cassettes with a

schedule of random beeps ranging from three beeps in 45 minutes to as many as 25 beeps in a45-minute period. The program also contains a token point system where the points awardedrandomly vary each time an audible signal sounds off in the classroom. Three separate elementaryresource classrooms for learning disabled and externalizing students, ages seven to 12 years, usedThe Practice Skills Mastery Program for a 1986 study by Hendersen, Jenson, and Erkin. Theon-task behavior of the entire classrooms increased from 55% at baseline to well above 80%during treatment. Over the 40 days of the study, the expected achievement gains in reading andmath for the three classrooms were doubled.

Public posting has been shown to be a powerful behavior change intervention in whichimprovements are graphed and displayed (Van Houten, 1980). With a slightly different approach

using data from random observations cued by audio tape, praise comments of teachers were cou-pled with public posting to improve teacher praise rates. In this study, 12 teachers of preschoolerswith disabilities were randomly observed teaching, and data were collected on their daily praiserates (Gross & Ekstrand, 1983). The results of the observations were then graphed and displayedin the classrooms. Results from this study showed that publicly posting praise rates nearly doubledthe rate observed during baseline with improvement maintained at a two-month follow-up.

A recent version of the signaling program has been developed using classroom computersand soundboard technology (Althouse et al., 1999). This program allows a teacher to use a class-room computer to generate random signals from 0 to 100 per hour with additional imbedded bonussignals. The program can run across the day and track when each signal occurs and what pointvalue was assigned to that signal. One advantage of this new program is that in addition to audiobeeps, WAV sound les may also be used. For example, one sound that can be picked from anarray of choices in the program mimics money falling into a container while another consists of an



10/15

Even simple audio recordings of teaching interactions played back and self-evaluated laterhas been shown to increase teachers praise rates and positive interactions with students (Strong,1997; Sutherland, 2000). Sutherland and Wehby (2001) used audio recording of classroom inter-actions with twenty teachers in self-contained classrooms for students with emotional and behav-

ior disorders. Independent observations revealed that the ratio of teacher praise for behavior ascompared to their reprimand rate for inappropriate behavior changed substantially from 2:1 duringpretreatment to approximately 6:1 for treatment and following. In essence, teachers tripled theirpraise rates for appropriate behavior while holding their reprimand rates for inappropriate behav-ior relatively constant. It is interesting to note that during the treatment there were collateralincreases in more desirable teaching behaviors and students increased rates of correct answers toinstructional questions.

Summary

Excessive behaviors like aggression, noncompliance, arguing, tantrums, and disruptiveness

make children with externalizing behaviors very difcult to manage in school and often lead totheir segregated educational placement. Behavioral decits in social skills, self-management skills,and academic skills compound the difculty for teachers, especially as these students get older. Apositive psychology approach to these students is problematic at best; however, we have no betteralternative. If continually punished and forced to experience failure, these are the students whodrop out of school, commit crimes, and cost society millions of dollars in rehabilitation andincarceration (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). A positive psychology focused approach is aneffective means for maintaining and educating these students. There have been advances in recentyears with the movements to positive behavioral support approaches and whole school manage-ment and discipline. Functional behavior assessment has advanced techniques to assess the moti-

vating consequences and the antecedent conditions that set the occasion for many of these problematicbehaviors. Although these appear to be a positive trends, it is not enough and more needs to bedone.

We have pointed out several approaches and techniques to promote positive psychologicalenvironments for students with externalizing behaviors. These students must be given some self-determining freedom, which can be done with self-management strategies to recruit their ownrewards. Students with serious behavior problems must experience some type of educational owexperience if they are to remain in education. This can be done with positive academic curriculathat emphasize reading and success with social skills programs that actually work to help thesestudents t in with other students. Students with externalizing disorders need a sense of optimism

about their future or they will simply give up and drop out. Classroom programs and teacherprograms that ensure positive successful experiences and high rates of praise can engender thisoptimism. Without these positive psychology components we will lose these students. Basically,the decision is to pay now by providing positive psychological approaches that keep these studentsin school, or pay later when these students reach adulthood and experience problems that requirelegal or community based remedies.

References

Althouse, R.B., Jenson, W.R., Likins, M., & Morgan, D.P. (1999). Get em on task: A computer signaling program to teachattending and self-management skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000). Teachers use of approval and disapproval in the classroom. Educational Psychology,

20, 431447.Brandt, R. (1995). Punished by rewards: A conversation with Ale Kohn. Educational Leadership, 54, 1316.Cameron J & Pierce W D (1994) Reinforcement reward and intrinsic motivation: A meta analysis Review of Educa



11/15

Cantor, N.L., & Gelfand, D.M. (1977). Effects of responsiveness and sex of children on adults behavior. Child Develop-ment, 48, 232238.

