Abstract
This article provides an overview of how reinforcement serves as the foundation for a function-based approach to support students with challenging behavior. Understanding reinforcement is essential when providing function-based support for students with challenging behavior. Reinforcement “strengthens” behavior, increasing the probability that similar behaviors occur again. By understanding and using reinforcement accurately, educators conduct efficient functional behavioral assessments; develop and implement positive, aligned, and individualized behavior support plans; and avoid misrules and misconceptions about reinforcement.
Keywords
When working with students with challenging behavior, effective educators adopt a function-based behavioral approach to understand and support student behavior (Cooper et al., 2007; Wolery et al., 1988). From a function-based behavioral perspective, all behavior is learned. For example, academic, personal, interpersonal, vocational, and recreational behaviors are learned, regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate, and desired or undesired. Although learning is influenced by a range of factors, including biology, physiology, and neurology (Biglan, 2015), individuals learn behaviors directly through experiences with their environment, which includes people, activities, and other stimuli. Furthermore, individuals continue to engage in behaviors that “work” for them, that is, behaviors that result in reinforcement. Reinforcement is a fundamental consideration in function-based behavioral support for students with challenging behavior.
Function-based behavioral support is more effective than non-function-based behavioral support at improving outcomes for students with challenging behavior (Briere & Simonsen, 2011; Ingram et al., 2005). When non-function-based behavioral perspectives are adopted, plans are less relevant, efficient, and effective (Ingram et al., 2005). By understanding function-based support, educators can rearrange environments and use their understanding of reinforcement to (a) decrease the probability of challenging behavior and (b) develop and strengthen more appropriate replacement behaviors (O’Neill et al., 1997; Sugai & Horner, 1999–2000).
When interacting with students with challenging behaviors, educators’ context and learning history (e.g., culture, community, family, education) affect how they respond to student behavior. That is, educators’ behaviors are influenced by the same mechanisms that influence student behavior (Sugai et al., 2012; Vargas, 2013; Walker et al., 2004). Therefore, effective educators consider the context and function of their own behavior when planning, implementing, and monitoring function-based behavioral supports for their students with challenging behavior.
In this article, we describe the (a) role of reinforcement within a function-based behavioral approach for students with challenging behavior, (b) use of reinforcement knowledge to enhance function-based behavioral support development and implementation for students with challenging behavior, and (c) strategies to enhance the context to improve the effectiveness of function-based behavioral support for students with challenging behavior. By understanding the role of reinforcement in a function-based behavioral approach, educators can improve the precision, relevance, and efficiency of their support for students with challenging behavior.
Role of Reinforcement Within a Function-Based Behavioral Approach for Students With Challenging Behavior
Although dictionary definitions of “reinforcement” focus on “the action of strengthening or encouraging something” (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reinforcement), the concept of reinforcement in education is often seen as synonymous with terms like “recognition,” “reward,” and “acknowledgement.” The use of general definitions and synonyms that are not conceptually grounded decreases precision, weakens implementation, and shapes false perceptions about the utility and appropriateness of reinforcement, especially for students with challenging problem behavior who require highly individualized and precise behavioral supports. As a result, educators may develop misrules and misapplications of reinforcement, such as (a) “students shouldn’t be coerced into doing the right thing for rewards”; (b) “external praise and recognition damage the development of intrinsic motivation and develop an overreliance on extrinsic incentives”; and (c) “reinforcement is a form of bribery and has no place in the classroom.”
For example, educators may find that a specific “reward” does not affect a specific student’s behavior and think/say, “He doesn’t care about earning a fun Friday activity.” By not understanding a function-based behavioral approach, these educators may conclude that “reinforcement doesn’t work.” However, the correct description is that the “reward” was not a reinforcer for that student’s behavior. More precisely, the contingent presentation of the consequence (fun Friday activity) was not associated with an increase in the probability of that behavior being observed. Thus, when we adopt and apply an accurate function-based behavioral perspective, we can effectively use reinforcement and other strategies to develop and provide comprehensive function-based supports, improving outcomes for students with behavior challenges. Understanding reinforcement from a behavior analytic perspective is key to achieving an accurate function-based behavioral perspective.
