Gold stars are okay after all

At some stage in writing this article on the use of token reward systems as a behaviour management technique (Gold Star Junkies, which I've previously posted on) the author, David Ruenzul, realised he was wrong. Rather than admitting the error of his ways, which would involve a painstaking rewrite, he decides to plough on, changing his position, hoping no one would notice:

And so I came to believe that rewards and punishments devised by parents and school officials had more to do with adult chest-beating than true efficacy. My insights, I later discovered, were hardly original. A near consensus on the limits of extrinsic motivation had emerged from scholarly research done in the 1970s and '80s: Rewards and punishments are not only ineffective at motivating students-and adults, for that matter-but are in fact counterproductive…

This comes at the beginning of his article. A clear indication he places no value in rewards and punishments as motivators (in fact, only an idiot would keep using rewards as they are de-motivators). Note that he also employs the fallacy of Impugning Motives: "…rewards and punishments devised by parents and school officials had more to do with adult chest-beating than true efficacy." Ruenzel's impugning of motives is just downright insulting. I can only suggest that his motivation in suggesting that the adults in charge of these children were motivated by their own need for power, is due to a projection of his own inferiority complex. Then again, perhaps he's right, who doesn't enjoy instilling the fear of a brutal reprisal in their young charges' minds? He then continues with the fallacy of False Positioning:

…The behaviorist theory-that people learn only when "good" and "bad" behavior is reinforced by rewards and punishments-seems to be plain wrong...

Ruenzel realises that the actual position of teachers who incorporate behaviourist techniques in their classroom management is too difficult a target. It's complex and detailed. So instead he attacks a caricature of behaviourist theory - a simplistic view of behaviourism that is over 100 years old and is held by no one working in psychology today. Compare behaviourism and neo-behaviourism here (and bear in mind that these overviews are simplistic themselves).

Towards the end of the paper Ruenzel has done a complete back flip (actually, that would leave him facing in the same direction, so I'll make that a "complete about face"):

Of course, if systems of rewards and punishments are really as bad as some assert, they would have been swept from the classroom years ago. The fact that so many teachers deploy them points to some inherent value. Even many of the researchers critical of rewards are reluctant to condemn them unconditionally...

Ruenzel has changed his tune, but in order for us to forget his original position he needs to Move the Goalposts. (Also note that he says: "as bad as some assert". What do you mean some? You asserted that buddy!):

So in the final analysis, how should teachers motivate students? Perhaps that is altogether the wrong question, says psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Perhaps teachers should instead focus on how to motivate themselves to become more deeply interested in-or remain deeply interested in-the subjects they teach…
…Of course, such a thing is not always possible, Csikszentmihalyi warned. No one is intrinsically motivated at all times, not even the most gifted teachers. And this is where extrinsic motivation comes into play.

Now it is as if the article was never arguing that extrinsic motivation such as "Gold Stars" is counterproductive - the crutch of the poor teacher. This is almost irrelevant. It's actually about getting the teachers themselves motivated. No doubt this is important, but that's not what you were originally arguing now was it David…?