Abstract
When dealing with children who exhibit challenging behaviors there are no known interventions that work for all students or at all times. Thus, intervention for these students is often implemented in a trial and error manner. This article provides a logic for considering probability as a factor in selecting strategies. Understanding that some interventions are more likely to work than others and the fact that adult behavior is the main impetus for change in student behavior, the key is in considering which teacher behaviors offer the highest probability of student success. Suggestions and examples are provided.
Teachers regularly report challenging behavior as among the most difficult challenges they face in the classroom (Westling, 2010). This article presents a logic for teachers to use when considering intervention with challenging behavior.
Jimmy walks into Mr. Nelson’s English class and wanders to the back of the room, stopping to pick at staples on the bulletin board and ignoring the fact that the other students are busy with their journal writing (see Note 1). This is a common and predictable scenario for Jimmy. Certainly, Jimmy knows how to be seated at his desk: he often does it, and Mr. Nelson knows that he’s a capable writer. But despite a consistent daily journaling routine, Jimmy finds other options for his attention. Mr. Nelson is a positive and caring teacher who wishes self-direction for his students’ learning, and he is hesitant to be too forceful, but daily reminders and one-on-one talks have not been successful. He holds his head and sighs, “I’d love to be able to tell Jimmy ‘Good job’ during class—but he just doesn’t do the things he needs to do, so I’m stuck getting after him every day.” Mr. Nelson calls across the room “Hey, Jimmy, time for journal, c’mon.” Jimmy rolls his eyes and groans, then stumbles toward his desk a few steps before diverting to the sink, where he begins a long but unproductive hand-washing routine. Mr. Nelson laments, “I don’t know what it’ll take to get him to write in that journal, but I keep hoping that tomorrow it will happen.”
Probability in Games of Chance
It’s likely that the average teacher knows a Jimmy, a student who, despite consistent prodding, does not change his or her behavior. As such, it seems logical to assume that the probability of Jimmy coming into class tomorrow, being seated, and completing his journal entry is not very high. In fact, if you were offered to wager $100 of your own money on this very outcome, would you bet? Realistically, it is easy to see that the probability of compliance with the journaling routine is extremely low and thus not a smart wager. The question then becomes, what could be done to increase the probability of success to where this is a good bet? For starters, it is clear that the strategies Mr. Nelson has applied in the past (i.e., waiting and hoping) have not, and likely will not, increase the probability of Jimmy’s success. The role of the teacher when dealing with challenging behaviors is to increase the probability to the point where success is predictable.
Playing the odds, one success can increase the probability of another. For example, if you were asked to predict the student who most likely would be successful tomorrow, you would choose the student who had the greatest number of successes in the past. Unfortunately, the same probabilities hold true for failure. Every time a student fails there is an increased probability of another failure. If you were asked to predict the student who most likely would fail tomorrow, you would choose the student who had the greatest number of failures in the past. The student with 100 discipline referrals is more likely to engage in problem behavior tomorrow than is the student with 5, 30, or even 80 discipline referrals—and certainly the most likely to hit 101. Clearly, success and failure are predictable; thus, the task for effective teachers is to create the most immediately possible success for the student who is prone to failure. In short, success begets success, and the role of the teacher is to create success.
Mr. Nelson is correct in thinking that it is unlikely that Jimmy will sit down and write in his journal tomorrow, but certainly there are strategies other than waiting and hoping that it will happen. If someone told you that you could have $10,000 if Jimmy sat and completed his journal writing tomorrow, what would you do (and you can’t split the money with Jimmy)? Maybe you would relocate Jimmy’s seat, greet and converse with him as he enters the room, or offer an incentive when the journal entry is complete.
In any case, a success must be met with verbal praise (positive reinforcement) for Jimmy, indicating to him that he is actually a good writer. Will this make it certain that Jimmy will now write in his journal the next day? No, but it does increase the probability, even if ever so slightly, and the ball is now back in the teacher’s court. In a sense, Jimmy’s journal writing wager is just a perpetual game of chance, and the teacher’s job is to tilt the odds in favor of student success. The game is over when Jimmy’s success is predictable without teacher intervention.