Behavior Analytic Definitions
A behavior analytic definition more precisely describes reinforcement as a stimulus change immediately following a behavior that increases the probability of similar behavior in the future (Cooper et al., 2007). Although seemingly simplistic on the surface, positive and negative reinforcement are fundamental to a function-based behavioral approach. In basic math terms, the stimulus change may add (+) something to the environment (e.g., provide specific praise) that increases the future probability of similar behavior (positive reinforcement). For example, when a student begins work right away, an educator may provide specific praise: “Thank you for starting your work quickly! That is very responsible.” If the student is more likely to begin work quickly in the future, then providing specific praise functioned as a positive reinforcer for that student.
Alternately, the stimulus change may subtract (−) something from the environment that increases the future probability of similar behavior (negative reinforcement). For example, an educator may stand close to a student at the beginning of independent seat work and provide repeated reminders or “nag” (e.g., “Get out your materials. Open your book. Keep moving . . . it’s time to start working. Let’s get started.”) until the student begins work. Then, when the student begins work, the teacher may quietly walk away (remove nagging). If the student is more likely to being work quickly (to escape or even avoid nagging), then removing the nagging negatively reinforced the students’ behavior.
From a function-based behavioral perspective, we apply a similar nonjudgmental conceptualization to punishment, which is described as a stimulus change immediately following a behavior that decreases the probability of similar behavior in the future. Likewise, “positive” and “negative” refer to the stimulus being contingently presented (positive punishment) and removed (negative punishment). Thus, “positive” and “negative” refer to the stimulus as being contingently added or subtracted, respectively, and are not subjectively referenced as “good” or “bad.” This distinction is important to avoid the mis-connotation, for example, that negative reinforcement is something “bad” or that positive punishment is something “good,” especially for students with challenging behavior.
Returning our focus to reinforcement, positive and negative reinforcement may explain the ongoing occurrence of behavior, regardless of whether the behavior is appropriate—using words to solve conflict, raising hand to solicit assistance, arriving to classroom on time—or inappropriate—cursing, running away, crying, turning away—for the context. For example, educators may give students verbal attention when they arrive to class on time in the form as follows: “Thanks for being in your seat before the bell!” These consequences may be associated with the increased likelihood of students arriving to class on time in the future (positive reinforcement). Similarly, educators may notice that when verbal attention is given after a student curses—“That’s disrespectful. I don’t appreciate you using 4-letter words in my classroom”—the verbal attention may be related to the increased likelihood of a student’s cursing behavior in the future (also positive reinforcement).
Function of Behavior
Positive or negative reinforcement explains why any behaviors continue to occur at a high frequency or across time. To avoid the confusion caused by the words “positive” and “negative,” we also can say that the behavior functions to get or obtain access to stimuli (history of positive reinforcement) or escape or avoid stimuli (history of negative reinforcement; Cooper et al., 2007). Understanding behavioral occurrences from a function-based (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement) perspective is foundational to development of high-quality behavior supports for students with challenging behavior. Knowing what contributes to occurrences of challenging behavior informs educators about how the environment can be adjusted to (a) weaken or remove reinforcement for challenging behaviors and (b) establish and strengthen more appropriate replacement behaviors.
Thus, the term function-based support refers to implementing appropriate supports based on the student’s unique learning history, or history of positive or negative reinforcement, and the context, or environment. To effectively implement function-based support for students with challenging behavior, educators seek to (a) understand the type of reinforcement (positive or negative) associated with occurrences of challenging behavior, (b) identify a more appropriate way (replacement skills) for students to achieve similar reinforcement, and (c) develop intervention strategies to ensure the replacement skills more efficiently and effectively result in reinforcement, as we describe in the next section. In short, accurately understanding reinforcement from a behavioral perspective is key to supporting students with challenging behavior.
Use of Reinforcement Knowledge to Enhance Function-Based Behavioral Support Development and Implementation for Students With Challenging Behavior
Function-based behavioral support for students with challenging behaviors must be highly individualized, specifically informed by assessment information, and used with careful consideration of environmental context and implementation fidelity. Specifically, educators conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) to collect information about behavior function (i.e., maintaining positive or negative reinforcement), which in turn is used to develop behavior support plans (BSPs). Conducting FBAs involves identifying four essential components that predict, describe, and maintain behavior (i.e., four-term contingency): setting events, antecedents, behaviors, and reinforcing consequences. In this section, we describe how to define, assess, and support students through an understanding of reinforcement within the four-term contingency.
