Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of positive reinforcement and a token program in a public junior high school class Main, George C. 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A4_7 M33.pdf [ 5.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101647.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101647-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101647-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101647-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101647-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101647-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101647-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101647-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101647.ris

Full Text

c THE EFFECTS OF POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT AND A TOKEN PROGRAM IN A PUBLIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASS by George C. Main B.Sc, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Education i n the Faculty of Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1972 In p re sen t ing t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and s tudy . I f u r t he r agree t ha t pe rmiss ion fo r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT The operant l e v e l of inappropriate behavior was obtained f o r s i x students i n a non-academic grade nine c l a s s r e c e i v i n g an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d program of i n s t r u c t i o n i n mathematics and science. Two conditions, educational structure and p r a i s i n g appropriate behavior while ignoring inappropriate behavior, were introduced successively. Both procedures reduced inappropriate behavior with f i v e subjects. When a token reinforcement pro-gram, using back-up r e i n f o r c e r s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n the school, was introduced i n conjunction with the conditions of education-a l structures and p r a i s i n g and ignoring; dramatic decline i n the emission of inappropriate responses occurred with a l l s i x subjects. Withdrawal of the token program, leaving Education-a l structure and p r a i s i n g and ignoring i n e f f e c t , r e s u l t e d i n an increase of inappropriate behavior with f i v e subjects. The token program was reintroduced i n conjunction withcontin-gency contracts. The r e s u l t was a decline of inappropriate behavior below the mean of the f i r s t token phase f o r a l l sub-j e c t s . Tokens were thinned during the second token phase leaving back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , teacher-praise and attention, and the completion of contracts i n e f f e c t . Data obtained during follow-up i n d i c a t e d that the thinning procedure was e f f e c t i v e with no subsequent increase i n behavior f o r any subject. The token program, u t i l i z e d during one of the four blocks i n the school time table, appeared to reduce absentee-ism. Further evidence that appropriate behavior d i d general-i z e to other c l a s s e s . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 P r i n c i p l e s of Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n 1 D i r e c t Observation and Recording, Repeated Measurement, and Systematic Manipulation of Behavior - 3 Contingencies of Reinforcement 4 Praise and S o c i a l Reinforcement 6 Token Reinforcers and Token Reinforcement. . 8 Purpose and Importance of the Study 11 I I . DEFINITIONS AND HYPOTHESES 13 D e f i n i t i o n s 13 Inappropriate and Appropriate Behavior . . . 13 Technical Terms 15 Treatment Levels 18 Hypotheses 20 I I I . PROCEDURE 23 S e l e c t i o n and Description of the Subjects. . . 23 The Experimental S e t t i n g 25 Program of In s t r u c t i o n 25 Methods of Observation 27 Observer T r a i n i n g 30 Order and Description of Treatment Levels. . . 32 Order of Treatment Levels 32 Description of Treatment Levels 32 Baseline 32 Structure 36 Praise and Ignore 38 Token 1 39 i v CHAPTER PAGE Withdrawal 44 Token I I 44 Follow-up 48 IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 52 Introduction 52 Inter-Observer R e l i a b i l i t y 52 Analysis of Data 54 Graphical Analysis 54 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 55 V. CONCLUSIONS 70 Introduction 70 Hypothesis „ 1 70 Hypothesis II 71 Hypothesis I I I 73 Hypothesis IV 75 Hypothesis V 75 Generalization. 77 Attendance 78 Cost 82 VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 85 Summary 83 Discussion 83 REFERENCES « 86 APPENDIX 89 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. The Seven Experimental Conditions ° 33 I I . The Structure Imposed on the Mathematics and Science Program 37 I I I . Inter-Observer R e l i a b i l i t y For A l l Treatment Levels 53 IV. Means of Treatment Levels 56 V. Analysis of Variance Table 56 VI. S i g n i f i c a n t and Non-Significant Hypothesized Contrasts 57 VII. Differences Among Treatment Level Means . . . . 60 VIII. C r i t i c a l Ranges For Differences Among Means . . 61 IX. S i g n i f i c a n t and Non-Significant Mean Differences Between Treatment Level Means . . . 65 X. Description of E a r l y (E) and Late (L) Stages Within Treatment Levels 66 XI. Analysis of Variance Table For Twelve Means . . 66 XII. Differences Among Means For Twelve Stages . . . 67 XIII. C r i t i c a l Ranges For Differences Among Twelve Stage Means 68 XIV. S i g n i f i c a n t and Non-Significant Mean Differences 69 XV. Comparison Between Means of Baseline and Praise and Ignore For Six Subjects 72 XVI. Number of Times Each Subject Was C a l l e d To The V i c e - P r i n c i p a l ' s O f f i c e 79 XVII. Attendance For Experimental Class 80 XVIII. Record of Lates Over Treatment Levels 81 v i LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Recording Sheet 28 2. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Averaged Over Six Subjects 90 3. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 1 91 4. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 2 92 5. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 3 93 6. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 4. 94 7. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 5 • 95 8. Percent Intervals of Combined Inappropriate Behavior and V e r b a l i z a t i o n Over Experimental Conditions f o r Subject 6.. 96 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The focus of t h i s thesis i s on the education of underachieving j u n i o r high school students. Underach-ievement i n the ju n i o r high school i s often a t t r i b u t e d to such causes as low i n t e l l i g e n c e , poor motivation, lack of i n t e r e s t , emotional problems, poor home l i f e , c u l t u r a l deprivation and other v a r i a b l e s which r e l a t e poor school performance to some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the student. How-ever, current research using the p r i n c i p l e s and techniques of the experimental analysis of behavior, has demonstrated that school f a i l u r e can often be overcome by introducing d i f f e r e n t teaching programs and by the e f f e c t i v e use of contingency management p r i n c i p l e s (Skinner, 1968, p. 61). Further, growing disenchantment with s p e c i a l education and remedial classes i n the pu b l i c school has given addit-i o n a l impetus f o r the development of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t -r u c t i o n a l programs and conditioning methodologies applicable to the regular classroom. I. PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION Behavior modification p r i n c i p l e s are an outgrowth of operant conditioning techniques. Since the p u b l i c a t i o n of Skinner's Science and Human Behavior (1953)» these techniques have been used by s p e c i a l i s t s i n the f i e l d of psychology, medicine, nursing, and education, on a broad 2 spectrum of deviant behaviors. For example, Rose, Sundel, Delange, Corwin, Palumbo (1970), P h i l l i p s (1968), and Sulzbacher and Sherman (1970), used operant conditioning techniques to decelerate undesired behaviors. The three studies showed decreased frequency of chronic school problems of truancy, runaways, p e t t y larceny and property destruction. However, operant conditioning p r i n c i p l e s may be used as more than a decelerating t a c t i c i n remedia-t i o n s e t t i n g s . Perhaps more important to teaching i s the possible use of the technique to generate desirable be-haviors as i l l u s t r a t e d by the work of Lovaas, Berberich, P e r l o f f and Schaeffer (1966) with schizophrenic c h i l d r e n , and A l l y o n and A z r i n (1968) with mental h o s p i t a l adult p a t i e n t s . In the former study, mute c h i l d r e n were made to t a l k by r e i n f o r c i n g successive approximations to the terminal behavior, while i n the l a t t e r , contrived r e i n -f o r c e r s i n the form of tokens were used to make incontinent mental pati e n t s use the t o i l e t . Ullman and Krasner (1966, p.2) describe behavior modification as "The a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of l e a r n -ing theory and experimental psychology." In t h i s regard, behavior modification techniques lead to a manipulation of environmental conditions that c o n t r o l and shape behavior according to well defined s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Thus there i s a demand upon the experimenter to i n d i v i d u a l i z e h i s diag-nosis and treatment according to the p a r t i c u l a r needs of hi s subjects. E s s e n t i a l l y , behavior modification involves 3 three procedures: d i r e c t observation and recording of behavior, repeated measurement, and a systematic manip-u l a t i o n of events that a l t e r behavior ( L o v i t t , 1970). Direct Observation and Recording, Repeated Measurement, and Systematic Manipulation of Behavior Before a behavior or response can be measured, i t must be defined i n observable terms so that i t can be re-corded to tabulate frequency of response. For example, Hart, A l l e n , B u e l l , Harris and Wolfe (1964) record a cry i f i t i s heard at f i f t y f e et over a f i v e second i n t e r v a l . I f the duration of the cry i s l e s s than f i v e seconds i t i s not recorded. I f the target behavior i s "tantrums", the frequency of outbursts, iuch as crying, i s recorded d i r -e c t l y rather than using a l e s s d i r e c t p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t score or an interview. Thus, the behavior modifier must define the event to be observed i n terms of i t s topo-graphy or form, and then, he must decide upon a method of recording the behavior. No matter how the event to be observed i s defined, a l l behavior modifiers record events repeatedly over time. In the token reinforcement program conducted by O'Leary, Becker, Evans , and Saudargas (1969), there were f i f t y -s i x observation days spaced over a twenty-nine week period. This expenditure of e f f o r t i s warranted i n that i t i s the only way i n which the experimenter knows whether or not h i s treatment i s e f f e c t i v e : i f i t i s meeting with success, how successful i t has been q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , and 4 when during treatment the e f f e c t s were observed. Sulzbacher and Houser (1970) say: An e s s e n t i a l feature of the experimental analysis of behavior i s the continuous measure-ment of changes i n behavior as a function of manipulation of o b j e c t i v e l y defined environmental v a r i a b l e s . An often overlooked advantage of t h i s strategy i s that when a t a c t i c f a i l s to c o n t r o l the behavior of a l l or some of the i n d i v i d u a l s to which i t i s applied, t h i s f a i l u r e i s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d by the data. When the behavior modifier has decided to change c e r t a i n behaviors, conditions must be arranged i n such a way that random environmental conditions and other i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y f a c t o r s (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) do not com-pete with the techniques used to change the behavior. The behavior under study i s measured i n an i n i t i a l or baseline condition f o r a designated period of time. Thus data are then obtained during the base period which gives the experimenter a measure of h i s subjects* behavior before treatments are introduced. Normally a single treatment i s then applied, introducing one var i a b l e at a time. Further observations are made to assess the e f f e c t s of each treatment before the next i s introduced. Contingencies of Reinforcement A contingency i s defined as a set of conditions under which p a r t i c u l a r responses may or may not produce p a r t i c u l a r consequences (Catania, 1968, p. 330). One may speak of both p o s i t i v e and negative contingencies. A p o s i t i v e contingency can be stated as follows, "When you do your homework and hand i t i n you may do something more 5 enjoyable." On the other hand, a negative contingency found under the condition of induced or a r t i f i c i a l l y created motivation and the threat of punishment would be the statement, "Unless your homework i s handed i n you w i l l be kept after school* H Skinner (1968, p.4) defined three variables which compose the contingencies of reinforcement under which learning takes place. F i r s t , there must exist a situation or occasion i n which behavior occurs; secondly, the res-ponse i t s e l f must be emitted; and l a s t l y , the behavior must receive some consequence. Contingencies of rein-forcement then, are merely the conditions which prevail between behavior, that i s the response of the subject, and the positive consequences of that behavior — the reinforcers. Basically, behavior modification i n this study w i l l be used to mean changing behavior by rein-forcing the kind one wants to encourage and ignoring the kind one wants to discourage. Research conducted i n in s t i t u t i o n a l settings and in the operant conditioning laboratory, have v e r i f i e d that delayed reinforcers tend to retard the acquisition of behavior (Renner, 1964). More recently, Schwartz and Hawkins (1970)* Sulzbacher and Sherman (1970), and Glynn $1970) studied delayed conditioning procedures i n the classroom and found behaviors changed only when the contingencies were applied to them dire c t l y . Thus, 6 to be e f f e c t i v e , a r e i n f o r c e r must follow the emitted behavior immediately. Furthermore, the a p p l i c a t i o n of contingencies of reinforcement often requires the exper-imenter to shape behavior by r e i n f o r c i n g successive approximations to the terminal behavior. Shaping i s then used to produce responses that, because of t h e i r low oper-ant l e v e l s , might not otherwise be emitted or might be emitted only a f t e r a considerable period of time (Catania, 1968, p. 346). This study i s concerned with the a p p l i c a t i o n of con-tingencies of reinforcement i n the a c q u i s i t i o n and main-tenance of desirable classroom behaviors. To t h i s end, r e i n f o r c e r s w i l l be used to shape c e r t a i n target behaviors and to a f f e c t other behaviors that are compatible with them. The kinds of r e i n f o r c e r s and contingencies used i n t h i s p r o j e c t are well documented i n the l i t e r a t u r e . They consist of p r a i s e , s o c i a l reinforcement, token r e i n f o r c e -ment, and e x t i n c t i o n . Praise and S o c i a l Reinforcement Praise i s used here to r e f e r to a r e i n f o r c i n g con-sequence. For example, the statement, "You're doing f i n e , Tom" can f u n c t i o n as a r e i n f o r c e r regardless of our inab-i l i t y to s p e c i f y the precise response to which i t r e f e r s . The important thing to note i s that the focus i s on the boy and not on the response. S o c i a l reinforcement on the other hand, i s the process or operation by which a response — not the subject — i s r e i n f o r c e d . Statements such as "That i s a good example." 