EdPsy 399OL  Fall 2001

 

Kim Fitzer

 

Tom Anderson, Instructor

 

Lesson 1 Question 1

 

Use of Contracts, Required

 

The use of contracts in the classroom is encouraged by many educational psychologists, as a means of achieving desired behavior from an individual student.  Contracts represent one method of “behavior modification,” or the shaping of behavior intentionally through reinforcement.  The concept of behavior modification was first suggested by psychologist B.F. Skinner (Charles, 1999).  Skinner proposed that humans do nothing without some motivation, and that the choices that one makes are a direct result of a stimulus.  While Skinner’s beliefs were far more concerned with human behavior in general and less with feelings of self-actualization and intrinsic motivation, many educational psychologists found that his findings applied easily to classroom management (Charles, 1999).  In order to deal with students of all ages and personalities, the concept of “do this and you’ll get that” seemed custom made for educators (Kohn, 1993).  Skinner’s  “successive approximation” approach, in particular, advises setting a goal for the desired behavior, and then monitoring and rewarding progress as the goal becomes attainable (Charles, 1999).  The approach, devoid of punishment, belittlement and anger, represented a humane and sane alternative to traditional classroom discipline.  For exceptionally challenging behaviors or learning disabilities, behavior modification and academic contracts were developed.  This paper will examine the effectiveness of contracts, and whether they are a direct result of B.F. Skinner’s behavior modification approach or a much more student-centered discipline technique.

 

Perhaps two of the most enthusiastic advocates of contracts are Lee and Marlene Canter.  The Canters describe a contract as a “written, signed agreement between you and the student.  The contract is structured in such a way that enables you to intervene and monitor the student’s behavior continually” (Canter, 1989).    For the contract to be successful, the agreement must target one or two specific behaviors that either need to be changed or encouraged, allow for positive reinforcement that is of value to the student, specify the consequences that must result from infractions of the contract, and limited in the amount of time needed to complete the agreement (Canter, 1989). Unlike Skinner, however, the Canters stress that the goal is to eventually “raise the student’s self-esteem to highest point of motivation- intrinsic reinforcement, self-satisfaction for a job well done (Canter, 1989).  At some point, the reinforcement is no longer needed. 

 

Other educational psychologists, such as William Glasser and Linda Albert believe that students choose to behave the way they do, and that the teacher’s role is to help students make good choices concerning behavior (Charles, 1999).  Glasser, who rose to prominence among educational psychologists during the 1960s, encouraged teachers to establish clear and reasonable consequences following bad or good student behavior.  If a student made a bad behavior choice, consequences might include retribution, restriction from a favorite activity, or a working plan or contract for improving behavior.  Albert also advocates the use of a behavior plan in the event of serious or repeated misbehavior (Charles, 1999).  Both psychologists favor using the plan only when positive consequences, such as praise, reinforcement and rewards have failed to achieve the desired results.  They also recommend involving the students directly in the decision making process of the plan, to determine the targeted behavior, and the consequences for doing or not doing it.  Albert actually goes a step further and encourages teachers to utilize parental support as much as possible (Charles, 1999). 

 

These behavior management techniques are remarkable for several reasons:

  1. They provide teachers with a non-confrontational and rational means of dealing with misbehavior. 
  2. They involve students in the decision making process, thus allowing the individual to have a sense of ownership and control over their consequences.
  3. They place the emphasis on the behavior that needs to changing, not the student.  All of these plans are based on the belief  that when students misbehave, it is not because they are bad kids.  Rather, it is because they have made a choice to behave inappropriately.  Students who are given the choice will ultimately make good choices for behavior, simply because they are basically good kids and want to behave.
  4. Almost every teacher’s classroom management plan now involves some form of behavioral contract.  The concepts outlined here have become exceedingly popular.

