A Token Reinforcement Program in a Public Junior‐high School1

Abstract

In recent years, the technology of contingency management has been shown to be of increasing value in regular classrooms and public-school systems with both groups and individual pupils (Ayllon and Roberts, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 71-76; Glynn and Thomas, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 299-306; Lovitt and Curtiss, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 49-53; Lovitt and Smith, Exceptional Children, 1974, 40, 357-358; Medland and Stachnik, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 45-51). In addition, established procedures are being systematically replicated across grade levels and differing subject-matter areas. A series of studies initiated by O'Leary and Becker (Exceptional Children, 1967, 33, 637-642) form the basis for the present investigation. The token reinforcement program described by O'Leary and Becker (Exceptional Children, 1967, 33, 637-642) was managed by the teacher of an adjustment class and involved 9-yr-old children described as emotionally disturbed. An Analysis, 1969, 2, 3-31) to study how to maintain treatment effects. In the modification, rules were eliminated as a treatment variable because they are frequently associated with aversive practices in the school system, and it was deemed desirable to have mainly a positive orientation. A second difference was that the present subjects were grade-nine pupils functioning in the regular public-school system. The six students were older (average age = 16.2) and well behind their peers in achievement.They were considered behavior problems and as potential dropouts by teachers and counsellors. They were not considered to be emotionally disturbed. Finally, procedures designed to maintain behavior change generated by the token system were added. The operant level of unacceptable classroom behavior was obtained for six students receiving an individualized program of instruction in mathematics and science in a nonacademic grade-nine class in a public junior secondary school. Initially, two conditions (educational structure and praising appropriate behavior while ignoring inappropriate behavior) were introduced successively. Both procedures reduced inappropriate behavior slightly. When a token system, using backup reinforcers readily available in the school, was introduced in conjunction with the initial two conditions, inappropriate responses declined dramatically in all subjects. Withdrawal of the token program for a three-week period, leaving educational structure and praising and ignoring in effect, increased inappropriate behavior in five of the six subjects. The token program was then re-introduced in conjunction with contingency contracts. The result was a decline of inappropriate behavior below the mean of the first token condition for all subjects. Tokens were thinned and finally removed toward the end of this condition, leaving teacher praise and attention and the contract system in effect.

The Utilization of Behavior Management in Mainstreaming in Physical Education

“…Token reinforcement systems have been known to be utilized for large portions of the school year and, even after being withdrawn, improvements in behavior were maintained without further use of a token system. Both Jones and Kazdin (1975) and Main and Menro (1977) demonstrate how treatment effects were maintained after tokens were withdrawn. If inappropriate behaviors reemerge or if performance levels decrease, the token system is reestablished and maintained for a longer period of time so the skills and behaviors learned through the token system become a natural part of the student's repertoire of performance skills.…”

Effects of Individualized and Group Criteria for Reinforcement on Math Performance

“…It is well documented that students improve academic performance as a consequence of contingent reinforcement using classroom size groups (Main & Munro, 1977;McLaughlin & Malaby, 1972;Michaels, 1977). Several researchers have also examined variables relating to individualized behavioral contingencies in the classroom, with the aim of increasing effectiveness.…”