934702
editorial2020
BBXXXX10.1177/1074295620934702Beyond Behavior
Editorial
Positive Reinforcement in Schools:
Logic and Application
Terrance M. Scott, PhD1 and Timothy J. Landrum, PhD1
Keywords
behavior(s), change, discipline
Special thanks go to the Editors of Beyond Behavior for
allowing us to guest edit this special issue focused on the
effective use of positive reinforcement for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Having both
taught in self-contained classrooms for students with
EBD, we are acutely aware of the power and necessity of
positive feedback with students whose histories are rife
with failure and negativity. Still, despite overwhelming
and in our view, inarguable evidence of positive reinforce-
ment’s positive potential, myths regarding its ineffective
or even counter-productive nature continue to resonate in
educational circles. While there are one or two purveyors
of this faulty notion that have been particularly responsi-
ble for our most recent frustrations (and the impetus for
this issue), we have also found that slivers of misinforma-
tion permeate the majority of schools. These faulty notions
are what we counter with science and logic in this series of
articles.
We see reinforcement not merely as an educational tool,
but as a ubiquitously profound principle of behavior. What
is technically known as reinforcement is simply a descrip-
tion of an acknowledgment for positive behavior, for the
purpose of making such positive behavior more likely to
occur again in the future. When a student behaves correctly
we may acknowledge such with praise, such as “good job.”
But even this most simple version of positive reinforce-
ment has been the target of myths suggesting such state-
ments actually have the potential of harming students’
self-perception and motivation (Kohn, 2001). To put this in
perspective, when someone holds a door for us, the social
convention is to thank that person. We believe that nobody
worries that this acknowledgment will make the person
less likely to hold doors in the future. So the purpose of this
special issue is to clarify a simple universal logic for con-
sidering when and how to use reinforcement under a vari-
ety of circumstances.
We kick this off with a simple question: what are the
behaviors (outcomes) we wish for our students if they are
to maximize their probability for future success? Lest we
fall into the faulty trap of purporting that the ends justify
the means, let us add to the question a notion of student
Beyond Behavior
2020, Vol. 29(2) 67­–68
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1074295620934702
https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295620934702
journals.sagepub.com/home/bbx
dignity. That is, it is not just what may make the student
successful, but what can affect this outcome in a manner
that also maximizes the student’s self-worth, indepen-
dence, and dignity. This clearly rules out any interventions
involving physical or emotional pain, and, for the sake of
argument, let us say it also eliminates tangible reinforce-
ment, that is, no toys, food, goodies, and so on. We submit
that the evidence is clear that positive student outcomes in
terms of both dignity and behavioral success are maxi-
mized by the use of positive reinforcement. But once we
rule out tangible reinforcement it may be that school per-
sonnel are not familiar with other more instructionally rel-
evant options. We wrote the lead article in this issue to
tackle this basic logic and to provide logical responses to
these most common myths.
In the second article, George Sugai and Brandi Simonsen
discuss a full array of applications of reinforcement for stu-
dents with challenging behavior. They provide a context for
considering function of behavior and describe the applica-
tion of instruction and reinforcement for such function-
based replacement behaviors. Following this, the third
article by Todd Whitney and Kera Ackerman provides a
review of research-based methods for the delivery of posi-
tive feedback during instruction. They describe how posi-
tive reinforcement can be constructive in helping students
to build knowledge from instructional engagement with
teachers.
The fourth and fifth articles provide a focus on age-ori-
ented populations. First, Jessica Hardy and Ragan McLeod
provide an overview of special considerations for the effec-
tive use of reinforcement procedures with young children.
They describe the unique considerations necessary with
this special population and provide a decision-making
flowchart to guide practices. Next, Todd Haydon, Meredith
Murphy, Shobana Musti-Rao, William Hunter, and Jason
1
University of Louisville, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Terrance M. Scott, University of Louisville, 106 Education Bldg,
Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: t.scott@louisville.edu
68
Boone describe unique considerations in applying positive
feedback to older students. They focus on some more sys-
temic strategies for the delivery of reinforcement, includ-
ing the Good Behavior Game, positive peer notes, and
Tootling.
As a final piece, two of our field’s most distinguished
elder-scholars, Mike Nelson and Jim Kauffman, provide a
summarizing commentary. They discuss a history of issues
related to positive reinforcement and pontificate on both the
nature of myths in education and how we must continue our
commitment to science.
Beyond Behavior 29(2)
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.
Reference
Kohn, A. (2001). Five reasons to stop saying “good job.” Young
Children, 56(5), 24–30.