Behavior contracts that work

Over on Smart Classroom Management, the site where he presents tips based on his book, Michael Linsin offers three reasons for not using behavior contracts. After a brief introduction that is generally pretty accurate, he argues that (a) “behavior contracts label students,” (b) “external rewards are short term,” and (c) “follow through is a bear.” He recommends employing a consistent behavior management plan for classrooms and adhering to it faithfully.

I certainly agree with the recommendation that teachers adopt and faithfully execute a carefully conceived and evidence-based classroom management plan, but I disagree with Mr. Linsin’s rejection of use of behavior contracts both because I think that contracts may be a component of a comprehensive management plan and because I think the objections he raises are specious.

Still, because they are ideas that others may have, Mr. Linsin’s points merit consideration. In the following sections I quote his headings and review the ideas he presents under each.

1. “Behavior contracts label students.” Mr. Linsin suggests that treating students differently from each other communicates a deep message that they are not “good”: “[I]t undeniably lets them know, deep down inside, that they don’t measure up, that they’re not as ‘good’ as everyone else. It becomes who they are, a self-fulfilling prophecy.” On its surface, such a communication seems undesirable, to be sure. But upon reflection, I see problems with this analysis. How does one know that (1) hidden messages are communicated, (2) students’ behavior differs later, or (3) some aspect of students selves causes misbehavior?

   What’s the factual basis for such assertions? If the evidence is that the students misbehave more often in the future, after experiencing a contract (i.e., the reverse-Pygmalion hypothesis), it would help to show that evidence. If the evidence is a belief that students’ self-concepts are harmed, it would help to show evidence of that effect. (By “evidence” I mean objective, scientific data, not just someones impression, an interview with a student, or a summary of a few teachers’ personal observations.)

   Later in his section on labeling, Mr. Linsin states that students “behave congruent with whatever label they’re given.” If this is true, then every teachers’ job is really, really easy: Simply label each and every student as smart and well-behaved. All done, right?

2. “External rewards are short term.” As soon as the word “external” is used as an adjective for the word “rewards,” I expect to hear or read assertions about “internal” or “intrinsic motivation” and other language based on trait-personality views of human behavior. Mr. Linsin opines that, “There is nothing wrong with using a prize box, and passing out smiley pencils or cool stickers is fun. But if used as the primary means to motivate students to behave, these external rewards will fail every time.” To be sure, educators want students to behave and engage in activities for the sheer joy inherent in the activities, to complete quadratic equations for the fun of solving them. I’m not being sarcastic here. I’m serious. That’s what I do hope to achieve. What concerns me is how tasks become “fun” or (wait for it, please) intrinsically motivating. How do educators make math fun? (Sadly, this is a question that probably led many down the path to activity based learning, including whole language literacy activities, discovery math, and similar approaches. That’s another post though.)

   Tasks become fun when students can solve them readily. To get to that stage of performance, it is usually necessary for teachers to break the tasks into solvable components and (yikes!) reward completion of them. The pairing of those rewards with the completion of the tasks makes the completion of the tasks become rewarding in their own right. Students begin to sit back and smile when they’ve put the final period on the last sentence in a writing assignment, hand a completed assignment to the teacher with eyes wide open and mouth corners turned upward, or exclaim ‘ahaa!’ when writing the line “2y=14.” To an observer who’s not considered the instruction leading up to those actions, they look for all the world like “internal motivation.”

   But what of Mr. Linsin’s concern about short-lived effects? Does reinforcement only work in the short term. That is correct, provided that one mishandles reinforcement. To make reinforcement work in the longer term, one must systematically and consistently modify how reinforcement is delivered. There are two fundamental progressions: (1) from richer-and-very-predictable to leaner-and-pretty-upredictable schedules of reinforcement and (2) from primary through secondary to social forms of reinforcement. In the case of behavior contracts, these sorts of variations should be built into the initial plan. Indeed, later in a contract plan, a student might earn a socially desirable outcome (popcorn party?) for her entire class by meeting a behavioral goal.

3. “Follow through is a bear.” In this objection, Mr. Linsin essentially asserts that teachers should avoid delegating authority to anyone else for what happens in their classrooms. I agree that it is important for teachers to be able to assume responsibility for managing their classrooms independently, provided that they are doing so successfully and in safe, benign, and humane ways.

   Mr. Linsin objected to the feature of behavioral contracting that includes others, especially parents, in planning and executing the features of the contracts. He wrote, “It’s great to have support from parents, and I think it’s important to get them involved. But anytime you have to count on that support for classroom management success, you’ll be disappointed. Parents get busy, lose interest, and become complacent. They just do.”

   I’m not quite sure that this analysis accurately represents parents. Some may not follow through in support of a contract. Some may follow through quite well. My guess is that Mr. Linsin was using hyperbole to make his point about independence.

   In a broader way, though, the possibility that others involved in a contract might not enforce is well represents another opportunity to plan contracts carefully. Effective educators must anticipate problems and pre-correct them. If one is concerned that a parent will not follow through with providing a home-based reward, find another back-up reward plan (e.g., taking a good news note to the principal) and wire in into the contract.

Mr. Linsin’s main pitch in his critique of behavior contracts is to adopt a uniform classroom management plan. He recommends that teachers “treat every student the same. Any and all unwanted behavior by students should fall under the rules and consequences of your classroom management plan.” Although I want to reserve the opportunity to argue that we should treat every student as a unique individual, for the most part this is good advice. A well-conceived and executed system will address at least 80%—perhaps even 90-95%—of the problems that arise. Because students come to classrooms with different behavioral histories, however, it’s almost a given that some behavior problems are going to arise. Prevention those problems by establishing effective environments for learning and consistently applying behavioral principles to teaching both academic and social skills is the first line of defense against problems. As a back-up for when those inevitable problems occur, having tools to address the problems is important. Behavioral contracts are one of the tools that teachers can use.

Behavioral contracts have been repeatedly demonstrated to have salutary, sustained, and beneficial effects on behavior. For those who want to learn more about contracts, I’ve assembled a few examples of original research here; some of them are available for free from the PubMed site. For those who are interested in learning more about how to write and employ behavioral contracts correctly, the classic source is a little book by Lloyd Homme and colleagues that is still available via online booksellers for just a couple of dollars.

Link to Mr. Linsin’s post.

Aguilar, C., & Navarro, J. (2008). Análisis funcional e intervención con economía de fichas y contrato de contingencias en tres casos de conductas disruptivas en el entorno escolar. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 40, 133-139.

Cantrell, R. P., Cantrell, M. L., Huddleston, C. M., & Woolbridge, R. L. (1969). Contingency contracting with school problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 215-220.

Homme, L. E. (and others). (1970). How to use contingency contracting in the classroom. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Kelley, M. L., & Stokes, T. F. (1982). Contingency contracting with disadvantaged youths: Improving classroom performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 447-454.

Miller, D. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children’s homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 73–84. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-73.

Mruzek, D., Cohen, C., & Smith, T. (2007). Contingency contracting with students with autism spectrum disorders in a public school setting. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 103-114. doi:10.1007/s10882-007-9036-x.