Defining the Four-Term Contingency
Setting events are temporary or irregularly occurring antecedent conditions or events that affect the value of the available reinforcement, indicating whether reinforcement will be more or less effective. One example of the changing effectiveness is that food may be more reinforcing for an individual when he or she is hungry. For students with challenging behaviors, other examples include an early morning fight or argument on the bus, public embarrassment in a previous class, missed medication, or illness. Thus, earning academic points for completing math word problems may not be associated with work completion for a student on days when math class is preceded by an argument with a friend on the bus, or verbal praise statements may not be as effective for answering questions in class for a student who experienced public embarrassment in a previous activity. Unlike discriminative antecedents (see below) which signal the availability of a reinforcer if the behavior occurs, setting events temporally alter the effectiveness of the reinforcer (i.e., strengthening or weakening).
Antecedents refer to specific stimuli present before a behavior occurs, such as a teacher asking a question, math problems being distributed, or a peer teasing another peer. Antecedent stimuli may include objects, events, behavior of others, or activities. Over time, antecedent stimuli that are associated with reinforcing or punishing consequences for certain behavior come to function as discriminative stimuli and signal the availability of reinforcement or punishment, respectively. For example, if a teacher asks a question (antecedent stimulus) and a student answers correctly (behavior), the teacher may provide specific praise (“Great! That was a thoughtful response”). Over time, a teacher asking a question becomes a discriminative stimulus signaling that reinforcement is available contingent on a correct response. Therefore, when educators say “antecedent,” they typically mean the discriminative stimuli that signal the availability of reinforcement for a specific behavior, and they may describe the antecedent as “triggering” that behavior due to the history of reinforcement.
Behaviors are actions described in objective, observable, and measurable terms so that two individuals can agree about observing the same behavior. For example, the student cries (topography: head down, moaning, body rocking, and tears) for 2 to 3 min (duration) within 15 s of being teased (latency) during large group discussions (location) at least twice a week (frequency).
Consequences refer to specific stimuli that follow observed behavior. Consequence events that contingently follow a behavior are used to describe why (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement) the behaviors continue to occur, as explained in the previous section.
Thus, over time, stimuli become associated with, related to, or learned in connection with each other within a four-term contingency: setting event–antecedent–behavior–consequence. As such, a teacher’s behavior (e.g., “what is photosynthesis?”) is the antecedent stimulus for student behavior (e.g., “you gotta be kidding me! I have no idea how to answer that stupid question!”), and the student’s behavior is the consequence stimulus for the teacher’s behavior (i.e., aversive). In turn, the student’s behavior is the antecedent stimuli for the teacher’s next behavior (e.g., “what rude thing did you just say to me?”), which is the consequence stimulus for the student’s behavior. Thus, as the behavior chain continues, the behavioral interaction of the student and the teacher represents the dual role (antecedent, behavior, and/or consequence) of each stimuli.
Figure 1 presents a visual representation of this dual-role stimuli play within a student and teacher behavior interaction. Although additional observations and information may be needed to confirm the function of each individual’s behavior, initial hypotheses can be developed. From Figure 1, for example, it could be hypothesized that Manuella’s verbal behavior is maintained initially by teacher verbal attention (positive reinforcement) and later by teacher leaving (negative reinforcement). Similarly, her teacher’s verbal behavior could be hypothesized as being initially maintained by student attention (positive reinforcement) and later as getting away from Manuella’s verbal behavior (negative reinforcement) or getting attention from the school principal (positive reinforcement).
Example of a student–teacher chain of antecedents–behaviors–consequences.
Conducting an FBA to Identify the Four-Term Contingency
Developing a testable hypothesis that describes the four-term contingency for behavior is a critical step of an FBA and serves as the basis of developing the features of a BSP. To develop a testable hypothesis, educators review patterns in data collected during a comprehensive FBA, including from records review, interviews with key people, and direct observations. Although testable hypothesis statements may be developed for any observable behavior, regardless of whether appropriate or inappropriate or for student or teacher, most statements are developed to guide development of the implementation strategies and features of an individualized BSP for students with challenging behavior. However, developing testable hypotheses about the interactive behaviors of others such as teachers and peers can provide additional information for refining the features and implementation of a student’s BSP.
In the following example (depicted in Figure 2), a function-based approach (FBA, testable hypothesis, and BSP) is used to support a student with challenging behavior. This same approach (FBA, testable hypothesis, BSP) is also used to understand the teacher’s behavior and provide the teacher with supports so implementation will be efficient, effective, and relevant.
Testable hypotheses and intervention strategies for a student and her teacher.