7 or "That answer i s correct." are examples of s o c i a l r e i n -forcement. In the l a s t decade several studies on the modification of deviant behaviors with subjects i n prisons, detention homes, mental i n s t i t u t i o n s , and out-patient c l i n i c s give ample evidence that the techniques of p r a i s i n g appropriate behavior while ignoring undesirable responses and tokens w i l l modify behavior, and that each i n i t s e l f i s s u f f i c i e n t to accomplish t h i s task. (TJllman and Krasner, 1965; U l r i c k , Stachnik and Mabry, 1966, 1970; Fargo, Behrns and Nolan, 1970; McGinnies and Ferster, 1971) In the p u b l i c school, the majority of studies have been done i n primary or intermediate grades with the teacher as the key element i n the modification of student behavior. ( H a l l , Lund, Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker and Thomas, 1968.) That i s , the teacher has been taught to d e l i v e r p raise and other s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e r s , to ignore inappropriate behavior and how to provide other consequences to improve academic performance. Praise and other s o c i a l s t i m u l i connected with the teacher's behavior (smiles, f a c i a l expressions, hugging a c h i l d , contact, nearness, attention) have been established as e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l l e r s of children's behavior. (Thomas, Becker and Armstrong, 1968; Madsen and Madsen, 1970.) Z i g l e r and Kanzer (1971) and Rosenhan and Greenwald (1971) found that verbal r e i n -f o r c e r s p r i m a r i l y having a praise connotation, (good, f i n e , correct, r i g h t ) lengthened the task performance of c h i l d r e n i n an arithmetic c l a s s . Further, Z i g l e r and Kanzer found 8 praise as a r e i n f o r c e r to be more e f f e c t i v e with c h i l d r e n from low socio-economic homes, than with those from middle-cl a s s homes. Of concern to t h i s study was the conclusion of Rosenhan and Greenwald, that older c h i l d r e n — t h i r t e e n to fourteen years of age — were more influenced than younger c h i l d r e n by praise d i r e c t e d to the correctness of the response. That i s , the older c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r study were more responsive to being t o l d t h e i r performance was correct or r i g h t , than by being t o l d i t was good or f i n e . However, while the authors concluded that students do d i f f -erentiate between "person r e i n f o r c e r s " (good, f i n e , that's nice) and "performance r e i n f o r c e r s " (that's correct, r i g h t ) , there was no mention of how t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n was made. In conclusion, praise and other s o c i a l s t i m u l i connected with the teacher's behavior have been established as e f f e c t -ive r e i n f o r c e r s of many children's behavior. However, when the contingent use of teacher attention and praise i s not e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g behavior, token reinforcement programs often are succe s s f u l . Token Reinforcers and Token Reinforcement The term "token r e i n f o r c e r " i s defined by Catania (1969,,p. 348) as "A conditioned r e i n f o r c e r that the organism may accumulate and l a t e r exchange f o r other r e i n f o r c e r s . " The objective of any program i n v o l v i n g tokens i s to design a motivating environment i n which p r i n c i p l e s of p o s i t i v e reinforcement and extinction! operate at maximum e f f e c t i v e -9 ness i n producing desired "behaviors and el i m i n a t i n g undes-i r e d ones. Token economies have been very successful i n achieving t h i s objective i n a v a r i e t y of environmental set-t i n g s . For example, i n mental h o s p i t a l s (Ayllon and Azr i n , 1968; Montgomery and McBurney, 1970), i n prisons (Cohen, F i l i p c z a k and Bis, 1970), i n r e s i d e n t i a l treatment centers ( P h i l l i p s , 1968; Bailey, Wolf and P h i l l i p s , 1970), i n comm-un i t y health centers (Rose, Sundel, Delange, Corwin and Palumbo, 1970), i n s p e c i a l education classes (O'Leary and Becker, 1967; McKenzie, Clark, Wolf, Kothera, Benson, 1968; Axelrod, 1971; Broden, H a l l , Dunlap and Clark, 1970), and i n regular classrooms (Glynn, 1970and Mandelker, Brigham and Bushell, 1970). The r a t i o n a l e offered f o r employing token systems i n the classroom was that other incentives a v a i l a b l e to the school such as teacher attention and grades, were not e f f -e c t i v e i n themselves since the subjects involved exhibited a high frequency of inappropriate behaviors when these were manipulated (OILeary and Becker, 1967). B i j o u and Baer (1961) found that a weakness of grades as a r e i n f o r c e r stems from the f a c t that grades are presented to students up to nine weeks a f t e r the emitted response. However, when grades are made contingent upon academic behaviors i n a token-point system, the l e v e l of academic behavior has increased (McKenzie, et a l . , 1968). S i m i l a r l y , Broden, et a l . (1970), found that when teacher attention and a token reinforcement system were used to br i n g about co n t r o l i n a dis r u p t i v e j u n i o r high school classrom, the token system increased 10 study l e v e l s and decreased d i s r u p t i v e "behaviors of cl a s s members. Further evidence of the power of t h i s technique was documented by Cohen, F i l i p c z a k and Bis (196?) who found dramatic gains i n language, s p e l l i n g and arithmetic by p r i s o n inmates who had been introduced to a token econ-omy. In applying a token system to four grade nine geo-graphy cl a s s e s , Glynn (1970) found a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement from i n i t i a l baseline to f i n a l baseline f o r experimenter-determined token treatments. In a review of token r e i n f o r c e -ment programs i n s p e c i a l education classrooms, Axelrod (1971* p. 371) stated that " . . . p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s were almost i n v a r i a b l y obtained even with d i f f e r e n t types of target be-haviors and various kinds of populations." A f u r t h e r advantage of using tokens as r e i n f o r c e r s i n the school i s that the teacher's rate of s o c i a l contact i s higher with students r e c e i v i n g contingent tokens than with those who receive noncontingent tokens. (Mandelker, et a l . , 3-970» P- 169.) The authors found that the procedure i n -v o l v i n g the contingent d e l i v e r y of token appeared to br i n g contingencies to bear on the teacher's attending behavior beyond those that r e s u l t from the mere p r a i s i n g of students f o r good work. In summary, the function of a token system i s primar-i l y to maintain p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educational a c t i v i t y on the part of students i n competition with other a v a i l a b l e a c t i v -i t i e s such as daydreaming, t a l k i n g with one's neighbors, looking around the room, and other t a s k - i r r e l e v a n t behaviors. 11 Studies on delayed reinforcers have found that the most eff-ective reinforcer i s one that i s given frequently (Renner, 1964-), and the more frequently given the more effectively the behavior being reinforced w i l l compete with other be-haviors. Hence, to increase the frequency of a particular behavior, one must reinforce that behavior as often as possible. When a c t i v i t i e s such as playing a game, or work-ing i n the library, are used as reinforcers, however, there i s less time available for academic tasks. The advantage of token reinforcers i s that they permit the teacher to provide frequent reinforcement without interrupting aca-demic instruction. The duration of the back-up a c t i v i t i e s , such as games, may then become dependent on the number of tokens accumulated by the student. In effect, this results i n a control over the amount of time spent by the student away from educational a c t i v i t i e s . II PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OP THE STUDY The scarcity of published research on positive rein-forcement procedures and token programs i n the public junior high school classroom suggests the need for additional re-search. This thesis studies the effect of praising approp-riate behavior while ignoring inappropriate behavior with students i n a regular grade nine general mathematics and science class. To this end, one attempts to establish con-tingencies of reinforcement i n such a way that appropriate behaviors are reinforced, while inappropriate and disruptive behaviors are ignored. Thus, the focus i s on acceptable 12 performance and not on undesirable responses. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n for this methodology may be found i n the writings of Skinner (1968), Ferster (197D, Brown (1971)* Sloggett (1969), and Bailey, Wolfe and P h i l l i p s (1970), a l l of whom concluded that positive reinforcement i s more effect-ive than the use of threats, reprimands and punishment which tend to reinforce and maintain disruptive behaviors rather than to eliminate them. A major disadvantage of applying token systems i n the public school i s the cost of back-up reinforcers. Even the less expensive reinforcers, such as candy, may place a burden on the teacher's or school board's budget. Hence, this thesis studies a token system which uses back-up reinforcers readily available i n the school and cost nothing to imple-ment. Besides the cost factor, another disadvantage of app-lying token systems i n the public school i s concerned with the technique of withdrawing tokens from the educational setting without disrupting any gains made. This thesis examines the use of a contract system as a means of with-drawing tokens. 13 CHAPTER I I DEFINITIONS AND HYPOTHESES The d e f i n i t i o n s offered i n t h i s chapter have been separated i n t o two categories. The f i r s t s e r i e s of d e f i n -i t i o n s i s of the target behaviors and appropriate behavior. The second set of d e f i n i t i o n s defines the t e c h n i c a l terms of the experimental analysis of behavior. The l a s t group contains d e f i n i t i o n s of the treatment l e v e l s . Inappropriate and Appropriate Behavior The foregoing section introduced the techniques of behavior modification and some of the r e s u l t s of t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . Throughout the Introduction, the terms "inappropriate behavior", "deviant behavior," and " d i s -ruptive behavior" were used interchangeably, and because of the wide v a r i e t y of d e f i n i t i o n s offered by the many studies c i t e d , no attempt to define or give examples of them were made at that time. The target behaviors (behaviors to be modified) se-le c t e d f o r t h i s study were designed to meet three c r i t e r i a . F i r s t , only those behaviors which can be expected to be maintained outside of the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n were selected. Thus, the "Relevance of Behavior Rule" (Ayllon and Azr i n , 1968, p. 5 0 ) was considered s e r i o u s l y , because no matter how o b j e c t i v e l y defined the behavior, and how c l e a r l y spec-i f i e d as a target, that behavior cannot be expected to be maintained outside of the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n unless there i s some reinforcement f o r i t there. Therefore, behaviors 14 selected as targets by the writer i n the one period of the day when subjects were with him were of the type that one would normally expect to be r e i n f o r c e d i n other classes and l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . The second c r i t e r i o n was the "Dimensions of Behavior Rule" ( A y l l o n and A z r i n , 1968, p. 40) which requires a def-i n i t i o n of the target behavior i n terms of i t s topography, thereby removing the necessity f o r subjective i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and f o r c i n g observers to record behavior i n terms of some ph y s i c a l aspect of the response. In an attempt to s e l e c t f o r observation and modification behavior that was relevant, the subject's previous school h i s t o r y was examined. Those behaviors were i d e n t i f i e d which seemed to i n h i b i t a subject's success i n a le a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . In a sense, t h i s i s an a p p l i c a t i o n of the "Relevance of Be-havior Rule" i n that the target behaviors are required by the student not only to complete school but also to func t i o n i n the labour force outside the school. For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , inappropriate behav-i o r w i l l r e f e r to the following four categories: non-attending behavior; noisy-disruptive behavior; p h y s i c a l contact; and v e r b a l i z a t i o n . They are defined as follows: Non-attending behavior. The student breaks eye contact with the assigned task, stares o f f i n t o space, turns head to look at another student or person. This i s only noted when the student i s seated at h i s desk working by himself. Noisy- d i s r u p t i v e behavior. Tapping p e n c i l or other objects, snapping f i n g e r s , slamming books on desk, r u s t l i n g paper, stamping f e e t . (Observers rate only what they hear, not what they see.) 15 Grabbing objects or work from another student. Knocking another student's book, pen or any item o f f h i s desk. Throwing an object at another person without h i t t i n g him. Performing any action which causes another student to be non-attending. P h y s i c a l contact. H i t t i n g , pushing, shoving, pinching, slapping, s t r i k i n g another student with any object, or poking another student with an object. Throwing an object which h i t s another student. V e r b a l i z a t i o n . C a l l i n g out answers without being c a l l e d upon. Making comments without being c a l l e d upon. Talking to other students during i n d i v i d u a l work periods without the permission of the teacher. Also included are grunts or groans which are heard by observers. The term "appropriate behavior" used throughout the body of t h i s t h e s i s r e f e r s to behaviors a n t i t h e t i c to the defined inappropriate responses, and i n general to desirable behaviors emitted by students. For example, students are emitting appropriate behavior when they demonstrate that they are paying a t t e n t i o n to the teacher, or another student who may be speaking, or when they are engaged i n an assigned task without d i s t u r b i n g other students nearby. When given work to do, they set out to do i t without wasting time. Hence, appropriate behavior i s behavior which increases the p r o b a b i l i t y that a student w i l l complete assigned tasks and do them well, thus increasing h i s chances of success. Technical Terms The terms defined i n t h i s section are those used throughout the body of t h i s t h e s i s . The d e f i n i t i o n s have been taken from Catania $1968), p. 3 2 7 - 3 4 9 ) , and are arranged a l p h a b e t i c a l l y f o r ease of cross-referencing. 16 Attention. An organism i s s a i d to attend to a stimulus when the v a r i a t i o n or elimination of that stimulus produces a change i n the organism's operant behavior. Aversive stimulus. A stimulus that i s e f f e c t i v e as a negative r e i n f o r c e r or as a punisher. Avoidance. The postponement or prevention of the occurrence of an aversive stimulus by a response. Behavior. Anything an organism does. Conditioned r e i n f o r c e r . A stimulus that has become e f f e c t i v e as a r e i n f o r c e r because i t has c o n s i s t e n t l y pre-ceded another r e i n f o r c e r . Contingency. The conditions under which p a r t i c u l a r responses may or may not produce p a r t i c u l a r consequences. Continuous reinforcement (CRF). Reinforcement of every response within the l i m i t s of an operant. Control. The systematic modification or maintenance of behavior by the manipulation of s p e c i f i a b l e experimental conditions. Covert Behavior. Behavior that i s not observed or observable and i s therefore only i n f e r r e d . Delay of reinforcement. The time from a response to a subsequent reinforcement. Reinforcement may become l e s s e f f e c t i v e as i t s delay increases. D i f f e r e n t i a l reinforcement. The reinforcement of some responses but not others, depending on the temporal, top-ographical or other properties of the responses which are emitted. Disc r i m i n a t i o n. Any difference i n responding i n the presence of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i . Escape. The termination of an aversive stimulus by a response. E x t i n c t i o n . The discontinuation of the reinforcement of a response. Generalization. The spread of the e f f e c t s of r e i n -forcement i n the presence of one stimulus to other s t i m u l i that d i f f e r from the o r i g i n a l stimulus along one or more dimensions. I n t e r v a l schedule. A schedule i n which a period of time must elapse before a response i s re i n f o r c e d . 17 Learning. The process by which behavior i s added to an organism's repertory. Negative reinforcement. See reinforcement. Operant. A c l k s s of responses which may be modified by i t s consequences. Operant Behavior. Behavior, the properties of which may be modified by i t s e f f e c t on the environment. Operant behavior i s s a i d to be emitted because i t i s primar-i l y under the c o n t r o l of i t s consequences rather than of i d e n t i f i a b l e e l i c i t i n g s t i m u l i . Operant Conditioning. The modification of operant behavior by reinforcement o£ punishment. The term also r e f e r s to the area of psychology characterized by most of the research i n t h i s study. Operant l e v e l . The unconditioned l e v e l of an operant, or the rate at which responses occur before they have experimentally been r e i n f o r c e d . P o s i t i v e reinforcement. See reinforcement. Primary r e i n f o r c e r . A r e i n f o r c e r , the effectiveness of which does not depend on i t s having c o n s i s t e n t l y preceded some other r e i n f o r c e r , e.g. food. Ratio schedule. A schedule i n which the l a s t of a s p e c i f i e d number of responses i s r e i n f o r c e d . Reinforcement. The response-produced presentation of a p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e r or termination of a negative r e i n f o r c e r . Reinforcers are s t i m u l i ; reinforcement i s an operation or a process. I f an organism i s more l i k e l y to i n i t i a t e or con-tinue one response than to i n i t i a t e or continue a second response, then the presentation of the stimulus that occas-ions the f i r s t response w i l l r e i n f o r c e the second response; the stimulus i s r e f e r r e d to as a p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e r . I f the -organism i s more l i k e l y to terminate or to continue not en-gaging i n one response than i t i s to i n i t i a t e or continue a second response, then the termination or postponement of the stimulus that occasions the f i r s t response w i l l r e i n f o r c e the second response; the stimulus i s r e f e r r e d to as a negative r e i n f o r c e r . Repertory (Repertoire). The behavior that a p a r t i c -u l a r organxsm, at a p a r t i c u l a r time, i s capable of emitting, i n the sense that the behavior e x i s t s at a non-zero operant l e v e l , has been shaped, or, i f i t has been extinguished, may be r a p i d l y reconditioned. 