 

While these techniques are accepted almost universally as being effective in dealing with misbehavior, do they really work in practice?  Are contracts and behavioral plans the answer to every overworked and overstressed teacher on the planet?  The answer is complicated.  On the one side, contracts, if implemented with care, can improve student behavior.  I have used contracts in a few cases with limited success.  One student, whom I will call Billy, enjoyed looking at restricted pornography sites in my Computer Graphics class.  His parents were concerned; this activity also occurred at home and in other classrooms.  Billy, who was also a Special Education student, was aware that the sites were not appropriate for the classroom, and would leave the site if caught, and say “My bad.”  But he was unable to stay away for long and soon would be back on the site, downloading pornographic images to his userfile.  The Ed Services team, Billy’s parents and his teachers, worked out a plan that if Billy managed to stay off of a restricted site for one class period, he would be allowed five minutes of class time to listen to his MPEG player.  If he made the choice to access the restricted sites, he would not be allowed to use the Internet for one week, even for school work.  While the negative consequences seemed harsh, the positive consequences were much more attractive to Billy, and so, because he did not  want to be restricted from using the Internet at all (he enjoyed listening to music on the Internet), he made the choice, albeit temporarily, to give up the pornography.  In Billy’s case, the contract worked for the classroom.  However, this is an unusual case.  Billy, being a Special Education student (Level 2 Down’s Syndrome), was not involved in the decision making process of the terms of his contract.  He was simply introduced to the consequences and told to accept them.  Billy may have felt that he did not have a choice, and so went along with the plan. 

 

But on the other hand, regular education students may not be so malleable in terms of their behavior as Billy.  Alfie Kohn, the author of Punished by Rewards:  The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, As, Praise and Other Bribes, agrees that behavior plans are worthwhile, but cautions that “whether a plan is put into writing is not nearly so important as how the agreement was reached:  jointly, or by the adult alone? freely or under duress? based on some understanding about the acts moral status or as a way of avoiding a punishment (or obtaining a reward)?”   Kohn recommends that a child must come willingly to the table, and agree to change the behavior because they want to, not because they fear the consequences or desire the reward. Intrinsic motivation must guide an individual’s decision to want to behave, Kohn argues.  Punishment or rewards may not work, simply because the student may fail to see the value in what is being offered, or withheld (Kohn, 1993).  While behavior may cease temporarily because the student desires the reward or fears the consequences, eventually satiety or boredom occurs, and the fear/desire fades.  When this occurs, new rewards or consequences must be established, and the process begins again.  Can it truly be said that this is a successful behavioral modification plan, particularly if it must be constantly revisited and rewritten?

 

An additional problem exists, as a practical concern, that in the secondary classroom there is very little time to sit down with a student and work out an individualized behavioral or academic plan.  Class periods are fifty-to fifty-five minutes in length, and with the administrative encouragement of bell-to-bell instruction, curriculum requirements, enrollment quotas, attendance, procedural duties, and in recent days, displays of citizenship, little opportunity exists for the one-on-one conference or the meting out of reinforcements and consequences.  For contracts to be effective, the consequence must follow the action consistently.  Unfortunately, when faced with trying to balance instruction with discipline, this is not always possible.  In reality, the application of a behavior modification plan may not work because it is sometimes not compatible with the day-to day operation of the classroom.

 

Contracts are, however, merely one method of classroom behavior modification among many, and should not be relied upon as the only technique that works.  While the concept of contracts may have its philosophical roots in B.F. Skinner’s theories of operant conditioning, educational psychologists such as Canter, Glasser and Albert have advocated their use because they offer the student a choice, and promote responsible behavior.  They depart from Skinner’s beliefs in that they encourage intrinsic motivation, instead of the external reinforcement, to shape behavior. Still, problems may exist for the practical application of the contract in the classroom, due to time constraints and individual differences.    Todays classroom, especially on the secondary level, allows little opportunity for the implementation of and attention to customized discipline plans:  while most teachers would agree that they are a good idea, many feel that they take away from the many duties they must also perform (information gathered during informal survey, 2001).  Whether one feels that contracts are effective or not, it is certain that they will continue to be used, with varying degrees of success, until the next great educational theory comes along and displaces their popularity.

 

References:   

 

Canter, Lee and Marlene.  1989.  Assertive Discipline for Secondary School Educators Teacher Workbook 7-12.  Santa Monica, CA:  Lee Canter and Associates. 

 

Charles, C.M. 1999. Building Classroom Discipline.  Boston, Massachusetts:  Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

 

Kohn, Alfie.  1993.  Punished by Rewards:  The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise and Other Bribes.  New York:  Houghton Mifflin Company.