Strategies for Challenging Behavior: Rigging the Game in Favor of Success
In general the game can be rigged in favor of success using antecedent strategies, instructional foundations, and consequences. For students with challenging behaviors, consequences tend to be the first response (Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005). However, it must be kept in mind that consequences do not change the probability of behavior occurring now—they change the probability of behavior happening again. Thus, consequences are effective only as a secondary source intervention—to be used after behavior has occurred. Of course punishment is typically thought of as a response to keep an inappropriate behavior from reoccurring. However, when considered logically, punishment may inhibit that particular response, but—in the absence of teaching—it does not increase the probability of a correct response. Simply put, punishment does not teach appropriate behavior and thus does not increase the odds of success tomorrow.
Antecedent Strategies
The best strategies for rigging the game occur prior to the time at which a desired behavior is expected.
Prompts
Perhaps the simplest of the antecedent strategies is the prompt—teacher-delivered hints, reminders, or cues to help the student remember to engage in a particular behavior. Although no strategy can rig the game 100%, the prompt is a very direct and easily delivered strategy that teachers likely use throughout the day (Werts, Caldwell, & Wolery, 2003). The planned use of prompts involves teacher consideration of format and timing, applied purposefully to elicit a particular desired behavior. Mr. Nelson may wish to keep an eye out for Jimmy right from the start of the routine, providing him with a subtle prompt: “Just need a couple of sentences in that journal here in a few minutes—I can’t wait to see what you’re thinking about.”
Proximity
Teacher proximity is another antecedent strategy that is very simple and direct, involving teacher positioning in the classroom at a given time. Research has shown that, in many cases, problem behaviors are less predictable when the teacher is positioned closer to a student (Conroy, Asmus, Ladwig, Sellers, & Valcante, 2004). Similarly, teacher proximity might be best considered in relation to the arrangement of desks or furniture. For example, clustered desks provide a higher probability for group work, whereas rows provide a higher likelihood of independent work (Hastings, 1995). In addition, creating an easy path to the student’s desk or positioning the desk away from distracting events can increase the probability of success. Perhaps Mr. Nelson could position himself so that he is nearer to Jimmy at the beginning of the journaling routine. This would lead to more timely opportunities to provide Jimmy with encouragement and prompts ahead of behavior rather than after the problems have begun.
Behavior Momentum
For students who are reluctant to begin work (i.e., low probability task), a behavioral momentum strategy may increase the likelihood of student success. This strategy involves greeting the student pleasantly, followed by two to three very simple requests, perhaps to assist with holding a door. After the student complies with each request, the teacher heaps on the praise: “I’m so proud of you, and thanks for being so responsible.” Once the sequence of simple requests has been performed and the student praised for success, the teacher gently delivers the request to complete the low probability task (Strand, Wahler, & Herring, 2000). Mr. Nelson would like to say, “Great job being on task and responsible,” but the task at hand has a low probability of success. He may consider asking Jimmy to engage in some simple high-probability tasks that would allow him opportunities to use the specific verbal praise he’d like to use—and then use that success to encourage lower-probability requests.
Instructional Foundations
No matter how well a strategy is designed, the probability of success is near zero if the student is incapable or unaware of the desired behavior. Thus, instruction is an essential component of any attempt to increase the probability of success. Although a full analysis of instructional strategies is well beyond the scope of this discussion, there are specific foundational components of all effective instructional practices that can be considered. Whether teaching mathematics, geography, or basic classroom rules, the teacher increases the likelihood of success by clearly explaining the desired behavior and why it is important (Brophy, 2006). This is best accomplished directly and explicitly, asking the student to repeat the key features of the behavior or task to ensure comprehension. Teacher modeling of a desired behavior is often used to enhance this initial instruction as the teacher demonstrates the behavior while simultaneously talking it through (Billingsley, Scheuermann, & Webber, 2009). Mr. Nelson may wish to be more explicit with his directions to the class, especially for the sake of Jimmy: “Notice how I’m opening the journal to the first blank page. Now I just write whatever I’m thinking about and I’m done.” Although explicitly stating expectations may not typically be given much thought by Mr. Nelson for such a simple task, clarity and repetition of initial instruction are very effective at rigging the game.