An FBA for a student results in the following testable hypothesis (see the top of Figure 2): During teacher lecture (antecedent), the student disrupts instruction by shouting out answers, making jokes, or other verbal disruptions (challenging behavior), and the teacher typically reprimands the student or acknowledges the student’s response (provides attention—positive reinforcement). The student is even more likely to disrupt instruction following periods of time with limited prior opportunities to access teacher attention (setting event that increases the value of teacher attention as a positive reinforcer).
If data from the FBA validate this testable hypothesis, this information is used to develop a BSP that carefully considers reinforcement in the context of all four decision-making areas.
Developing Function-Based Behavioral Support Within the Four-Term Contingency
A BSP documents intervention strategies that (a) remove, “neutralize,” or mitigate the influence of setting events; (b) modify antecedent conditions to remove stimuli associated with challenging behavior and add stimuli associated with contextually expected behaviors; (c) identify and teach replacement skills that result in similar reinforcement and shape, or reinforce successive approximations, of contextually expected behaviors; and (d) modify consequences to ensure replacement skills result in similar or functionally equivalent reinforcement, increase reinforcement contingent on contextually expected behaviors, and remove or reduce reinforcement for challenging behavior. For example, we indicated potential BSP intervention strategies for the student in Figure 2.
Although we typically conduct FBAs and develop BSPs to support students, we should use the same reinforcement principles to understand and support educator behavior so that we can understand what inhibits and contributes to implementation of the BSP. Like student behavior, educator behaviors can be described in a four-term contingency. Returning to our previous example, we considered contingencies that affect how a teacher responds (teacher behavior) to a student’s disruptive behavior (antecedent). Specifically, When the student engages in disruptive behavior (antecedent), the teacher currently reprimands or acknowledges the disruption (ineffective intervention behavior), which is followed by a brief break in student disruptive behavior (removes challenging behavior—negative reinforcement). The teacher is more likely to give reprimand or acknowledge disruptive behavior when frequent disruptions are experienced in the recent past (setting event).
Given information that confirms this hypothesis statement, structures are developed to support the teacher’s implementation of the student’s BSP (bottom of Figure 2).
In summary, students with challenging behaviors require the best function-based behavioral supports designed to (a) rearrange the environment to prevent challenging behaviors (e.g., remove reinforcing conditions for challenging behavior) and (b) teach and strengthen more appropriate replacement behaviors (i.e., add reinforcing conditions for contextually appropriate and desired behaviors). A function-based behavioral approach is conceptually based on positive and negative reinforcement. Operationalizing this approach involves the use of FBA to obtain information that confirms function-based hypothesis statements, which, in turn, serve as the core elements of a BSP. To reiterate, a working knowledge of reinforcement principles is fundamentally essential to specialized, individualized, and precise function-based behavioral supports for students with challenging behavior.
Enhancing the Context to Improve the Effectiveness of Function-Based Behavioral Support for Students With Challenging Behavior
The success of function-based behavioral supports for students with challenging behavior should be considered in the context of classroom, school-wide, and district supports. If classrooms are not positive, effective, and efficient teaching and learning environments (i.e., positively reinforcing) for all students, implementation of intensive function-based behavioral support of students with challenging behavior is likely to be difficult. The same could be said of school-wide settings and contexts, including hallways, lunchrooms, common areas, and restrooms.
We highlight five critical ways that educators can enhance the classroom, school, and/or district context that bolster the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of function-based behavioral support for students with challenging behavior (see Figure 3). First, if a framework for implementing a continuum of behavior practices and systems is in place, such as multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), then operating more individualized behavior support planning can be enhanced. The continuum logic supports district, school-wide, and classroom practices such as teaching and providing positive reinforcement for expected behaviors for all students (Tier 1), more group-based practices for students requiring targeted supports (Tier 2), and most individualized practices for students requiring most intensive supports (Tier 3; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). This same logic can be applied to organize a continuum of professional development supports for educators (e.g., Tier 1—universal training, Tier 2—monthly peer coaching and positive reinforcement, Tier 3—daily coaching and performance feedback; Simonsen et al., 2014).
Five critical ways to enhance the context and bolster the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of function-based behavioral support for students with challenging behavior.