18 Shaping. The gradual modification of some property of responses (usually, but not ne c e s s a r i l y , topography) by the reinforcement of successive approximations to some c r i t e r i a of an operant c l a s s to be established. Stimulus. Any p h y s i c a l event, combination of events, or r e l a t i o n s h i p among events. Token r e i n f o r c e r . A conditioned r e i n f o r c e r (e.g. a point, or coin) that the organism may accumulate and l a t e r exchange f o r other r e i n f o r c e r s . Teaching. The arrangement of contingencies of r e i n -forcement under which students l e a r n . (Skinner, 1968. p. 64) Treatment Levels A token reinforcement program described by O^Leary and Becker (1967) with nine-year-old c h i l d r e n described as emo-t i o n a l l y disturbed, used tokens as a single treatment l e v e l . A r e p l i c a t i o n of the above study conducted by O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas (1969) with a grade two c l a s s , introduced several v a r i a b l e s to examine t h e i r separate e f f -ects. Hence, the authors s p e c i f i e d as treatment l e v e l s , Baseline, Classroom Rules, Educational Structure, Teacher Praise and Ignore, Token I, Withdrawal, Token I I , and Follow-up. While t h i s t h e s i s does follow the general de-sign of the O'Leary et a l . (1969) study, there are some diff e r e n c e s that e x i s t between them. One has to do with the el i m i n a t i o n of "Rules" as a treatment l e v e l . The reason f o r i t s el i m i n a t i o n i s that r u l e s are normally associated with aversive p r a c t i c e s often found i n the school. Further-more, the mere pa r r o t i n g of ru l e s does not mean they are understood. (Skinner, 1968, p. 2 5 5 ) Also, i f a rule i s broken i t leaves the teacher i n an awkward p o s i t i o n when he i s attempting to place inappropriate responses on 19 e x t i n c t i o n . Another difference i s that the subjects i n the present study were grade nine p u p i l s functioning i n a p u b l i c school system, and are not considered emotionally disturbed. This study, then, follows the design of O'Leary, et a l . (1969) with a grade nine mathematics and science c l a s s . The study was performed with a c l a s s that met with the writer f o r one hour each day throughout the school year. The terms used f o r the treatment l e v e l s are defined as f o l l -ows: (Note - an intensive d e s c r i p t i o n of each d e f i n i t i o n follows i n Chapter I I I . D e f i n i t i o n s are included at t h i s time i n order to c l a r i f y terms used i n the hypotheses.) Baseline. A period i n which the operant behavior under study i s measured before contingencies are introduced. This i s the operant l e v e l defined as the unconditioned l e v e l of an operant, or the rate at which responses occur before they have been r e i n f o r c e d . (Catania, 1968, p. 341) The teacher conducts the c l a s s i n h i s normal manner. Structure. Refers to the arranging of a c t i v i t i e s and the reorganization of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program to allow f o r c e r t a i n tasks to be performed within given time i n t e r -v a l s . Thus each peri o d of i n s t r u c t i o n i n mathematics and science i s divided i n t o three d i s t i n c t segments i n which students moved from one a c t i v i t y to another, never remain-ing with the a c t i v i t y beyond i t s a l l o t t e d time. Praise and Ignore. Appropriate or desirable behaviors are r e i n f o r c e d while inappropriate behaviors are placed on e x t i n c t i o n . That i s , aversive s t i m u l i presented to the teacher, receive no consequences. Structure remains i n e f f e c t . Token I. Structure and Praise and Ignore remain i n e f f -ect. Conditioned r e i n f o r c e r s i n the form of points are given to students contingent upon the emission of appropriate be-haviors or approximations thereof. The schedule of reinforce' ment i s as close to CRP as p o s s i b l e . Withdrawal. Structure and Praise and Ignore remain i n e f f e c t ^ Tokens are withdrawn to t e s t whether tokens and back-up r e i n f o r c e r s and not other f a c t o r s such as changes that normally occur during the school year, account f o r any observable change i n behavior. 20 Token II» Praise and Ignore and Education Structure remain i n e f f e c t . Tokens are reintroduced but on an i n t e r -v a l schedule. Further, tokens become contingent not only on the emission of appropriate behavior, but also on the completion of assigned tasks. Thus, tokens r e i n f o r c e a con-tingency contract system. Follow-up. Token points are discontinued i n Token II, le a v i n g back-up r e i n f o r c e r s contingent upon task completion. Praise and Ignore remains i n e f f e c t , but Education Structure does not. I I . HYPOTHESES In the Introduction several studies were c i t e d that found the contingent use of teacher-praise and a t t e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g student behavior. In p a r t i c u l a r , p r a i s e denoting correctness was found more e f f e c t i v e with older subjects than praise having a performance connotation. In the study used as a model f o r t h i s paper, O'Leary, et a l . (1969), d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two, with the r e -s u l t that the two oldest students i n the study, who had been di s r u p t i v e a l l year, became pr o g r e s s i v e l y more unruly. Other c h i l d r e n observing these boys being d i s r u p t i v e , with l i t t l e or no aversive consequences, became di s r u p t i v e them-selves. (O'Leary et a l . , 1969, P- 9) Hence, the f i r s t hypothesis under study leads to a separate examination of these two v a r i a b l e s , Praise and Ignore. Hypothesis I. When teacher-praise of correctness i s applied to students i n a grade nine non-academic c l a s s contingent upon the emission of appropriate behavior, while inappropriate behavior i s placed on e x t i n c t i o n by ignoring i t , then inappropriate responses w i l l decrease. In view of the f a c t that tokens administered by a teacher have been found to increase the teacher's rate of s o c i a l contact, and hence to accelerate the use of p o s i t i v e 21 reinforcement i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l environment (Mandelker, Brigham, and Bushell, 1970), then the following hypotheses are designed to investigate the e f f e c t of token r e i n f o r c e r s on inappropriate "behavior. Hypothesis I I . When token r e i n f o r c e r s i n the form of points are used xn conjunction with back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , with no aversive contingencies employed, then inappropriate behaviors w i l l decelerate. Hypothesis I I I . When the two treatments, Praise and Ignore, and Token I are compared, then Token I w i l l be more e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g and decelerating inappropriate responses. Axelrod (1971)» i n reviewing token reinforcement pro-grams i n s p e c i a l education classrooms suggested that future studies should attempt to devise means of withdrawing tokens without i n t e r r u p t i n g the progress of students, and that greater use be made of r e i n f o r c e r s already e x i s t i n g i n the classroom, that i s , those r e a d i l y available to the teacher. This proposal then i s the subject of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the following hypothesis. Hypothesis IV. When the mean:, of inappropriate behaviors averaged over subjects i n Token II i s compared with that of Token I, then r e s u l t s w i l l i n d i c a t e that inappropriate behaviors decelerated. The supposition i n the following hypothesis i s that students w i l l receive reinforcement f o r academic performance and w i l l become motivated by the completion of assigned tasks. Thus, by thinning tokens gradually over time, students w i l l reach a point i n which the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s used i n the token economy are available by the completion of a con-t r a c t , without having to accumulate points i n the process. 22 The procedure then requires the completion of more complex tasks and longer periods of time between which the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s are obtainable. Thus, back-up r e i n f o r c e r s are thinned, leaving teacher-praise and attention and the acc-omplishment of tasks as the only immediately a v a i l a b l e r e i n -f o r c e r s . As a basis f o r examining t h i s procedure, the following hypothesis i s offered. Hypothesis V. When the treatment l e v e l , Follow-up, i s reached, the mean of the inappropriate behaviors averaged over subjects w i l l remain at a l e v e l equal to that of Token I I . 23 CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURE I. SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OP THE SUBJECTS This study was conducted i n one of two grade nine non-academic mathematics and science classes i n the Langley Secondary High School, Langley, B r i t i s h Columbia. Prom a pool of s i x t y students at the s t a r t of the school year, t h i r t y were randomly selected and assigned to the writer f o r general mathematics and science. Prom t h i s o r i g i n a l group of t h i r t y , nine were selected f o r close study on the basis of previous h i s t o r y , and recommendations of the school counsellors and teachers. Because three students moved out of the d i s t r i c t during the study, the following d e s c r i p t i o n applies to the s i x who remained. School records contained anecdotal reports made by the subjects* previous teacher that these students " did not pay attention i n c l a s s " , 'did not follow i n s t r u c t i o n s " , or "complete assignments." Much of t h e i r c l a s s time was reportedly spent " t a l k i n g to other", "looking out the window", "daydreaming", "making d i s t u r b i n g noises", and "playing with objects brought to c l a s s " . A l l were at l e a s t two grade l e v e l s behind t h e i r peers and were borderline students r a r e -l y obtaining grades above C- or low average. The s i x were considered behavior problems by the counsellors, and as p o t e n t i a l high school drop-outs. Each had been i n a remed-i a l c l a s s the previous year. Two boys, subjects two and s i x , had a l i s t of school suspensions dating from grade one. The predominant reported 24 cause was " d i s r u p t i n g the c l a s s " and "general disobedience". Just before the school year began, both were charged with t h e f t and the possession of stolen goods. Charges were dropped, but both were placed under the care of a s o c i a l worker. A report made the previous year by remedial teachers l i s t e d a l l subjects as chronic behavior problems, and as having a high frequency of absenteeism and truancy. These students were so d i s r u p t i v e that two of the three teachers refused to teach e i t h e r the students or the course they were i n again. What these teachers reported as "Sheer disobed-ience" may be brought i n t o the more a n a l y t i c terms of escape and avoidance behavior. For example, the s i x subjects often cheated on d a i l y assignments and exams. Subjects two, three, f i v e , and s i x b i t through e l e c t r i c a l wires on projectors and placed gum on lenses. They carved porno-graphic f i g u r e s and various profane expressions on t h e i r desks, often dismantled the desks, and were reportedly hab-i t u a l l y l a t e f o r c l a s s . Four subjects, (subjects one, two, four and f i v e ) were sixteen years o l d at the s t a r t of the school year. Subject three was eighteen, and subject s i x was f i f t e e n . IQ's ranged from 98 to 120, but records also reported reading scores as much as f i v e grades below grade l e v e l . Because of the wide v a r i e t y of t e s t s used, both f o r reading and IQ scores, with no i n d i c a t i o n as to the form of t e s t or the p u b l i c a t i o n date, the above information i s offered rather t e n t a t i v e l y and must be used as a rough guide only i n evalu-25 ating i n d i v i d u a l past performance and a b i l i t y . I I . THE EXPERIMENTAL SETTING The classroom used i n t h i s study was a regular school room containing t h i r t y - f i v e desks and cha i r s , chalk boards on two walls, windows on a t h i r d , and a tack board at the rear. Other than a screen suspended from the fr o n t r i g h t hand corner of the c e i l i n g , and a three-drawer f i l i n g cab-i n e t , the room was s i m i l a r to other classrooms i n the school. During the year several changes were made to accomodate the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d mathematics program, but these were minor adjustments such as providing shelves and d i v i d e r s f o r stor i n g programmed materials, books, magazines, f i l m s t r i p s , p r o j e c t o r s , and other resource materials. Desks were placed i n rows. A seating plan was made a f t e r three weeks of school before baseline measurements; seating was not changed at any time during the year except f o r a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r i n g group p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The o r i g i n a l nine subjects were arranged i n two groups, one of Jbur on one side of the classroom and the other group of f i v e on the opposite side. The three vacancies created by subjects' leaving school were soon f i l l e d with new students whom the counsellors judged could b e n e f i t from the program. I I I . PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION The general mathematics nine and ten program i n t h i s school used the prescribed text i n conjunction with Indiv- i d u a l i z i n g Mathematics (Foley, Bower, Smith, Burke and Basten, 1970), a program published by Addison Wesley. 26 Other resource material i s described below: The Educational Developmental Laboratories Study S k i l l K i t i n Science (McGraw-Hill). There are no authors or p u b l i -c a t i o n dates i n d i c a t e d on these k i t s . They are composed of f i v e boxes of ten lessons covering major study s k i l l s . Each student works independently. The lessons are programmed f o r step-by-step l e a r n i n g and self-checking f o r immediate reinforcement. They are s i m i l a r i n design to the more fam-i l i a r S.R.A. Reading K i t s . The Educational Developmental Laboratories Arithmetic S k i l l s Program (McGraw H i l l ) . These are three boxes of f i l m s t r i p s , twenty-five i n each, f o r use with a Contr o l l e d Reader which enables the teacher to present a wide v a r i e t y of arithmetic s k i l l b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Refresher Arithmetic by Edwin I. S t e i n ( A l l y n and Bacon Inc., Boston, 1961.) features i n d i v i d u a l i z e d assign-ments according to each student's need. I t i s designed as a remedial textbook i n general mathematics and o f f e r s many exercises r i c h with consumer a p p l i c a t i o n s . An assortment of approximately two hundred mathematical a c t i v i t i e s c o l l e c t e d by the writer. These include games, mathematical puzzles and labs used f o r in-depth study as well as d r i l l on major s k i l l s . Movies and f i l m s t r i p s a v a i l a b l e through the l o c a l r e -source centre, covering a wide v a r i e t y of to p i c s i n science. With the exception of the Educational Development Study S k i l l K i t s and the movies and f i l m s t r i p s , the regular 27 texts prescribed by the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Edu-cat i o n f o r the Science nine course were used. Due to lack of laboratory space, however, many topics normally covered i n a science laboratory were modified, and presented by de-monstration, l e c t u r e , f i l m s , and through selected l i b r a r y p r o j e c t s . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the operation of the mathematics and science programs i s given i n the discussion of Education-a l Structure to follow. IV. OBSERVATION Subjects were observed twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays. Each observer was given three recording sheets, (Figure 1), a tape recorder, and ear plug, and a p e n c i l . Three subjects were randomly assigned to each observer. The observers then copied the names on the f i r s t recording sheet, one name i n each set of rows and columns. Names were then placed i n the same order on the other two recording sheets. Note that each row of a set correspond to one of the inapp-ro p r i a t e behaviors. The symbols used were: N/A - non-attending behavior N/D - noisy d i s r u p t i v e behavior P.C.