Research is clear that student engagement is highly associated with achievement (Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002). As such, the teacher improves the student’s probability of success to the extent that the student can be actively engaged with the instructional content (i.e., what you want the student to do). Teachers create opportunities for students to respond to the curriculum by asking students to respond to questions, demonstrate, express an opinion, or respond in some way to a choice. In short, the more times a student has to stop and think about the curricular content and then respond in some way, the higher the level of engagement and the higher the probability of success (Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003). In Jimmy’s case, he received interaction with the teacher only after he had neglected his work. Perhaps Mr. Nelson can attempt to engage Jimmy as a way to get into the exercise: “Hey, Jimmy, didn’t you go to the game last night? How was it? That would make a great journal entry.”
Consequences
A discussion of consequences will begin with another wager. If a certain student, Candy, says “Yipper” when asked for a code word tomorrow, you get $1,000; but there is only one trial. You can spend 1 full minute with her today to increase the probability for success but can choose to do just one of the following: (a) teach her what the code word is and practice with her or (b) tell her she will earn $10 for a correct response and detention for an incorrect response, making sure she remembers the consequences but not discussing what the code word is. Clearly, choosing the consequence will have no effect on student behavior without the instruction and you are unlikely to collect on your wager if using consequences alone. Although consequences are what people tend to consider first, simple logic dictates that antecedent strategies and instructional foundations have a much larger effect on the immediate probability of student success. Still, it is clear that consequences are necessary to affect the probability of behaviors in the future.
Positive Feedback
Positive feedback from the teacher is an extremely effective practice in terms of enhancing the probability of future success. Most positive feedback in schools is delivered in the form of specific verbal praise, telling the student that a specific behavior is correct (Apter, Arnold, & Swinson, 2010). Effective interventions for students with challenging behavior are focused on increasing the probability of student success, which also increases the frequency of positive teacher feedback. Because punishment, although sometimes necessary, does not teach appropriate behavior, the teacher’s job is instead to create opportunities to provide positive feedback. In fact, this is the logic behind both the provision of opportunities to respond and behavior momentum. The more times a student is successful, the more opportunities there are to provide positive feedback, which in turn increases the probability of the next success, and the next, and so forth. As has been discussed, the more times that Mr. Nelson is able to use praise (e.g., “Great job getting started on that journaling, Jimmy, I’m so impressed with your responsibility”), the more likely it is that he’ll get to do it again.
Negative Feedback
Not all feedback is in response to student success. When students misbehave or are incorrect, they need to receive feedback to that effect. In general, correction is the most instructional form of negative feedback, providing information about failure while also providing instruction to increase the probability of future success (Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009). The correction sequence consists of a statement of what was done incorrectly, questions and instruction leading to acknowledgment of the desired behavior, an opportunity for the student to respond correctly, and positive teacher feedback. Mr. Nelson can correct Jimmy: “Hey Jimmy, we’re supposed to be journaling—can you show me one sentence in your journal right now? Great, keep going.” The goal should not be to banish the use of punishment, it should be to create environments in which punishment is not needed as often. The necessity of punishment indicates that current antecedent strategies and instructional foundations are not working and must be revisited. Ultimately, the responsibility returns to the teacher to consider and implement those strategies designed to effectively increase the odds of success.
Playing With Probability
To take Mr. Nelson’s position, “I keep hoping that tomorrow it will happen,” is to ignore the fact that the teacher’s role is to make it happen. If Jimmy’s problem were difficulty with a math problem, hoping for success would not be considered an appropriate action—the expectation would be on the teacher to take action. In the behavior game there are no sure things, no strategies that work with every student every time. Student behavior in the classroom is a game of chance, but one that through logical and purposeful strategy can be tilted in favor of success. For that student whom you’re thinking about right now, if you were told you would receive $10,000 if he or she were successful tomorrow, what would you do differently as a teacher?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.