Carey, B.C. (1998). Temperament and behavior problems in the classroom. School Psychology Review, 27, 522533.Cantrell, R.P., Stenner, A.J., & Katzenmeyer, W.G. (1977). Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroom teaching corre-

lates of student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 190197.Chance, P. (1992). The rewards of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 803, 200207.Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1984). Origins and evolution of behavior disorders: From infancy to early adult life. New York:

Brunner / Mazel.Connell, M.C., Carta, J.J., & Baer, D.M. (1993). Programming generalization of in-class transition skills: Teaching pre-

schoolers with developmental delays to self-assess and recruit contingent teacher praise. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 345352.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.Craft, M.A., Alber, S.R., & Heward, W.L. (1998). Teaching elementary students with developmental disabilities to recruit

teacher attention in a general education classroom: Effects on teacher praise and academic productivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 399415.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsicrewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627 668.Dickenson, A.M. (1989). The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. Behavior Analyst,

12, 115.Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psy-

chologist, 55, 3443.Dishion, T.J., Andrews, D.W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship

characteristic, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139151.Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?AmericanPsychologist,51, 11531166.Eisenberger, R., Pierce, D.W., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivationNegative, neutral, and

positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677691.Elliott, S. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments in educational settings. In J.C. Witt, S.N. Elliot, & F.M. Gresham

(Eds.), Handbook of Behavior Therapy in Education (pp. 121148). New York: Plenum.Gelfand, D., Jenson, W.R., & Drew, C. (1996). Understanding childhood behavior disorders. New York: Harcourt-Brace.Glynn, E., Thomas, J.D., & Shee, S.M. (1974). Behavioral self-control of on-task behavior in an elementary classroom.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 105113.Graubard, P.S., Rosenburgh, H., & Miller, M.B. (1971). Student applications of behavior modication to teachers and

environments or ecological approaches to deviancy. In E.A. Romp & B.L. Hopkins (Eds.), A new direction foreducation: BehaviorAnalysis 1977 (pp. 80111). Lawrence, KS: Support and Development Center for Follow Through.

Gross, A.M., & Ekstrand, M. (1983). Increasing and maintaining rates of teacher praise: A study using public posting andfeedback fading. Behavior Modication, 7, 126135.

Gunter, P.L., & Coutinho, M.J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What were beginning to learn. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 20, 249264.

Gunter, P.L., & Shores, R.E. (1994). A case study of the effects of altering instructional interactions on the disruptive

behavior of a child identied with severe behavior disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 17, 435 445.Gunter, P.L., Denny, R.K., Jack, S.L., Shores, R.E., & Nelson, C.M. (1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions

between students with serious emotional disturbance and their teachers. Behavior Disorders, 19, 265274.Harchik, A.E., Luce, A.J., & Sherman, J.A. (1990). Teaching autistic and severely handicapped children to recruit praise:

Acquisition and generalization. Research in Developmental Disorders, 11, 7795.Henderson, H.S., Jenson, W.R., Erken, N.F. (1986). Using variable interval schedules to improve on-task behavior in the

classroom. Education and Treatment of Children, 9, 250263.Hinshaw, S.P. (1992a). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence:

Casual relationships underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127155.Hinshaw, S.P. (1992b). Interventions for social competence and social skill. In G. Weiss (Ed.), Child and adolescent

psychiatric clinics of North America ( Vol. 1, 2, October, 539552). Philadelphia: Saunders.Hrydowy, E.R., Stokes, T.F., & Martin, G.L. (1984). Training elementary students to prompt teacher praise. Education &

Treatment of Children, 7, 9910.Jenson, W.R., Christopolus, K., Zimmerman, M., Nicholas, P., Reavis, K., & Rhode, G. (1993). A much needed link with

regular education: The generalization of behaviorally disordered students The Oregon Conference Monograph Eugene:



12/15

Kehle, T.J., Bray, M.A., Theodore, L.A., Jenson, W.R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed toreduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475481.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, As, praise, and other bribes. NewYork: Houghton Mifin.

La Rochefoucauld, F. (1940). The maxims of Francois Duc de La Rochefoucauld (F.G. Stevens, Trans.). London: OxfordUniversity Press. (Original work published 1665).

Lepper, M.R., Henderlong, J., & Gingras, I. (1999). Understanding the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivationUses and abuses of meta-analysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125,669676.

Maag, J.W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in education. Excep-tional Children, 67, 173186.

Maag, J.W., Reid, R., & DiGangi, S.A. (1993). Differential effects of self-monitoring attention, accuracy, and productivity.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 329344.

MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Forness, S.R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders,21, 145159.

Mank, D.M., & Horner, R.H. (1987). Self-recruited feedback: A cost-effective procedure for maintaining behavior. Researchin Developmental Disabilities, 8, 91112.

Martin-LeMaster, J. (1990). Increasing classroom compliance of noncompliant elementary-age students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Utah.