- p h y s i c a l contact Verv. - v e r b a l i z a t i o n The f i f t h row, headed by the symbols: P/- Praise C^- C r i t i c i s m T x- Threats was used to evaluate teacher responses and thus to a l e r t the teacher to any deviations from the experimental proced-ure. FIGURE 1 RECORDING SHEET f n « j p g , i a f l X i f o n c f m r f f ) Poor X*IT0UVf!l PlTC (s. . ) Y A" 6 i 6T J. ? $• t i X ,7 V W / O Pf V E R B p/ Cx r* f S i ) / 3 V 5 Io 1 3 i i 3 H s ie i 3 V 6T I 1 3 0" W / D pr Pv/ Cv Tx / 3 3 / J . ,? V 4 / 3 H •3 /> / A 3 p c ro oo 2 9 The f i f t h row d i d not form part of the analysis of data, but was designed f o r the sole purpose of ensuring that inapp-r o p r i a t e behaviors were placed on e x t i n c t i o n . Thus, obser-vers placed a check when the teacher praised an i n d i v i d u a l , a cross when a threat or c r i t i c i s m was made. No d i f f e r e n t -i a t i o n was made between teacher-praise, c r i t i c i s m , and threats to i n d i v i d u a l students, and pr a i s e , c r i t i c i s m , and threats to the cla s s as a whole. In other words, teacher-attention to inappropriate behavior was marked i n the f i f t h row of each set by p l a c i n g a cross i n the appropriate square, while teacher-attention to appropriate responses received a check. Each column on the recording sheet represents a ten-second i n t e r v a l . Observers, seated at the side or rear of the c l a s s , made a check i f one of t h e i r subjects emitted an inappropriate response i n the row assigned to the behavior, and i n the column representing that p a r t i c u l a r ten-second i n t e r v a l . The t h i r t y columns of a set comprised a single five-minute observation session f o r each subject. Observers recorded each subject on the f i r s t recording sheet f o r f i v e minutes, so that the f i r s t recording sheet represented three five-minute observational sessions. A f t e r completing the f i r s t sheet, the observer immediately re-obs-erved the same three subjects, i n the same order, f o r an ad d i t i o n a l f i f t e e n minutes — f i v e minutes per subject. Observers then were permitted a five-minute break before proceeding with the t h i r d observation sheet. This meant that each subject was recorded f o r a t o t a l of f i f t e e n min-utes, 9 0 ten-second i n t e r v a l s , spread over a one hour period. 3 0 I f , due to the absence of a subject, the observer had only one or two subjects to observe, then a f i v e or ten-minute break followed each set of five-minute observations. This allowed the experimenter to obtain a record of student inappropriate responses during the f i r s t f i f t e e n minutes, the middle, and the l a s t f i f t e e n minutes of each period. Rather than use a stop watch, ten-second i n t e r v a l s were recorded on cassette tapes. Observers then used tape recorders as timers. An adaptor was made to permit two ob-servers to use the same tape machine during r e l i a b i l i t y checks. Inter-observer agreement was analysed by having two observers make simultaneous but independent observations over any one of the f i f t e e n minute time segments. The i n -dependence of the observation was assured by having observers s i t so that they were unable to see each other's recording sheet. Thus, a r e l i a b i l i t y check l a s t e d f o r f i f t e e n minutes, over ninety consecutive ten-second i n t e r v a l s on three d i f f -erent subjects. Agreement was measured by comparing the two records f o r agreement, i n t e r v a l by i n t e r v a l , and the percent agreement was c a l c u l a t e d (number of agreements x 1 0 0 , divided by the t o t a l number of i n t e r v a l s observed.) V. OBSERVER TRAINING At the s t a r t of the school year, eight grade 12 stud-ents with spare periods were selected and t r a i n e d to observe. Three of these students were able to observe over the e n t i r e year. An a d d i t i o n a l f i v e students were selected and t r a i n e d i n February. The same procedures were used f o r both sessions. 31 In the f i r s t week of t r a i n i n g the observers were t o l d that the writer was studying various types of classroom behavior and wanted to measure the rate at which the inappr-opriate behaviors occurred i n h i s c l a s s , and the frequency of p r a i s e , c r i t i c i s m and threats made by the teacher. To reduce observational d i s t o r t i o n or generosity e r r o r which may have biased the data, no mention of treatment l e v e l s , the objectives of the study, or d e s c r i p t i o n of the subjects were made. During t h i s week, inappropriate behaviors were explained and demonstrated by the writer. During t h i s time the recording sheets and tape recorders were used and time was spent discussing the method of recording. In the second week of t r a i n i n g , the observers sat i n the c l a s s . For the f i r s t few days they p r a c t i s e d observing some students, none of whom were selected as subjects, and discussed t h e i r r e s u l t s l a t e r i n the day with the writer. The c l a s s was t o l d that the grade 12 students were working on p r o b a b i l i t y labs i n mathematics and were not to be d i s -turbed. During t a l k s with the observers, the wri t e r stressed that they were to make d i r e c t observations of what they heard and saw, and were not to make judgements of i n t e n t . Further, they were not to t a l k , smile, react or i n t e r a c t with the c l a s s i n any manner. The balance of the second week was used to accustom the observers to the procedure necessary to perform r e l i a b i l i t y checks. T r a i n i n g sessions continued u n t i l inter-observer r e l i a b i l i t y measured ninety per cent. This l e v e l was reached during the t h i r d week of t r a i n i n g f o r both the September and 32 February groups. In the fourth week, observers began to record the responses of the subjects. Observers were scheduled i n such a way that they had to observe only once a week. When not observing, they were given the p r i v i l e g e of going to the student lounge or l i b r a r y instead of a supervised study c l a s s . Throughout the study, observers met with the writer f o r lunch every Wednesday to discuss any problems they were having i n i n t e r p r e t i n g behaviors, or recording responses. VI. ORDER AND DESCRIPTION OP TREATMENT LEVELS Order of Treatment Levels The seven treatment l e v e l s of the study were Baseline, Educational Structure, Praise and Ignore, Token I, Withdrawal, Token I I , and Follow-up. The seven phases were i n e f f e c t f o r a l l c l a s s members. The f i r s t four conditions were i n s t -i t u t e d i n the order of hypothesized i n c r e a s i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . For example, i t was thought that Educational Structure would have l e s s e f f e c t than Praise and Ignore, and that the accum-ulated e f f e c t of Educational Structure and Praise and Ignore would be l e s s e f f e c t i v e than the combined e f f e c t of Educ-a t i o n a l Structure, Praise and Ignore and Tokens and Back-up Reinforcement. Table I depicts the design of the seven experimental conditions. Each column i s headed by the name of the t r e a t -ment l e v e l , with the e s s e n t i a l features of each l i s t e d below. Description of Treatment Levels Baseline. Baseline measures i n d i c a t e the number of TABLE I THE SEVEN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Baseline Educational Praise and Token I Withdrawal Token I I Follow-up Structure Ignore Praise and Praise and Praise and Educational Ignore Praise and Ignore Ignore Structure + Ignore + + + Educational + Educational Back-up Praise and Structure Educational Structure Reinforce-Ignore + Structure + ment Tokens and Tokens and + Back-up Back-up Contracts Reinforce- Reinforce-ment ment + Contracts 34 ten-second i n t e r v a l s , out of ninety, i n which the inapp-ro p r i a t e "behaviors occurred. During t h i s phase the teacher reacted to the behavior of the students i n whatever way he f e l t s u i t a b l e . Students were asked to pay attention, to stop t a l k i n g , to get on with t h e i r work. Neither the p a r t -i c u l a r type of a c t i v i t y nor i t s duration was the same on each day of the baseline period. For example, the mathematics program was divided i n t o eleven u n i t s with a pretest and post-test f o r each. Each unit was f u r t h e r subdivided i n t o approximately t h i r t y to f o r t y tasks, each covering a p a r t i c u l a r objective, yet short enough so that two or more could be completed i n a period. Questions on the pretest covered the t o p i c s on each task. Hence, a student achieving seventy percent on the pretest was required to complete only the tasks which corresponded to the i n c o r r e c t questions. A score under seventy percent required the student to complete a l l tasks f o r that u n i t . When the student f i n i s h e d a u n i t , an ach-ievement t e s t was administered. The r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t determined the d i r e c t i o n the student was to take. A low score required that he work on supplementary u n i t s with the teacher, or repeat those tasks which the achievement t e s t i n d i c a t e d he had not mastered. A score of ninety percent or more permitted him to proceed to the next u n i t , or to work on in-depth t o p i c s of the u n i t completed. Each un i t had four r e l a t e d in-depth t o p i c s intended to move students i n t o more advanced work. Each student was required 35 to complete the in-depth topics of four u n i t s , but they were free to choose which four they were to do. When a unit was f i n i s h e d , the student was permitted to spend one period playing a game, l i s t e n i n g to a tape, or performing a wide range of a c t i v i t i e s such as reading a book, working on pro-grammed materials i n algebra and trigonometry, or showing movies to other c l a s s e s . In addition, students who worked d i l i g e n t l y , completing assigned tasks on time, were given the p r i v i l e g e of being able to br i n g drinks and confections to c l a s s from dispensing machines i n the student lounge. This meant that some students were able to b r i n g drinks and candy to cla s s each day providing t h e i r classwork and home-work were kept up to date. Neither the mathematical a c t i v i t y nor the duration of i t was the same each day. Some students may have worked i n -dependently on assigned tasks one day, while the next was spent with the teacher on d r i l l exercises, or going over work they were having d i f f i c u l t y with. Others may have been involved with one a c t i v i t y or another as a reward f o r com-p l e t i n g a u n i t . This procedure had been followed from the s t a r t of the school year to enable students to adjust to i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n , and also to enable the experi-menter to observe what a c t i v i t y a student selected when the opportunity arose. By such observation one could determine the a c t i v i t i e s which would serve as r e i n f o r c i n g events f o r the token program. (Homme, Csanyi, Gonzales, Rechs, 1969, p. 10) However, the loose a p p l i c a t i o n of the contingencies 36 of reinforcement l i s t e d above had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the i n -appropriate behaviors, or on general classroom c o n t r o l , thus were discontinued u n t i l Token II and the Follow-up phase when they were experimentally introduced. Baseline l a s t e d f i v e weeks during which time ten ob-s e r v a t i o n a l sessions were held. Structure. This phase was introduced f o r two reasons. F i r s t , i t has been stated that a great deal of the success i n token reinforcement programs may be a function of the h i g h l y structured regimen of the program and not a function of r e i n f o r c i n g contingencies. (O'Leary et a l . , 1969* p. 6) Thus, the program was h i g h l y structured to examine the d i f f -erences that may e x i s t between the token and structure phase of the experiment, and hence to assess the importance of structure per se. Second, a f t e r several years spent developing t h i s i n -d i v i d u a l i z e d mathematics and science program, the experiment' er found that an imposed structure appears to be necessary f o r students to prevent them from wasting time. Hence, each day a time peri o d was s p e c i f i e d during which p a r t i c u l -ar tasks occurred. This enabled the teacher to present study s k i l l s i n a sequential order and yet s t i l l cater to the i n d i v i d u a l needs of the student. The materials l i s t e d on pages 25-27 were used f o r t h i s purpose. Table I I i n d i -cates how the one-hour period was structured. Item 3 under Mathematics r e f e r s to a s e r i e s of lectures and demonstrations developed as an overview of the e n t i r e TABLE II THE STRUCTURE IMPOSED ON THE MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PROGRAMS Mathematics Science Individual d r i l l on basic min. 20 min. min. Review of previous vrork 10 min. Presentation of a general topic of i n t e r e s t . . 15 min. New work 30 min. Independent work on tasks min. Laboratory i n t r o d u c t i o n 15 min. min. Laboratory work . . . . 45 min. 38 program. Three content areas were covered — the s l i d e r u l e , basic p r o b a b i l i t y p r i n c i p l e s , and flow-charts. By presenting these t o p i c s to the c l a s s , the teacher was able to b r i n g together f a c t s and s k i l l s from a l l u n i t s under study, and at the same time to broaden the students' experiences and understanding of mathematics. In science, two structures existed. The f i r s t allowed time f o r study s k i l l s and was designed to develop s k i l l s such as i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , evaluation, and the organization of data, how to ou t l i n e , make notes, drawt,conclusions, and survey journal a r t i c l e s . This p a r t i c u l a r structure was designed to use the p r i n c i p l e s of successive approximation, simulation, and t r a n s f e r , to focus on behavioral change and s k i l l development. A c t i v i t i e s were arranged so that stud-ents were recycled to the same problem areas with examples r e q u i r i n g increased s k i l l and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . The second structure required an in t r o d u c t i o n to l a b -oratory procedures, followed by one of the experiments i n the prescribed school text. Often the teacher redemons-tra t e d a previous laboratory assignment to point out con-clusions the c l a s s had overlooked. The Structure period l a s t e d three weeks; s i x observ-a t i o n a l sessions were made during that time. Praise and Ignore. This treatment l e v e l and also Token I were designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to reduce inappropriate behavior. Hence contingencies were applied to the emission of appropriate responses. To accomplish t h i s , the teacher 39 concentrated on the topography of the behavior. For example, i f a student worked q u i e t l y on a task, the teacher praised h i s e f f o r t s and h i s attention to h i s work, regardless of h i s accuracy or p r o d u c t i v i t y . Thus, the a n t i t h e s i s to the t a r - get behavior was the writer's main concern. Needless to say, other behaviors such as those concerned with work q u a l i t y were praised, but these were secondary considerations. The Praise and Ignore condition, then, was designed to use pr a i s e and other s o c i a l s t i m u l i to r e i n f o r c e appropriate behavior and to ignore a l l forms of deviant, d i s r u p t i v e , and/ or inappropriate responses. The Praise and Ignore treatment l e v e l l a s t e d four weeks; seven observational sessions were held. Token I. As implied i n the introductory section, a token economy i s a structured plan which enables a large group of people to be trained with a minimum number of per-sonnel. Tokens provide a method of reinforcement which can be u t i l i z e d i n various s i t u a t i o n s f o r a great many people with i n d i v i d u a l l i k e s and d i s l i k e s . The main advantage i s that tokens eliminate the need to study each person, to see what i s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g f o r him, thus saving many hours which would otherwise have been spent i n observing the i n d i v i d u a l . During t h i s phase of the study, conditions de-scribed as Educational Structure and Praise and Ignore were continued. Tokens were awarded i n the form of poi n t s . Each stu-dent c a r r i e d with him a weekly report sheet on which points 40 were placed. A rubber stamp, approximately three quarters of an inch i n diameter, was stamped on the back of t h i s sheet. Each impression was worth f i v e points. At the end of the week, unused points were transferable to the follow-ing weekly report sheet with no penalty imposed. Students were t o l d that they would receive points f o r t h e i r e f f o r t s and attentiveness i n c l a s s , and that c e r t a i n performances would receive more points than others. Further, they were informed that points would not normally be given f o r the correctness of t h e i r work. Because of the enthu-siasm shown by the c l a s s , two charts, prepared i n advance, l i s t i n g the responses that earned points, and back-up r e i n f o r c e r s that points could be spent on were not used. Instead, the teacher allowed the students to become involved with the planning of the contingencies. That i s , the c l a s s was allowed to spend approximately two periods to discuss and prepare two charts. These charts l i s t e d the following items: Token I - Performances to Earn Points: 1. On time f o r c l a s s 2. Possess materials necessary to do work (such as paper, p e n c i l s and books.) 3. Work q u i e t l y on assigned work. 4. Follow i n s t r u c t i o n s . 