Second, individual student behavior support can be easier if explicitly teaching, modeling, prompting, and positively reinforcing expected behaviors are clustered around generally agreed-upon school-wide expectations, character traits, or social values (e.g., respect, responsible, and safe), which are defined and linked to specific settings (e.g., hallways, lunchrooms, entering/exiting, sporting events, and assemblies). Behaviors representing these core values are often the basis of individual BSPs for students with challenging behavior. Furthermore, school-wide efforts are maximally supportive when formally extended into the classroom to support sound academic (e.g., explicit instruction, active engagement activities, high rates and quality of opportunities to respond) and behavior management (e.g., active supervision, teaching behaviors related to classroom routines, positive reinforcement) practices (Scott, 2017; Simonsen & Myers, 2015).
Third, school administrators and other school leaders, including instructional and behavioral coaches, department chairs, and house leaders, must be active participants across the behavioral support continuum. Participatory actions generally include, for example, modeling expected staff practices, prompting use of effective practices, positively reinforcing displays of expected behavior, and intensifying personnel supervision for staff members who need more intensive assistance in implementing behavior practices. In addition, school leaders can be important providers of effective positive reinforcement for students with challenging behavior, which is important in breaking the “disciplinarian” role.
Fourth, data-based decision-making structures and routines need to be enacted across the continuum of support to enable (a) regular behavior screening for students with risk characteristics, (b) continuous progress monitoring of student responsiveness to intervention, (c) regular evaluation of practice implementation fidelity, and (d) annual evaluation of system implementation capacity. Across the continuum of behavioral support, a general function-based logic can be applied to data-based decision making by considering who is displaying the behavior, what is the behavior of concern, where and when the behavior is and is not observed, who else might be involved, and why might the behavior be occurring (function). When a function-based behavioral approach is applied to all students, the specialized and intensive nature for supports for students with challenging behavior is augmented and enhanced (Allday, 2018).
Fifth, educators are active members of school-wide leadership teams at each tier of support, and actively participate in the student-focused and team-based process for students with challenging behavior who require more intensive and specialized behavior support, which includes identifying and describing the problem behavior, gathering information to develop and test hypothesis statements (FBA), and developing a contextually relevant set of strategies to reduce the likelihood of challenging behavior and increase the likelihood of expected appropriate behavior (BSP). At Tier 3, the student-focused team is composed of teachers who interact with the student and support staff members with behavior support and implementation expertise. Students and family members are also active participating members.
Summary and Conclusion
By understanding and using reinforcement effectively and correctly over time within a function-based behavioral approach, educators can be preventive, effective, efficient, and relevant when supporting all students, but especially when supporting students with challenging behavior. We emphasized four main ideas. First, a behavioral approach is a scientific, defendable, viable, applied, and theoretically sound way to enhance the education of all students, including students with challenging behavior.
Second, within a function-based behavioral approach, reinforcement principles (specifically, positive and negative reinforcement) are the main mechanisms for assessing the what, where, why, and how of behavior. Reinforcement principles are applied to all behavior of all individuals regardless of behavior type (e.g., academic vs. social), individual (e.g., student, educator, administrator, family member), subjective value (e.g., appropriate vs. inappropriate, correct vs. incorrect, desired vs. undesired), and place (e.g., academic lesson, hallway interaction, field trip, community setting).
Third, based on an assessment of what and where behaviors are observed and what environmental elements (i.e., setting events, antecedent and consequence events and actions) are associated with the behaviors, we develop and implement behavior support and intervention plans that highlight and specify what practices the student experiences and what supports the implementers receive to maximize student success and implementation fidelity.
Fourth, we briefly summarized some of the more universal elements of districts, schools, and classrooms that enable the accurate and sustained use of reinforcement-based approaches, especially for students with challenging behavior, including (a) positive and preventive continuum of behavior support practices and systems for students and educators organized within a multi-tiered system of supports, (b) school-wide and classroom-level implementation of proactive social and academic instruction anchored to 3-5 positive expectations, (c) strong administrator support and participation, (d) comprehensive data-based decision making, and (e) team-based behavior support implementation.
Educators provide students with a range of unique, formal, and structured academic and social behavior learning opportunities and environments for 13+ years, 180 days per year, and 6 hr per day. To take full advantage of this opportunity for enhancing the educational experience of all students, the behavioral sciences, specifically reinforcement-based practices and systems, represent an effective, efficient, and relevant approach for understanding the what, where, when, and why of human behavior. Students with challenging behaviors and educators who support them deserve such an approach.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Tim Landrum and Terry Scott are guest editors of this article.
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.