McDougall, D., & Brady, M.P. (1995). Using audio-cue self-monitoring for students with severe behavior disorders.Journal of Educational Research, 88, 309321.

Michielsen, H.M. (1990). Using direct instruction to teach compliance in seriously noncompliant students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Utah State University.

Morgan, D., Young, K.R., & Goldstein, S. (1983). Teaching behaviorally disordered students to increase teacher attentionand praise in mainstreamed classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 8, 265273.

Neville, M.H., & Jenson, W.R. (1984). Precision commands and the Sure I Will program: A quick and efcient com-pliance training sequence. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 6, 61 63.

Nicholas, P., Olympia, D., & Jenson, W.R. (2001, April). Saying and doing the right things: A comparison of teacher schoolpsychologist intervention knowledge and competencies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Asso-ciation of School Psychologists, Washington, D.C.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castilia Publishers.Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44 55.Pffner, L.J., Rosen, L.A., & OLeary, S.G. (1985). The efcacy of an all-positive approach to classroom management.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 257261.Quay, H.C., & Hogan, A.E. (1999). Handbook of disruptive disorders. New York: Plenum.Quinn, M.M., Kavale, K.A., Mathur, S.R., Rutherford, R.B., & Forness, S.R. (1999). A meta-analysis of social skill

intervention for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 7,5464.

Rhode, G., Jenson, W.R., & Reavis, K. (1992). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Rhode, G., Morgan, D.P., & Young, K.R. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment gains of behaviorally

handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using self-evaluation procedures. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 16, 171188.Rosen, L.A., OLeary, S.G., Joyce, S.A., Conway, G., & Pffner, L.J. (1984). The importance of prudent negative conse-

quences for maintaining the appropriate behavior of hyperactive students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12,581604.

Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1970). Reading retardation and antisocial behavior: The nature of the association. In M. Rutter,J. Tizard, & K. Whitmore (Eds.), Education, health, and behavior ( pp. 240255). London: Longman.

Ryan, M.R., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and perfor-mance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 7988.

Seligman, M.E. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.Seligman, M.E. (1997). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.Seymour F W & Stokes T S (1976) Self recording in training girls to increase work and evoke staff praise in an



13/15

Shapiro, E.S., & Cole, C.L. (1994). Self-management interventions for classroom behavior change. New York: GuilfordPress.

Shapiro, E.S., Miller, D.N., Sawka, K., Gardhill, M.C., & Handler, M.W. (1999). Facilitating the inclusion of students withEBD into general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 8393.

Sheridan, S. (1995). The tough kid social skills training program. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Sherman, T.M., & Cormier, W.H. (1974). An investigation of the inuence of student behavior on teacher behavior. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 1121.Shores, R.E., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion?

Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92102.Shores, R.E., Jack, S.L., Gunter, P.L., Ellis, D.N., DeBriere, T.J., & Wehby, J.H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children

with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 1, 2739.Stage, S.A. (1997). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between in-school suspension and disruptive classroom

behavior of students with behavior disorders. Behavior Disorders, 23, 5776.Stage, S.A., & Quiroz, D.R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public

education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333368.Stokes, T.F., Fowler, S.A., & Baer, D.M. (1978). Training preschool children to recruit natural communities of reinforce-

ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 285303.

Strain, P., Lambert, D.L., Kerr, M.M., Stagg, V., & Lenkner, D.A. (1983). Naturalistic assessment of childrens complianceto teachers requests for compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 243329.

Strong, J.H. ( Ed.) (1997). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress, Inc.

Sutherland, K. (2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and students with emotional and behavior disor-ders. Preventing School Failure, 44, 110115.

Sutherland, K.S., & Wehby, J.H. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students withemotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 35, 161171.

Sutherland, K.S., Wehby, J.H., & Copeland, S.R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specic praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 8, 28.

Tellegen, A., Bouchard, T.J., Wilcox, K.J., Segal, N.L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality. similarity in twins reared apart andtogether. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10311039.

Thomas, J.D., Presland, I.E., Grant, M.D., & Glynn, T.L. (1978). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval ingrade-7 classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 9194.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). School completion: What do we know? Author: Washington, D.C.Van Acker, R., Grant, S.H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression.

Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 316334.van der Mars, H. (1988). The effects of audio-cueing on selected teaching behaviors of an experienced elementary physical

education specialist. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 6472.Van Hounten, R. (1980). Learning through feedback: A systematic approach for improving academic performance. New

York: Human Sciences Press.Van Houten, R., & Sullivan, K. (1975). Effects of an audio cueing system on the rate of teacher praise. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 8, 197201.Walker, H.M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. New York:

Brooks Cole.White, M.A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 8, 367372.Young, R.K., West, R.P., Smith, D.B., & Morgan, D. (1991). Teaching self-management to adolescents. Longmont, CO:

Sopris West.



14/15


15/15

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

pos psy and edu