5. Work q u i e t l y on group a c t i v i t i e s without d i s t u r b -i n g other students, 6. Do not t a l k out of turn. 41 Token I - Items to be Purchased at any Time: 1. Free p e r i o d to p l a y games. 2. Free period to l i s t e n to tape recorder or radio -with ear plug. 3. Free period to do homework, go to the l i b r a r y , or read anything i n c l a s s . 4. Permission to go to the student lounge and buy candy, drinks or food from the dispensing machine to eat i n c l a s s . 5. Other desirable a c t i v i t i e s i n agreement with the teacher. These charts were displayed i n the classroom on a pinboard adjacent to a chalkboard. Each period the teacher placed a number beside each item i n the second l i s t to represent the cost of that item. Hence, i f the program of i n s t r u c t i o n required that the e n t i r e c l a s s be present, a lab i n science f o r example, then items one, two and three might have been valued at two hundred points while item four might have been assessed ten points to purchase any number of items from the dispensing machine. A student who chose item one (play a game), and elected not to do the act-i v i t y designed f o r that day, was permitted to do so on the understanding that he had to make up t h i s a c t i v i t y at some future time. This was made possible by designing the science program to permit one week i n every two months to be put aside f o r "catch-up" a c t i v i t i e s . Students were aware of t h i s and often took one or two periods o f f , but were discour-aged from taking more than two. No student protested t h i s r u l e , and i n general a l l were very co-operative. While the purchase p r i c e of the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s 42 var i e d each, day, they were always a v a i l a b l e . For the f i r s t two weeks of Token I, the teacher gave each student f i v e points f o r being on time f o r c l a s s , and another f i v e f o r being prepared f o r c l a s s with paper, p e n c i l s and books. This meant that every student could receive en-ough points each day to purchase a back-up r e i n f o r c e r , which was always valued at f i v e or ten points. Points were given throughout each period i n the following manner: I f a l l p u p i l s were working q u i e t l y , the teacher would i n t e r r u p t them, give praise f o r attentiveness, point out the c o r r e c t -ness of the behavior during an assignment, and then proceed to give everyone p o i n t s . Points given ranged from f i v e to f i f t y , dependent on the behavior of students immediately preceding the desirable form of behavior. The longer the period of desirable behavior, the greater the number of points awarded. When one or more students were emitting inapprop-r i a t e behaviors, the teacher would look f o r someone nearby who was working, and give him points, and pr a i s e him f o r hi s correct behavior so that a l l could hear. As soon as one or more students i n the group who were not attending, or were being d i s r u p t i v e , displayed appropriate behavior, the teacher would give them points ( u s u a l l y f i v e ) and praise them f o r t h e i r correct behavior. Students working i n groups received points i f they talked q u i e t l y and showed they were co-operating with each other. Once again points given any student were always accompanied by verbal p r a i s e , and o c c a s i o n a l l y a pat on the back. The foregoing procedures continued f o r the balance of 43 the Token I period with some modifications. Noisy-disruptive "behavior and p h y s i c a l contact came under the c o n t r o l of the contingencies very quickly. Non-attending behavior and verb-a l i z a t i o n however, were more d i f f i c u l t to b r i n g under c o n t r o l . Thus contingencies were a l t e r e d s l i g h t l y to allow r e i n f o r c e r s to be applied to task completion, but not the q u a l i t y or correctness of the work. This meant that i n e f f e c t the teach-er made contracts with the students. Contracts varied, some were worth f i v e points when one task was involved, some f o r a hundred when a u n i t of work was complete. A l l followed the format of completion by a s p e c i f i e d time to r e -ceive p o i n t s . A second modification added an extra back-up r e i n f o r c e r . A f t e r two weeks of Token I, some students had accumulated an enormous bank of p o i n t s . In fear that the continued r e i n -f o r c e r s would lose t h e i r r e i n f o r c i n g property, auctions were introduced. At no charge to the writer, one Home Economics teacher had her c l a s s prepare cakes, p i e s and buns on several occ-asions to be auctioned f o r points i n the writer's c l a s s . These a r t i c l e s were enclosed i n boxes and a regular auction occurred. Each item went to the highest bidder, who invar-i a b l y was the student with the most remaining p o i n t s . Auc-tions took no more than ten minutes and d i d not a f f e c t the behavior of students during the balance of the period. I t should be noted that the subjects selected f o r ob-servation were not treated any d i f f e r e n t l y from any other member of the c l a s s . Contingencies were applied to a l l 44 students. A l l back-up r e i n f o r c e r s were those r e a d i l y a v a i l -able to any teacher and cost nothing to implement. Withdrawal. On the f i r s t day of t h i s phase, the teach-er walked i n t o the room and took the charts o f f the wall which displayed the behavior that earned points, and the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s . He then explained to the c l a s s that he was very pleased with t h e i r improved behavior and stressed how much they had accomplished academically with t h e i r c o r r -ect performance. He then proceeded with a science demons-t r a t i o n , leaving the students no time to argue or discuss the cessation of the token program. Educational Structure, and Praise and Ignore, remained i n e f f e c t . Withdrawal l a s t e d three weeks. Six observational sessions were held. Token I I . Tokens and back-up r e i n f o r c e r s were i n t r o -duced as suddenly as they had been taken away. Hox^ever, the experimenter prepared charts ahead of time on how stud-ents would earn and spend points, and d i d not set any point l i m i t s except f o r item seven, (below) These charts were placed i n the same l o c a t i o n as those prepared by the students i n Token I, and are as follows: Token I I : How You May Earn Points -1. Be on time f o r c l a s s . That i s , be i n the room before the b e l l r i n g s . 2. Be prepared to s t a r t the lesson by having the required books and instruments. 3. Complete assigned work on time. 4. Do work r e l a t e d to mathematics and science. 5. Help with c l a s s management duties. 6. Contract to complete a p r o j e c t of assignment. 45 i n a given period of time. 7. Complete an achievement t e s t with marks between: (a) 70% to 79% . . . 20 points (b) 80% to 89% . . . 40 points (c) 90% to 100% . . 80 points 8. In addition, points w i l l be given to students who show they are working on assigned tasks, are not d i s t u r b i n g others and are co-operating with other students on a group p r o j e c t . 9. Do neat and accurate work. Token I I : You May Spend Points To -1. Purchase drinks, candy and food from the student lounge. 2. To obtain permission to work q u i e t l y i n the l i b r a r y on a s p e c i f i c topic that we agree upon. 3. To l i s t e n to a tape recorder, or radio with an ear plug. 4. To play games. 5. To work on algebra. 6. To buy any p r i v i l e g e we agree upon. Token points were reintroduced one week p r i o r to the Easter holidays. During t h i s week, points administered were made contingent upon appropriate behaviors being emitted by students, and upon task completion. This was the same pro-cedure as the l a s t two weeks of Token I and r e s u l t e d i n a deceleration of inappropriate behaviors. No change i n the token program was made f o r the f i r s t week following Easter. The t h i r d week of Token I I saw the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a con-tingency contracting scheme designed to t h i n points from the program. In t h i s phase tokens were given f o r the com-p l e t i o n of an assigned task, f o r the completion of a u n i t of work, and f o r grades obtained on a l l t e s t s . In other 46 words, academic behaviors were under the contingencies of the token program while appropriate behaviors were r e i n f o r c e d by p r a i s e and teacher attention. The only change made i n back-up r e i n f o r c e r s was the addition of l i b r a r y p r i v i l e g e s . During t h i s phase the mean of the inappropriate behav-i o r s averaged over the s i x subjects i n Token I (Figure 2, ; p. 9©' ) was used as a guide or measure during the thinning procedure. Had inappropriate behaviors accelerated higher than t h i s mean the teacher would have immediately applied the contingencies of the token program to the appropriate responses u n t i l they were brought back down to t h i s l e v e l . The procedure f o r thinning points was very simple. At the s t a r t of week three, students were asked to complete t h e i r weekly report sheet s t a t i n g what they intended to accomplish that week i n mathematics and science. While the c l a s s c a r r i e d on with t h e i r work, the teacher met with each i n d i v i d u a l to discuss h i s proposed work schedule, and to set the value of i t s completion, or part thereof i n poin t s . Some students, those having d i f f i c u l t y understanding math-ematics, were required to show t h e i r work each day, thus r e c e i v i n g or not r e c e i v i n g points contingent upon the com-p l e t i o n of the task, which now had to be correct as well as complete. Students who had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y under-standing t h e i r assigned work were permitted to work a l l week, although spot checks were made p e r i o d i c a l l y . The r e s u l t s of the data f o r week three, along with the academic performance of students, prompted a change i n the 47 program f o r week four. On Monday, students again completed t h e i r proposed work load f o r the week and had t h i s checked by the teacher. However, they also suggested the value of t h e i r program, thus bringing the contingencies under stud-ent-teacher c o n t r o l . During the week the teacher checked the progress of a l l students during the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p o r t i o n of each lesson, but gave no points f o r p a r t i a l completion as was the case during week three. Instead, points were witheld u n t i l Friday. On Friday, the teacher c o l l e c t e d a l l exercise books and weekly report sheets to mark over the weekend. He returned them the following Monday, the s t a r t of week f i v e . Once again, both the observational data and student performance prompted a f u r t h e r change during week f i v e . Back-up r e i n f o r c e r s were made ava i l a b l e to students free of charge, although l i b r a r y p r i v i l e g e s remained contingent upon the student keeping h i s work up-to-date. Thus, stud-ents were t o l d they could use the l i b r a r y to work on e i t h e r t h e i r science p r o j e c t , which required the use of a d d i t i o n a l reference material, or t h e i r mathematics program, as a r e -ward f o r the excellent work completed the previous week, and that as long as they continued to work as qui c k l y and as accurately as they had been doing, they would not be charged f o r any item. Students then completed t h e i r weekly report sheet on the Monday of week f i v e , and set the value of the i week's work i n points without consulatation with the teacher. One very noticeable feature was the f a c t that students set rather low point l i m i t s . An analysis of t h e i r weekly report sheets i n d i c a t e d that students appeared to be more concerned. 48 with completing t h e i r program than they were with obtaining back-up r e i n f o r c e r s . In most instances, t h e i r s e l f - d i r e c t e d plan c a l l e d f o r the completion of more work than they could normally be expected to do i n c l a s s time. Because of t h i s , the teacher t o l d the students he would not assign any home-work, but would leave i t up to each i n d i v i d u a l to determine what he or she would have to do at home to complete the week's pr o j e c t i o n s . On Friday of week f i v e , many students were discovered to have surpassed t h e i r p r o j e c t i o n of task completion as set the previous Monday. Also, no student had selected free time to play games but instead chose to l i s t e n to tapes and radios with ear plugs, and to obtain refreshments from the student lounge. The l i b r a r y had been used extensively and reports from the l i b r a r i a n i n d i c a t e d that students had been well-behaved. Two observers were stationed i n the l i b r a r y on Thursday of week f i v e to observe the behavior of three subjects who elected to work there. Data from t h e i r observ-ations supported the statements made by the l i b r a r i a n . Hence, i t was decided to b r i n g Token I I to a close, a week e a r l i e r than planned. Token II l a s t e d f o r f i v e weeks with ten observational sessions held. Follow-up. Unlike the withdrawal of tokens following Token I, Follow-up l e f t a v a i l a b l e the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s of the token program contingent upon task completion. The students were t o l d by the teacher that each i n d i v i d u a l had performed excellent work and that points would be discon-tinued. Instead students could s e l e c t any a c t i v i t y they 49 f e l t desirable i f t h e i r work was c o r r e c t l y completed. Hence, there was no change over the previous week. How-ever, one contingency was introduced. With s i x weeks of school remaining, students apparently began to be aware of the ending of school and a subsequent grade. This was i n evidence by the number who frequently asked the teacher what s p e c i f i c grade they would receive. Hence, the teacher re-stated the requirements f o r each mark, i n c l u d i n g a pass standing i n mathematics and science. These requirements were duplicated and given to each student and became the guide-l i n e f o r preparing t h e i r weekly report. The f i r s t four days of Follow-up were spent o u t l i n i n g a program with each i n d i v i d u a l student. The program was de-signed to allow the student to go one grade l e v e l past h i s a n t i c i p a t e d mark i n each corse. For example, i f a student elected to work f o r a 0 standing i n mathematics, then he would have to complete eight u n i t s of work. Thus a program was designed f o r the student which i n d i c a t e d not only when the unfinished u n i t s were to be cmopleted, but also what ad d i t i o n a l requirements were necessary i n order to achieve a B standing. (This normally required the completion of two in-depth topics r e l a t e d to the u n i t s completed, although a supplementary u n i t i n algebra or trigonometry was permissible and i n some cases encouraged.) Moreover, since each u n i t was subdivided i n t o a s e r i e s of tasks, the program f o r each student consisted of s i x weekly report sheets which i n d i c a t e d the number of tasks to be completed each week. This endeavor r e s u l t e d i n students' s e l e c t i n g only those 50 r e i n f o r c e r s that d i d not use up cl a s s time. For example, two members of the c l a s s were chosen each day to obtain drinks, and confections from the lounge so that they would not lose c l a s s time. Further, there were no requests f o r a free per-i o d f o r the balance of the year. The teacher p r a i s e d the correctness of t h e i r work and f o r the l a s t two weeks of Follow-up, purposely placed appropriate behavior on e x t i n c t -ion. That i s , a l l behavior except f o r academic performance was ignored. Work completed on time received no mention and no teacher-praise, but the q u a l i t y and accuracy was praised. Students wishing to use the l i b r a r y placed t h e i r names on the chalk board with t h e i r d e stination, and l e f t . Students wishing to leave the room were permitted to do so without having to ask. The teacher frequently reminded students during Follow-up that these freedoms were extended to a l l members of the cl a s s because i t had been demonstrated that they could deal with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that went with them. The l a s t weeks of the program, observation days 55 to 58 were marked by a general decline i n the use of back-up r e i n f o r c e r s . The teacher r o l e became that of a consultant where students brought problems to him, sought h i s advice, and c a r r i e d on with t h e i r work. Follow-up came to a close two weeks before the end of the school term to give observers time to prepare f o r f i n a l exams. During the four weeks of Follow-up, seven observational sessions were held. The o v e r a l l procedure was aimed at t r a n s f e r r i n g control of responding from the token system to other conditioned 51 r e i n f o r c e r s such as teacher-praise, and f i n a l l y to grades. (Kuypers, Becker, O'Leary, 1968, p. 101). In an attempt to achieve t r a n s f e r from the token system to the more t r a d i t i o n a l classroom s i t u a t i o n , the d e l i v e r y of tokens was always pre-ceded by p r a i s e . The arrangement was intended to e s t a b l i s h s o c i a l events as conditioned r e i n f o r c e r s and to allow the teacher to maintain student behavior with s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e -ment alone. The second general technique used was a proposal by O'Leary and Becker (1967), namely to require p r o g r e s s i v e l y more behavior to receive one of the back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , thus incre a s i n g time between reinforcements. The authors claimed that a t r a n s f e r of tokens to teacher-praise could eventually be established i n t h i s manner. 52 CHAPTER IV LATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS I. INTRODUCTION This chapter out l i n e s the methods used to analyze the data and presents the reader with the r e s u l t s . A discussion of observer r e l i a b i l i t y i s made f i r s t , followed by the de s r i p -t i o n of graphical and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . L a s t l y , the r e s u l t s are presented i n the f i g u r e s and ta b l e s . At t h i s point one must emphasize that t h i s s e c t i o n of the th e s i s deals with data analyses. I t w i l l be l e f t to the chapter on Conclusions to discuss the r e s u l t s and im-p l i c a t i o n s . I I . INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY Inter-observer r e l i a b i l i t y checks were conducted through-out the study i n a manner which permitted each observer to be checked at l e a s t once during each treatment l e v e l . A summary of the r e l i a b i l i t i e s over each treatment l e v e l i s presented i n Table I I I . A r e l i a b i l i t y session i s the simultaneous but independ-ent observation made by the r e l i a b i l i t y checker on each of the three subjects assigned an observer. Thus, a r e l i a b i l -i t y session l a s t e d f o r f i f t e e n minutes, during which time the r e l i a b i l i t y checker and observer simultaneously recorded each subject once f o r f i v e minutes. At the end of f i f t e e n minutes, the r e l i a b i l i t y checker then proceeded to record the behaviors of three other subjects randomly assigned to another observer. In other words, each time two observers independently observed three subjects, a r e l i a b i l i t y session 53 TABLE I I I INTER-OBSERVER RELIABILITY RECORD FOR ALL TREATMENT LEVELS TREATMENT LEVEL BEHAVIOR NUMBER OF RELIABILITY SESSIONS RELIABILITY MEAN Baseline Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 16 93% to 100% 90% to 100% 75% to 98% 78% to 100% 98% 98% 90% 92% Educational Structure Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 12 92% to 100% 95% to 100% 92% to 100% 7% to 97% 97% 97% 92% 89% Praise and Ignore Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 11 82% to 100% 82% to 100% 78% t o 97% 78% to 93% 98% 98% 89% 87% Token I Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 16 88% to 100% 93% to 100% 78% to 100% 78% to 100% 9% 99% 98% 91% Withdrawal Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 12 95% to 100% 85% to 100% 78% to 100% 87% to 98% 99% 98% 98% 96% Token I I Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 12 90% to 100% 88% to 100% 80% to 100% 78% to 96% 99% 99% 96% 94% Follow-up Noisy-disruptive P h y s i c a l Contact V e r b a l i z a t i o n Non-attending 10 92% to 100% 92% to 100% 80% to 100% 84% to 100% 98% 99% 99% 95% 54-was held. Two or more r e l i a b i l i t y sessions could then be held on any one day of observation. The r e l i a b i l i t y range reported i n Table I I I i s merely the lowest and highest percent agreement found during a r e l i a b i l i t y session f o r each of the inappropriate behaviors. The mean f o r each behavior, over treatment l e v e l s , was c a l -culated by adding a l l r e l i a b i l i t y scores f o r each behavior and d i v i d i n g by the number of r e l i a b i l i t y sessions. I I I . ANALYSIS OF DATA ' Graphical Analysis. S t a t i s t i c a l and graphical analyses of the data were made on the combined inappropriate behaviors f o r the s i x target subjects l e f t at the end of the study. Figure 2 depicts the average per cent of combined inappropriate behavior of s i x subjects over the seven experimental sessions. Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 represent the percentage of com-bined inappropriate behavior f o r each of the s i x subjects during the seven phases: Baseline, Educational Structure, Praise and Ignore, Token I, Withdrawal, Token I I and Follow-up. The percentage of combined inappropriate behavior was ca l c u l a t e d by counting a l l of the ten-second i n t e r v a l s during which one or more inappropriate responses were observed, d i v i d i n g t h i s number by the t o t a l number of i n t e r v a l s — n i n e t y — and m u l t i p l y i n g by one hundred. Because of comparisons to be made l a t e r between non- attending behavior and v e r b a l i z a t i o n , each graph contains also the percent of i n t e r v a l s during which inappropriate verbal responses were emitted. 55 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis The design was a two-factor (persons by treatment) model, with repeated measures i n the second f a c t o r — persons veing taken as random. That i s , treatments were f i x e d , while each subject served as h i s own c o n t r o l , tested repeatedly throughout a l l treatment phases. The mean percents of i n -appropriate behaviors f o r each subject over the seven cond-i t i o n s are presented i n Table LV. The r e s u l t s of an analysis of variance on the percentages of combined inappropriate be-haviors, averaged within the seven experimental conditions, are summarized i n Table V. Note, however, that the analysis of variance f o r r e -peated measures (Kirk, 1968. pp. 131-14-3) with a randomized block design assumes that population covariances between p a i r s of treatment l e v e l s are constant, i n a d d i t i o n to the standard analysis of variance assumption, and that the pop-u l a t i o n variances f o r the seven treatments are homogeneous. These assumptions, i f v i o l a t e d , would r e s u l t i n a p o s i -t i v e bias i n the F - t e s t . For designs having repeated measures on the same subjects, a conservative F-test may be used to provide a lower bound. (Kirk, p. 143). Thus, the conventional F s t a t i s t i c with (k-1) and n-1) (k-1) degrees of freedom i s replaced by an F s t a t i s t i c having © (k—1) and 6 (n-1) (k-1) degrees of freedom. (k=number of treatment l e v e l s (7) ; n=number of subjects (6)3. Geiser and Green-house (1958) have shown that as heterogeneity of variances and covariances between p a i r s of treatments increases, 9 decreases i n value. The lowest value © can take i s l / ( k - l ) . 56 TABLE IV MEANS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS FOR SIX SUBJECTS OVER TREATMENT LEVELS Subject Base-l i n e Struc-ture Praise and Ignore Token I With-drawal Token II Follow-up SI 49.62 4 4 . 8 3 38 . 1 7 2 0 . 3 0 14.33 1 1 . 3 3 3 . 1 7 S 2 7 3 . 7 5 6 6 . 2 0 70.80 2 9 . 5 5 4 7 . 2 0 2 2 J . 7 1 5 . 3 3 S 3 6 5 . 5 6 5 2 . 0 0 4 9 . 7 1 26 . 8 3 4 2 . 5 0 16 . 6 7 9 . 8 3 S 4 5 0 . 2 0 3 2 . 6 7 40.14 1 2 . 5 0 3 5 . 5 0 9 . 0 0 3 . 7 1 S5 42.40 26.40 3 5 . 5 0 1 0 . 5 6 23.40 7 - 2 5 4 . 8 6 S 6 6 6 . 4 4 48 . 3 3 4 5 . 4 3 1 8 . 1 0 4 3 . 8 3 1 5 . 3 3 1 0 . 3 3 Mean T l 5 8 . 3 3 T*2 44.99 T* 46 . 6 3 T 4 19.64 3 4 ? ? 6 T 6 1 3 . 7 1 T 7 6 . 2 1 TABLE V ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN SUBJECTS Source SS o/f MS F Between Treatments Between Blocks (Subj.) Residual 13405.85 2786.58 1178.13 6 5 30 2234.31 557 . 3 2 39 . 2 7 56.89 To t a l 17370.56 41 * p< .01 Conservative F.01, 1, 5 = 16.3 .01 F.05, 1, 5 = 6.61 57 TABLE VI SIGNIFICANT AND NON-SIGNIFICANT HYPOTHESIZED CONTRASTS Contrast F = ( f ^ - T ^ 2 MSres-lc^ 2 T 5 " *1 10.46 ** TZ|. - T i 114.36 T4 - T 3 55.65 T 6 " % 2.69 -T7 " T 6 4.29 * * * *** p ( .05 ** p C .01 * p < .001 - n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t 58 To ensure that the homogeneity assumptions are not taken f o r granted, a conservative F-test with 1 and n-1 degrees of freedom i s reported i n each analysis of variance table along with the conventional F- t e s t . Thus, the reader may be c e r t -a i n that i f the conservative F-test f o r treatment e f f e c t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t , then the exact F-test i s also s i g n i f i c a n t . (Kirk, p. 144). The r e s u l t s of the analysis of variance on the percent-ages of combined inappropriate behaviors averaged within the seven experimental conditions summarized i n Table V, i n d i c -ates marked di f f e r e n c e s among the seven conditions. Thus, a p r i o r i and post hoc tests were used to used to assess hypothesized and unhypothesized contrasts. The F r a t i o was used to t e s t the hypothesized contrasts T3 - T i , T4 - f i , T4 - T3, T4. - Te and T5 - ^7. I t should be noted that a p r i o r i t e s t s are normally one t a i l e d be-cause hypotheses u s u a l l y p r e d i c t d i r e c t i o n ( l i k e T5 < ^ l ) . The F r a t i o , which i s equal to the square of a t t e s t (Kirk, 1968, p. 81), uses twice the e f f e c t i v e l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e to f i n d the c r i t i c a l value, ^That i s F2d(lv, 1,30) = t2*C,3B)3 While subsequent paragraphs deal with the adoption of .001 as the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , one mentioned at t h i s time that tables reporting a .002 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e were not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . Consequently, .001 was used, however t h i s merely makes the t e s t two sided and more conservative. Because the o v e r - a l l t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e l e d to the r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis that a l l treatment means are homogeneous, att e n t i o n was d i r e c t e d at exploring the data 59 to f i n d the source of the e f f e c t s . To t h i s end, a post hoc multiple comparison t e s t recommedned by Tukey (Winer, 1962, p. 87) was used. Table VI displays the differences among means f o r the seven treatment l e v e l s . The symbol used f o r a treatment mean i s T. The treatment means i n the table have been or-dered from smallest to la r g e s t across the top, and down the l e f t hand side; The difference between any two means appears i n the body of the ta b l e . To t e s t the rectangular array of differences between treatment means f o r unhypothesized contrasts, the truncated studentized range s t a t i s t i c q r f , tabled i n K i r k (1968, p. 531) was used. In Table VII, the values of qTf are l i s t e d , ( r i s the number of steps apart the two means are, f i s the number of degrees of freedom, f = 30. Hence i n Table VI, T]_ and T*2 are three steps apart, p= 3«) The next column headed E r = q r£ / v/MS error/n, l i s t s the c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between means. (The difference between any two means d i -vided by^ /^MS error/n i s d i s t r i b u t e d as q r f . Hence the d i f f -erence between two means i s d i s t r i b u t e d as Q.rf^/^^ e r r o r / n ) . The c r i t i c a l ranges l i s t e d i n t h i s column are i n f a c t those used i n the Newman-Keuls Test. However, because these va-lues f a i l to take i n t o account that the e f f e c t i v e ©<for the experiment as a whole i s considerably higher than the nom-i n a l , while providing a p r o t e c t i o n l e v e l lower l i m i t of l -oC» (Kirk, p.91), and because the larg e s t E value used by Tukey's H.S.D. t e s t (honestly s i g n i f i c a n t d ifference) f a i l s to take account of the f a c t that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the TABLE VII DIFFERENCES AMONG TREATMENT LEVEL MEANS Ordered _ Treatment Tn Means % ^4 s * 3 h D e s c r i p t i o n of Means Trp = 6 .21 7 .50 13.43 28 .25 38.78 40.42 52.12 *1 = Baseline T 6 = 13.71 - 5-93 20.75 31.28 33.92 44.62 ?2 = Educational Structure T^ = 19.64 - 14.82 25.35 26 .99 38.69 *3 = Praise and Ignore T 5 = 34.46 - 10.53 12.17 23.87 * 4 = Token I f 2 = 4 4 . 9 9 - 1.64 13 .44 f 5 = Withdrawal f 3 = 46 .63 - 11.70 \ = Token I I T i = 58.33 - ¥ 7 = Follow-up TABLE VIII CRITICAL RANGES FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG TREATMENT LEVEL MEANS TUKEY COMPROMISE PROCEDURE Steps t e r r o r * n C r i t i c a l Range < » . 0 5 <=.01 <=.001 < = . 0 5 <*.01 <=.001 <=.05 <=.01 <=.001 2 2.89 3.89 5.16 7.40 9.96 13.20 9.36 11.89 1 5 . 0 5 3 3.49 4.45 5 . 7 0 8.93 11.40 14.58 1 0 . 1 3 12.61 1 5 . 7 4 4 3.85 4.80 6 . 0 3 9 . 9 5 1 2 . 2 9 15.42 10.64 13.06 16.16 5 4.10 5 . 0 5 6.28 1 0 . 5 0 12.93 16.08 10.91 13.38 16.49 6 4 . 3 0 5.24 6.47 11.01 13.41 16.55 1 1 . 1 7 13.62 16.78 7 4.46 5.40 6.63 1 1 . 3 2 1 3 . 82 1 6 . 9 0 1 1 . 3 2 13.82 1 6 . 9 0 62 l a r g e s t minus the smallest mean i s d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t from the second l a r g e s t minus the smallest mean, and hence i s overly conservative, a compromise suggested by Tukey (Winer, 1962, p. 87) i s used. The c r i t i c a l range f o r Tukey 1s com-promise t e s t i s found by averaging the l a r g e s t R value with each of the c r i t i c a l values i n the column. Thus the l a s t column of Table VII l i s t s the c r i t i c a l ranges used to t e s t the d ifferences between the means l i s t e d i n Table VI. To use °C=.05 or oC=.01 with the usual t e s t f o r contrasts (the t , Newman-Eeuls or Tukey) i s to assume that the usual F-test (as opposed to the Greenhouse and Geisser F) i s v a l i d . Results under t h i s assumption are i n the columns headed °^=.05 and °C=.01. Results which would be more appropriate to the lower bound Greenhouse and Geisser t e s t are reported i n the column headed «<=.001. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s i s as follows. The Greenhouse and Geisser t e s t i s h i g h l y conservative. I t guarantees that °C i s no more than . 0 5 no matter how heterogeneous the covariances may be between the treatment l e v e l s . O r d i n a r i l y , one may expect the Greenhouse and Geisser c r i t i c a l value to correspond to an actual - l e v e l smaller than the nominal °C of . 0 5 . Since the Greenhouse and Geisser F f o r an ©Cof . 0 5 , with one and f i v e degrees of freedom equals 6.61 (F . 0 5 , 1 , 5 = 6 . 6 1 ), the precise area i n the upper t a i l of the regular F d i s t r i b u t i o n beyond 6.61 i s much smaller than . 0 5 . The precise p e r c e n t i l e rank was not found because of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the most accurate t a b l e s . How-ever, since F . o 0 1,6 , 3 0 = 5 . 1 2 , and F .0005,6,30=5.66, then one may judge from i n t e r n a l evidence that the c r i t i c a l value 63 of 6.61 l i e s between the p e r c e n t i l e ranks of .0005 and .00001. However, even i f the precise rank f o r Fg^^Q to give 6.61 could be found, there i s s t i l l a problem i n f i n d i n g approp-r i a t e q-values f o r t h i s e f f e c t i v e << ; ava i l a b l e Studentized Range S t a t i s t i c Tables do not go beyond .001. Because of t h i s f a c t , and because of the highly conservative nature of the Greenhouse and Geisser F-test, one may argue that 5.12 i s probably not too f a r o f f the i d e a l value. This then leads one to accept .001 as the e f f e c t i v e < . In other words, the "modified" Greenhouse and Geisser t e s t says that foroc = .05, one r e j e c t s the n u l l hypothesis that a l l treatment means are equal when F 0-bt.^5.12. This i s then tantamount to doing a usual P t e s t ( F g ^ o ) with e< =.001. Table VIII l i s t s a l l s i g n i f i c a n t and no n - s i g n i f i c a n t means of Baseline and Educational Structure together with the means of the e a r l y and l a t e stages of Praise and Ignore, Token I, Withdrawal, Token I I , and Follow-up. That i s , the l a t e r treatment l e v e l s were divided i n t o an e a r l y (E) and a la t e (L) stage. Table IX depicts the e a r l y and l a t e stages f o r each phase, and the mean over s i x subjects f o r each. Table X i s the r e s u l t s of an analysis of variance f o r t h i s data, while Table XI l i s t s the differences among means. Table XII i s a l i s t of the c r i t i c a l ranges of the Tukey Comp-romise Test used to t e s t the rectangular array of differences between the twelve treatment means. In t h i s table, columns headed by t<=.05 and <A=01 assumes the usual F t e s t v a l i d , while the «C=.001 column i s used as the lower bound from the Greenhouse and Geisser F - t e s t . 64 Table XIII l i s t s a l l s i g n i f i c a n t and no n - s i g n i f i c a n t mean differences f o r the data i n tables nine to twelve. 65 TABLE IX SIGNIFICANT AND NON-SIGNIFICANT MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TREATMENT LEVEL MEANS S i g n i f i c a n t Non-Significant Base vs. Structure *** Structure vs. Praise Base vs. Praise ** Token I vs. Token I I Base vs. Token I * Token I I vs. Follow-up Base vs. Withdrawal * Base vs. Follow-up * Structure vs. Token I * Praise vs. Token I * Praise vs. Withdrawal * Praise vs. Follow-up * Token I vs. Withdrawal ** Withdrawal vs. Token I I ** Withdrawal vs. Follow-up ** *** p <.05 ] ** p ^ .01 > with Tukey Compromise Test * p <,001 ) 66 TABLE X DESCRIPTION OP EARLY (E) AND LATE (L) STAGES WITHIN TREATMENT LEVELS Treatment Level Observation Days Stage Mean 1. Baseline 1-10 None Ti-58.33 2. Structure 11-16 None T2=44.99 3. 4. Praise and Ignore 17-19 20-23 E L T,=54.83 T£=41.00 5. 6. Token I 24-29 30-35 E L £5=25.73 Te=13.42 7. 8. Withdrawal 36-38 39-41 E L T?=28.25 Tg=41.64 9. 10. Token I I 42-46 47-51 E L Tq=19.29 Tio=8.30 11. 12. Follow-Up 52-54 55-58 E L |ll=4.58 T 1 2 - 7 . l l TABLE XI ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE TABLE FOR TWELVE MEANS Source SS df MS P Between Treatments 23633.71 11 2148.52 30.21* Between Blocks (Subjects) 4447.63 5 889.53 Residual 5912.22 55 71.13  T o t a l 71 * p< .01 Conservative P.01, 1,5=16.3 : P ( .01 Conservative F.05,1,5=6.61 TABLE X I I DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS FOR TWELVE STAGES Means * 1 1 ^ ? 1 Q T 6 g 9 f 5 f 7 ^ % ? 2 ?5 \ T I ; L = 4 . 5 8 - 2 V 5 3 3.72 8 . 8 4 1 4 . 7 1 2 1 . 1 5 23.67 3 6 . 4 2 3 7 . 0 8 4 0 . 4 1 5 0 . 2 5 53-75 f 1 2 = 7 . H - 1 . 1 9 6 . 3 1 1 2 . 1 8 1 8 . 6 2 2 1 . 1 4 33.89 34.53 3 7 . 8 8 4 7 . 7 2 5 1 . 2 2 f 1 0 = 8 . 3 0 - 5 . 1 2 1 0 . 9 9 17.43 19.95 32.70 33 .34 36.69 4 6 . 5 3 50.03 fe=13 .42 - 5 .87 1 2 . 3 1 1 4 . 8 3 27.58 2 8 . 2 2 31.57 4 1 . 4 1 4 4 . 9 1 f 9 = 1 9 . 2 9 - 6 . 4 4 8 . 9 6 2 1 . 7 1 2 2 . 3 5 2 5 . 7 0 3 5 . 5 4 3 9 . 0 4 T 5 = 2 5 . 7 3 - 2 . 5 2 15.27 15.91 1 9 . 2 6 2 9 . 1 0 3 2 . 6 0 T 7 = 2 8 . 2 5 - 1 2 . 7 5 13.39 1 6 . 7 4 2 6 . 5 8 3 0 . 0 8 T4.-4-l.OO - 0 . 6 4 3 .99 13 .83 17.33 T 8 = 4 1 . 6 4 - 3 .35 13.19 1 6 . 6 9 T 2 = 4 4 . 9 9 - 9 . 8 4 13 .34 f 3 = 5 4 . 8 3 - 3 .50 T x = 5 8 . 3 3 TABLE XIII CRITICAL RANGES FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG TWELVE STAGE MEANS USING TUKEY COMPROMISE PROCEDURE 7 * q*,55 R*=q /rise r r o r * Al n C r i t i c a l Range Steps £.05 = .01 = .001 = .05 = .01 =.001 = .05 = .01 = .001 2 2.84 3.78 4.92 9.76 13.00 16.94 13.18 16.18 19.92 3 3.41 4.30 5.41 11.72 14.79 18.62 14.16 17.08 20.77 4 3.75 4.62 5.70 12.90 15.85 19.65 14.75 17.61 21.28 5 4.00 4.85 5.91 13.75 16.66 20.35 15.18 18.01 21.63 6 4.18 5.02 6.07 14.35 17.25 20.85 15.48 18.31 21.88 7 4.33 5.16 6.22 14.85 17.75 21.40 15-73 18.56 22.16 8 4.46 5.28 6.33 15.35 18.14 21.75 15.98 18.75 22.33 9 4.57 5.40 6.43 15.70 18.55 22.10 16.15 18.96 22.51 10 4.67 5.49 6.51 16.05 18.85 22.21 16.33 19.11 22.56 11 4.79 5.57 6.60 16.43 19.15 22.70 16.52 19.26 22.81 12 4.83 5.64 6.67 16.60 19.36 22.91 16.60 19.36 22.91 TABLE XIV SOME SIGNIFICANT AND NON-SIGNIFICANT MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BASELINE, STRUCTURE, AND THE EARLY AND LATE STAGES OF PRAISE AND IGNORE. TOKEN: I, WITHDRAWAL TOKEN I I , AND FOLLOW-UP S i g n i f i c a n t Non-Significant Base vs Praise (L) *** Base vs Withdrawal (L) *** Structure vs Token I (E) ** Structure vs Withdrawal (E) *** Structure vs Token I (L) * Praise (L) vs Token I (E) *** Praise (L) vs Withdrawal (E) * Token I (L) vs Withdrawal (E) *** Token I (L) vs Withdrawal (L) * P < . 0 5 | ** p ^ . . 0 1 Vwith Tukey Compromise Test * * * * p <.ooi) Base vs Praise (E) Structure vs Praise (L) Praise (E) vs Praise (L) Praise (L) vs Withdrawal (L) Tokenl(E) vs Token I (L) Token I (E) vs Token II (E) Token I (L) vs Token II (L) Token I (L) vs Follow-up (L) Token I (L) vs Follow-up (E) Token I I (E) vs Token II (L) Token I I (E) vs Follow-up (E) Token I I (L) vs Follow-up (E) Token I I (L) vs Follow-up (L) Follow-up (E) vs Follow-up (L) 70 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 1. INTRODUCTION The plan followed i n t h i s chapter included a r e -statement of each hypothesis, followed by an evaluation and discussion of the implied s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses. Other fin d i n g s are introduced as they are appropriate. Hypothesis I. When teacher-praise of correctness i s applied to students i n a grade nine non-academic c l a s s contingent upon the emission of appropriate behavior, while inappropriate behavior i s placed on e x t i n c t i o n by ignoring i t , then inappropriate responses w i l l decrease. The n u l l hypothesis of no differ e n c e between the means of Baseline (T^) and Praise and Ignore (Tj) was tested against the a l t e r n a t i v e that T^ would exceed T^» Results i n d i c a t e d (Table VI) that at the lower bound of .001 the difference between means was not s i g n i f i c a n t , but at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , the difference was s i g n i f i c a n t . The post hoc comparison between the l a t e stage of Praise and Ignore (T^) and Baseline (T]^) was also s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , whereas the e a r l y stage of Praise and Ignore (T^) and Baseline was not. The contrast between the e a r l y and l a t e means f o r Praise and Ignore (T3-T4) showed s i g n i f -icance at the .05 l e v e l with the l e s s conservative Newman-Keuls Test. S t a t i s t i c a l data then, do in d i c a t e that i f the normal F-test i s indeed v a l i d then praise having a c o r r e c t -ness connotation may be useful i n decelerating inappropriate behavior. Graphical analysis gave fu r t h e r support to the assum-p t i o n that t h i s treatment may have been a s u f f i c i e n t condition 71 to decelerate behavior. Figure 2 i n d i c a t e an o v e r a l l de-c l i n e of inappropriate behavior. In p a r t i c u l a r , data f o r subjects three, four, and s i x , (Figures 5» 6 , 8 , and Table XIV) i n d i c a t e d that Praise and Ignoring was more e f f e c t i v e with these subjects than i t was with the other three students. With the above evidence, the writer concludes that using p r a i s e that i n d i c a t e s the correctness of the response while ignoring inappropriate responses, does influence behavior. This influence i s not to be i n t e r p r e t e d to mean that Praise and Ignore was found to be a s u f f i c i e n t decel-er a t i n g t a c t i c . The data do not support t h i s conclusion, but do i n d i c a t e that the behaviors under study were being a f f e c t e d by the contingencies i n operation during t h i s treatment l e v e l . Hypothesis I I . When token r e i n f o r c e r s i n the form of points are used m conjunction with back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , with no aversive contingencies employed, then inappropriate behaviors w i l l decelerate. Baseline conditions used back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , but not points nor the elements of Praise and Ignore. Token I employed a l l three conditions. The n u l l hypothesis of no dif f e r e n c e between the means of Baseline (T-j_) and Token I (T4) was tested against the one sided alternate hypothesis that T4 was l e s s than T"-^. The difference was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l (Table VI). This implies that under the assumptions of the Greenhouse and Geisser t e s t , the conditions of Token I were responsible f o r a dramatic deceleration i n the emission rate of inappropriate TABLE XV COMPARISON BETWEEN MEANS OF BASELINE AND PRAISE AND IGNORE FOR SIX SUBJECTS Subject Base Mean Praise Mean Decrease SI 40 36 4 S2 7 4 7 1 3 S3 61 5 0 11 S4 5 0 40 10 S 5 42 36 6 S6 67 45 22 73 responses. The trend of the data on a l l graphs i s consistent with the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. Hypothesis III. When the two treatments, Praise and Ignore, and Token I are compared, then Token I w i l l be more effective i n controlling and decelerating inappropriate responses. Evaluation of the foregoing required an analysis between Token I ($4.) and Praise and Ignore (Tj). The n u l l hypothesis of no difference between T^ and Tj was tested against the one sided alternative. The result of the analysis i n the preceding chapter (Table VI) led to a rejection of the null form at the . 0 0 1 level of significance. In Figure 2 , a considerable decline i n the emission of inappropriate be-havior, and verbalization, i s indicated; from a mean of 4-7% i n Praise and Ignore to 2 0 % i n Token I. Figures three to eight also indicate that Token I was effective with a l l subjects. Of interest perhaps, i n passing, i s the comparison between Token I and Withdrawal. The difference between the means of Token I (T^) and Withdrawal ( $ 5 ) was signif-icant at the . 0 1 l e v e l , but not the . 0 0 1 l e v e l . Hence, i f the assumptions underlying the Greenhouse and Geisser test are valid, then reliable control of behaviors was not demonstrated. In the comparison between the early and late stages for Token I and Withdrawal, the only significant result at the . 0 0 1 level was found to be between Token I late (Te) and Withdrawal late (Tg), (Table XIII). It i s this comparison which indicated that tokens were responsible 74 for the decline i n "behavior, and not other environmental contingencies. What this evidence points to i s clearly i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure III, i n which the mean for the entire Withdrawal phase i s lower than the mean for Token I. Withdrawal, which i s a reversal to Praise and Ignore, serves only one purpose, that i s to demonstrate reliable control of a behav-i o r a l change by showing that when the contingencies consid-ered responsible for the change are removed, the behavior w i l l revert to i t s former le v e l . Once a behavior has been set up however, i t i s possible that i t w i l l no longer be dependent upon the experimental technique which created i t . For example, two of subject one's teachers remarked how well she was doing i n English and Social Studies. Further questioning shed light on the fact that both teachers had rewarded subject one for her improved behavior. In English she was permitted to read books of her choice, rather than ones assigned by the teacher; and i n Social Studies, her project time could be spent i n the li b r a r y instead of the classroom. Graphs for subject two and five (Figures 4 and 7) do indicate that tokens, and not other environmental conditions, were responsible for the decline i n inappropriate behavior during Token I. However, i t may be seen i n the graphs for the other four subjects that these behaviors accelerated in the late phase of Withdrawal, but not i n the early phase. This indicates that not enough time may have been alloted for the reversal period. 7 5 Hypothesis IV. When the mean of inappropriate "behaviors averaged over subjects i n Token II i s compared with that of Token I, then r e s u l t s w i l l i n d i c a t e that inappropriate behaviors decelerated. The n u l l hypothesis of no difference between the means of Token I (T4.) and Token II (fg) was tested against the al t e r n a t i v e hypothesis that T4. i s greater than Tg. The n u l l hypothesis was accepted. Also, f u r t h e r comparisons between the e a r l y and l a t e stages of Token I and Token I I were found to be non - s i g n i f i c a n t , even at the upper bound of . 0 5 . I t has been established that Token I was e f f e c t i v e i n con-t r o l l i n g inappropriate behavior. Since the means of the two phases of Token I and Token I I are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , then one may conclude that Token II was also e f f -e c t i v e . Further, the comparison between Token I I (E) and Token II (L) was not s i g n i f i c a n t , suggesting that the with-drawal of token points which occurred during Token II (L) di d not a f f e c t the behaviors appreciably. Hypothesis V. When the treatment l e v e l . Follow-up, i s reached, the mean of the inappropriate behaviors average over subjects w i l l remain at a l e v e l equal to that of Token I I . The p r i n c i p a l difference between Token I I and Follow-up was the use of token points during the implementation of the contract system i n the l a t e stage of Token I I . No tokens were employed during Follow-up. The n u l l hypothesis of no difference between the means of Token II (Tg) and Follow-up (Tn) was tested against the one sided a l t e r n a t i v e i n order to e s t a b l i s h whether or not a token program could be r e -placed by a contingency contract system without an increase of inappropriate behavior. The r e s u l t s showed that there 76 was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the above means i n -d i c a t i n g that the conditions of Follow-up achieved t h e i r objective. I n d i v i d u a l graphs f o r each subject, Figure 3 to 8, i n d i c a t e d that teacher-praise and attention, and contracts, could replace a token program without a f f e c t i n g behavior. In p a r t i c u l a r , attention should be drawn to observation day f i f t y - s e v e n . On t h i s occasion, a " F i e l d Day" had been planned with events to s t a r t immediately f o l l o w i n g a f i v e minute home-room period. Due to unforeseen d i f f i c u l t i e s , a c t i v i t i e s were postponed f o r one hour. This meant a l l students attended t h e i r f i r s t p e r i o d c l a s s . Because of the writer's involvement with the a t h l e t i c events of the day, he was unable to be with the c l a s s u n t i l the l a s t f i f t e e n minutes. I t was found on entering the room, that the obs-ervers had proceeded with t h e i r observation, which included a r e l i a b i l i t y check, and that the e n t i r e c l a s s was working q u i e t l y . With the pandemonium that existed i n the school generally during t h i s period, i t i s safe to say that t h i s was one of the few classes engaged i n educational a c t i v i t -i e s . Coupled with the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis the f a c t that the mean over a l l s i x subjects dropped from approximately 14-% i n Token II to 6% i n Follow-up, (Figure 2) and since a l l subjects displayed s i m i l a r trends, i t may be concluded that procedures introduced i n Follow-up were e f f e c t i v e i n con-t r o l l i n g behaviors. In other words, the r e s u l t s suggested that a token program could be replaced with a student man-aged contingency contract program without an increase i n 77 inappropriate behavior. GENERALIZATION Dire c t measurements of generalization trends were not made during the study. Repeated anecdotal data from the school p r i n c i p a l , counsellors, and teachers were p o s i t i v e and i n d i c a t e d that there was a noticeable and apparently dramatic change i n the behavior of many of the students i n the c l a s s . A passing comment made i n the staffroom by a teacher who wanted to know whether or not subject two was s t i l l i n school, l e d to the development of Table XVI. Evid e n t l y t h i s teacher had noticed that subject two had not been on the "call-down l i s t " . In t h i s school the d a i l y s t a f f b u l l e t i n contains a l i s t of students who are c a l l e d down to the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . To be placed on the l i s t normally requires the student to be disobient i n c l a s s , or truant from school. In any event, the student i s at some odds with the s t a f f and i s required to report to the o f f i c e . Table XVI in d i c a t e s the number of times each of the subjects was on the l i s t throughout the year. Before the in t r o d u c t i o n of praise and ignore, the t o t a l number of times students were c a l l e d to the o f f i c e was f i f t y -nine. During Praise and Ignore, and Token I i t was reduced to two. In Withdrawal, there was an increase to nine, and during Token II and Follow-up students were c a l l e d twice to the o f f i c e . As a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of the success of the program, seven students were tra n s f e r r e d i n t o i t from other classes 78 during the year at the request of teachers and counsellors. ATTENDANCE Comparisons of the attendance records f o r the exper-imental c l a s s during the year were also encouraging. The attendance percentage i n the mathematics and science c l a s s f o r each of the conditions i s l i s t e d i n Table XVII. These f i g u r e s are encouraging, but because of the un-usual amount of sickness i n evidence throughout the school, during December and January, the f i r s t three f i g u r e s may not be r e l i a b l e . Hence, more d e f i n i t e evidence i s needed before conclusions about the e f f e c t s of a token program on attendance can be made. In addition, a d a i l y record was kept throughout the year, of a l l students who came to c l a s s l a t e . At the end of each period, there was a four-minute delay before the next period s t a r t e d . Periods ended and commenced at the sound of a b e l l c o n t r o l l e d automatically by a mechanism located i n the o f f i c e . A student was recorded l a t e i f he a r r i v e d a f t e r the l a s t b e l l . The number of l a t e s during each treatment l e v e l i s recorded i n Table XVIII. In p a r t i c u l a r , S 2 was a chronic l a t e a r r i v a l from the s t a r t of the school year u n t i l Token I. A f t e r t h i s treatment he d i d not appear l a t e f o r c l a s s u n t i l Follow-up. His E n g l i s h teacher noted the same trend i n h i s c l a s s , and made several favorable comments, not only on h i s punctuality, but also on h i s improved academic performance. TABLE XVI NUMBER OF TIMES EACH SUBJECT WAS CALLED TO THE VICE-PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE Month Approximate Treatment Level Number of Times on C a l l Down L i s t SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Sept. Pre-Baseline 2 4- 3 2 2 7 Oct. Baseline 2 6 5 2 3 5 Nov. Baseline-Structure 1 5 3 0 4- 3 Dec. Structure-Praise and Ignore 0 1 1 0 0 0 Jan. Praise and Ignore-Token I 0 1 0 0 0 0 Feb. Token I 0 1 0 0 0 0 March Token I-Withdrawal 3 2 1 1 2 0 A p r i l Token I I 1 0 0 0 0 0 May Token II to end of Follow-up 0 0 0 0 0 1 TABLE XVII ATTENDANCE FOR EXPERIMENTAL CLASS Treatment Level Attendance Pre-Baseline to End of Structure 84% Praise and Ignore 86% Token I 94% Withdrawal 95% Token I I 94% Follow-up 98% TABLE XVIII RECORD OF LATES OVER TREATMENT LEVELS Treatment Level Frequency Average per Day Baseline 63 3 Structure 33 3 Praise and Ignore 50 2 Token I 3 0 Withdrawal 12 1 Token II 0 0 Follow-up 1 0 82 COST The back-up r e i n f o r c e r s were those r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the school, and cost nothing to implement. In the writer's opinion, programs which are dependent on the i n -troduction of candies and toys i n t o the classroom can only be applied f o r a l i m i t e d time because of the s t r a i n eventu-a l l y placed on e i t h e r the school or the teacher's budget. Furthermore, a l l equipment used i n the classroom, i n c l u d i n g tape recorders, was ava i l a b l e to a l l teachers i n the school. An adaptor which permitted two observers to use the same recorder and a t h i r t y - f o o t extension f o r an ear plug were the only items purchased. Hence the t o t a l cost of a l l items and materials used throughout the study amounted to approx-imately two d o l l a r s . In terms of personnel, the observers were grade twelve students who v o l u n t a r i l y gave t h e i r time. The writer, who was also experimenter and teacher, was a member of the s t a f f , and taught physics and mathematics to other classes. In other words, there was no personnel cost to the school d i s -t r i c t i n which t h i s study was conducted. 83 CHAPTER VT SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION I SUMMARY P o l l o w i n g an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e performed on the percentages of combined i n a p p r o p r i a t e behavior averaged w i t h i n the seven experimental c o n d i t i o n s , and another a n -a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e comparing the means of the e a r l y and l a t e stages f o r each of P r a i s e and Ignore, Token I , W i t h -drawal, Token I I , and F o l l o w - u p , w i t h the means of B a s e l i n e and S t r u c t u r e , a comparison or c o n t r a s t between a l l t r e a t -ment means was performed. The analyses p e r m i t t e d the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : 1. The use of p r a i s e that i n d i c a t e s the c o r r e c t n e s s of the response, while i n a p p r o p r i a t e responses are i g n o r e d , does i n f l u e n c e b e h a v i o r . 2. A t o k e n - p o i n t system designed to use only back-up r e i n f o r c e r s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n the school and which cost n e i t h e r the s c h o o l nor teacher money, together with p r a i s i n g and i g n o r i n g , d r a m a t i c a l l y reduced i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r . 3. The r e i n f o r c i n g of d e s i r a b l e behavior with p o i n t s , back-up r e i n f o r c e r s , and p r a i s e was more e f f e c t i v e than r e i n f o r c i n g behavior with p r a i s e a l o n e . 4. The use of contingency c o n t r a c t s i n c o n j u n c t i o n with tokens and back-up r e i n f o r c e r s was more e f f e c t i v e i n d e c e l e r a t i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g i n -a p p r o p r i a t e behavior than the use of tokens and back-up r e i n f o r c e r s a l o n e . 5. Tokens can be thinned from the e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g without d i s r u p t i n g gains made. 6. The development of contingency c o n t r a c t s p e r m i t t e d the t h i n n i n g and withdrawal of tokens from the program. I I DISCUSSION The program of i n s t r u c t i o n used throughout the study may r a i s e s e v e r a l questions as to the usefulness of a token program i n classrooms where c o n v e n t i o n a l methods of i n s t r u c t i o n are used. Tokens are an a i d i n the t e a c h i n g of b e h a v i o r , and to be e f f e c t i v e , the b e h a v i o r , whether i t be a simple s k i l l or 84 a complex a t t i t u d e , must be defined. Only when i t i s defined i n measurable and observable terms may contingencies of r e i n -forcement be designed under which the learning of that behav-i o r takes place. The teacher who i s experienced i n preparing i n s t r u c t i o n -a l objectives and i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , w i l l f i n d the techniques used i n a l l behavior modification studies meaningful and u s e f u l . A token program redesigns the c l a s s -room environment. I t does not make students f r e e , but simply makes the co n t r o l exercised by the environment l e s s aversive to the student. The techniques found i n the treatment l e v e l s i n t h i s study attempted to produce a s o c i a l environment of t h i s kind. I t should be borne i n mind that t h i s t h e s i s reports the r e s u l t s of behavior modification techniques as they were applied to a group of students involved with an i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. The writer i s concerned at t h i s point that i t i s possible to make generalizations from these data without f u l l y appreciating the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the i n -d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Both the mathematics and science program involved not only the task of sequencing lessons (a procedure of presentation an a l y s i s , t r i a l , e v a l -uation, r e - a n a l y s i s , r e t r i a l , re-evaluation, and so on) but also the presenting of material to the student at a rate which he could handle and which followed n a t u r a l l y from h i s developing i n t e r e s t and awareness. The program was even more complex however, since i t r e l i e d on group processes as well, and thus, a c t i v i t i e s prescribed r e s u l t e d from the 85 diagnosis of both the group and i n d i v i d u a l needs. Furthermore, t h i s study l i k e many which preceded i t , found teacher-attention and the p r a i s i n g of appropriate behavior while ignoring inappropriate behavior valuable i n in f l u e n c i n g p u p i l performance. However, teacher-praise and attention i s an extremely complex independent v a r i a b l e . I t i s a combination of many p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s and dimensions, i n c l u d i n g sex, s i z e , f a c i a l features, and vocal c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s , to name only a few of the more obvious ones. Perhaps future studies may i s o l a t e these p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and analyze each component separately. Future studies should also attend to the important t o p i c of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . That i s , to f i n d what e f f e c t s p r a i s e , teacher-attention, and tokens may have on other environments outside of the experimental s e t t i n g , and most important, how the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n occurs. For example, does i t occur, i f at a l l , because of i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r o l of responses through i m i t a t i v e behavior, or group c o n t r o l of i n d i v i d u a l behavior, or none of these? In the writer's opinion, t h i s i s perhaps the most important area of token programs yet to be i n v e s t -igated. 86 REFERENCES Axelrod, S. Token Reinforcement Programs i n Special Classes. Exceptional Children, 1971, Vol. 37, 371-379. Ayllon, T. and A z r i n , N.H. The Token Economy: A Motivation-a l System f o r Therapy and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . N.Y., Apple-ton-Century-Crofts, 1968. Bailey, J.S., Wolf, M.M., P h i l l i p s , E.L. Home-based r e i n -forcement and the M o d i f i c a t i o n of Pre-delinquents Classroom Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral  Analysis, 1970, Vol. 3, 183-184. Bijou, S.W. and Baer, D.M. C h i l d Development, N.Y., Apple-ton-Century-Crofts, 1961. Broden, M., H a l l , R.V., Dunlap, A., Clark, R. E f f e c t s of Teacher Attention and a Token Reinforcement system i n a Junior High School Special Education Class. Exceptional Children, 1970, Vol. 36, 341-349. Brown, D. Changing Student Behavior: A New Approach to Dis- c i p l i n e . Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co., 1971. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs f o r Research. Chicago, Rand McNally & Col, 1963. Catania, C.S. (Ed.) Contemporary Research i n Operant Behavior, Glenview, I l l i n o i s , Scott, Foresman & Company, 1968. Cohen, H.L., F i l i p c z a k , J . , and B i s , J . A study of Conting-encies Applicable to Special Education. In R. U l r i c h , T. Stachnlk and J . Mabry (Eds.) Control of Human Behav- i o r , V ol. 2, Glenview, Scott, Foresman & Co., 1970. Endler, N.S. The E f f e c t s of Verbal Reinforcement on Conform-i t y and Deviant Behavior. Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, Vol. 66, 147-154. Fargo, G.A., Behrns, C , Goodman, S.A., Commons, M. Account-a b i l i t y : U t i l i z i n g Behavior Modification. In G.A. Fargo C. Behrns and P. Nolen (Eds.). Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n i n  the Classroom, Belmont, C a l i f . , Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1970. F e r s t e r , C B . Reinforcement and Punishment i n the co n t r o l of Human Behavior by S o c i a l Agencies. In E. McGinnies and C B . F e r s t e r (Eds.). The Reinforcement of S o c i a l  Behavior, N.Y., Houghton M i f f l i n , 1971. Glynn, E.L. Classroom Applications of Self-determined Rein-forcement. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1970, Vol.3, 123-152.— Hart, B.M., A l l e n , K.E., B u e l l , J.S., H a r r i s , F.R. and Wolf, M.M. E f f e c t s of S o c i a l Reinformement on Operant Crying. Journal of Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 1964, V o l . 1, 145-153. 87 Homme, L.E. Contingency Management. In G.A. Fargo, C. Behrns and P. Nolen. (Eds.) Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n i n The Classroom, Belmont, C a l i f . , Wadsworth PubiCo., 1970. Homme, L.E., Csanyi, A.P., Gonzales, M.A., Rechs, J.R. How  to Use Contingency Contracting i n the Classroom, Research Press, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 1969. Krasner, L. and Ullmann, L.P. Research i n Behavior Modific-ation . N.Y., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966. K e l l e r , P.S. Learning Reinforcement Theory. (2nd Ed.), N.Y., Random House, 1962. Kirk, R.E. Experimental Design Procedures f o r the Behavioral  Sciences, Belmont, C a l i f . , Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., 1968. Lovaas, 0.1., Berberich, J.P., P e r l o f f , B.P. and Schaeffer, B. Ac q u i s i t i o n of Imitative Speech by Schizophrenic Children Science, Vol. 1$1, 7o$-W-L o v i t t , T. Behavior Mo d i f i c a t i o n : The Current Scene. Exceptional Children, 1970, Vol. 37, 85-91. L o v i t t , T. Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n : Where Do We Go From Here. Exceptional Children, 1970, Vol. 37, 157-167. Madsen, C«.H. , J r . and Madsen, C.K. Teaching D i s c i p l i n e : Beh- a v i o r a l P r i n c i p l e s Toward a P o s i t i v e Approach. Boston, A l l y n and Bacon Inc., 1970. Mandelker, A.V., Brigham, T.A., Bushell, D. The E f f e c t s of Token Procedures on a Teacher's S o c i a l Contacts with Her Students. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1970, v o l . 3, l e s ^ ^ r : — — McGinnies, E. and Eerster, C.B. The Reinforcement of S o c i a l  Behavior, Boston, Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 19?1. McKenzie, H.S., Clark, M., V/olf, M.M., Kothera, R., Benson, C , Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n Using Grades as Tokens. Exceptional Children, 1968, Vol . 34, 745-753. Montgomery, J . and McBurney, R.D. Operant Conditioning -Token Economy. Camarillo, C a l i f . , Camarillo State H o s p i t a l , 1970. O'Leary, K.D. and Becker, W.C. Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n of an Adjustment Class: A Token Reinforcement System. Except- i o n a l Children, 1967, Vol. 33, 637-642. O'Leary, K.D., Becker, W.C., Evans, M.B. and Saudargas, R.H. A Token Reinforcement Program i n a Publi c School, A Re p l i c a t i o n and Systematic Analysis. Journal of Applied  Behavioral Analysis, 1969, Vol. 2, 3-13. P h i l l i p s , E.L. Achievement Place: Token Reinforcement i n a Home-style R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e t t i n g For Predelinquent Boys. Journal of Applied Behavorial A n a ^ s i s , 1968, Vol. 1, 213-233. 88 Renner, K.E. Delay of Reinforcement: A H i s t o r i c a l Review. Psychological Review, 1964, Vol. 61, 341- 361. Rose, S.D., Sundel, M., Delange, J . , Corwin, L. and Palumbo,A. The Hartwig Project: A Behavioral Approach to the Treat-ment of Juvenile Offenders. In R. U l r i c h , T. Stachnik and J . Mabry (Eds.). Control of Human. Behavior, Vol. 2, Glenview, Scott, Foresman and Co., 1970. Rosenhan, D., Greenwald, J.A. The E f f e c t s of Age, Sex, and Socioeconomic Class on Responsiveness to two Classes of Verbal Reinforcement. In E. McGinnies and C.B. Perster (Eds.). The Reinforcement of S o c i a l Behavior, Boston, Houghton M i f f l i n , 1971. Schwarz, M.L. and Hawkins, R.P. Ap p l i c a t i o n of delayed Conditioning Procedures to the Behavior Problems of an Elementary School C h i l d . In R. U l r i c k , T. Stachnik and J . Mabry (Eds.). Control of Human Behavior, Vol, 2, Glenview, Scott, Poresman and Co. 1970. Skinner, B.P. Science and Human Behavior. N.Y., MacMillan, 1953. Skinner, B.P. The Technology of Teaching, N.Y., Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. Sloggett, B.B., Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n of the Underachieving Rural Hawaiian: An Experimental Classroom. P a c i f i c  Anthropological Records, No. 5» 1969. Sulzbacher, S.I. and Houser, J.E. A T a c t i c to Eliminate Disruptive Behaviors i n the Classroom. In R. U l r i c k , T. Stachnik and J Mabry (Eds.). Control of Human  Behavior, Vol. 2, Glenview, Scott, Foresman, 1970. Sulzbacher, S.I. and Sherman, W.D. The Importance of Co-ordination i n the Management of an Adolescent. In G.A. Pargo, C. Behrns and P. Nolen (Eds.). Behavior  M o d i f i c a t i o n i n the Classroom,Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a , Wadsworth Pub., 1970. Thomas, D;R., Becker, W.C, Armstrong, M. Production and El i m i n a t i o n of Disruptive Classroom Behavior by System-a t i c a l l y varying Teacher's Behavior. Journal of Applied  Behavioral Analysis, 1968, Vol, 1, 35-1Fr* Ullman, L.P. and Krasner, L. Case Studies i n Behavior Mod-i f i c a t i o n . N.Y., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966. U l r i c h , R. Stachnik,T., Mabry, J . Control of Human Behavior Vol . 1 & Vol. 2, Glenview, 111., Scott, Poresman, 19^6, 1970. Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental Design, Toronto, McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wolf, M.M., G i l e s , D.J., H a l l , R.V. Experiments with Token Reinforcement i n a Remedial Classroom. Behavior Research  and Therapy, 1968, Vol. 6, 51-64. Z i g l e r , E., Eanzer, P. The Effe c t i v e n e s s of Two Classes of Verbal Reinforcers on the Performance of Middle and Lower-Class Children. Boston, Houghton M i f f l i n , 1971. 89 APPENDIX FIGURE 2 PERCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR -AND VERBALIZATION AVERAGED OVER' SIX SUBJCETS /oof BASELINE STRUCTURE PRAISE S jam?. • WITHDRAWAL FOLLOW-UP to • 80 K OBSERVATION DAYS PERCENT INTERVALS... — « — K — Combined Inappropriate Behavior sx> - x — x - V e r b a l i z a t i o n 'O mean of treatment l e v e l FIGURE 3 lOO-i PERCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND VERBALISATION OVER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT 1 BASELINE < STRUCTURE i PRAISE J iranRE TOKEN II F0LLOW-I I • \ ' n-n- q-tu-n~ n~ir -Q 35 • ' ' ' W • > ' iJS ' ' ' • so ' ' ' ' SS OBSERVATION DAYS , i Combined Inappropriate Behavior - x — x - V e r b a l i s a t i o n Mean of treatment l e v e l FIGURE 4 PERCENT INTERVALS OP COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND VERBALIZATION OVER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT 2 MSU1NE I STRUCTURE 1 PRAISE i IGNORE FOLLOW-UP OBSERVATION DAYS — — Combined Inappropriate Behavior - x — x — x Verbalization Mean of treatment l e v e l FIGURE 5 fERCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND VERBALIZATION OVER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT $ BASELINE STRUCTURE ' PRAISE 5 1 IGNORE I WITHDRAWAL ] ro; OBSERVATION DAIS w . — . — Combined Inappropriate Behavior — x — x Ve r b a l i z a t i o n Mean of treatment l e v e l FIGURE 6 FEfiiCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR VERBALIZATION OVER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT 4-POLLOW-UP / « ' ' • ' is > > < > io > OBSERVATION DAYS — . — Combined Inappropriate Behavior -x—x-x- Ver b a l i z a t i o n Mean of treatment l e v e l 1 30 ' ' ' > IS ' > ' ' VO ' ' 1 ' Yff • ' I i go i > I • to vO FIGURE 7 PERCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND KERBALIZATJON OVEE,EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT 5 TOKEN II 10 ' ' ' ' tS 1 ' ' > M > • < • iS 1 ' 1 1 <SO > < < > 3J ' ' • • Vo ' ' 1 1 V«" ' • ' > SO ' OBSERVATION DAYS —v— Combined Inappropriate Behavior - x — x — x V e r b a l i z a t i o n Mean of treatment l e v e l FIGURE 8 PERCENT INTERVALS OF COMBINED INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND VERBALIZATION OVER EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR SUBJECT 6 J STRUCTURE | « ! 1 ' IGNORE 1 TOKEN I WITHDRAWAL TOKEN II' FOLLOW-UP — — . — Combined Inappropriate Behavior - x — x — x Ver b a l i z a t i o n Mean of treatment l e v e l 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101647/manifest

Comment

Related Items