Academic Response Rate as a Function of Teacher‐ and Self‐imposed Contingencies

Lovitt, Thomas C.; Curtiss, Karen A.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-49

Cited by 157 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the results of this and other investigations (Johnson, 1970;Johnson and Martin, 1972;Lovitt and Curtiss, 1969;Glynn, 1970) are clear. Self-regulation procedures appear to be either equally effective or more effective than external regulation procedures in both establishing and maintaining desired changes in behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SELF‐REGULATION IN THE MODIFICATION OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR¹

Bolstad

Johnson

1972

J of App Behav Analysis

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared self-regulation and external regulation procedures in the treatment of children's disruptive dassroom behavior. After baseline data were collected, three of the four most disruptive children in each of 10 first-and second-grade dassrooms received reinforcement for achieving low rates of disruptive behavior. The fourth child served as a control subject throughout the experiment. Two of the three experimental subjects were then taught to self-observe their own disruptive behavior. In the final reinforcement period, these subjects were given control over dispensing reinforcers to themselves, based on their self-collected behavioral data while subjects in the other experimental group continued with the externally managed reinforcement In extinction, reinforcement was discontinued for all subjects, but one of the self-regulation subjects in each classroom continued overtly to self-observe. Results indicated that both reinforcement programs reduced disruptive behavior. The self-regulation procedures were slightly more effective in reducing disruptiveness than was the external regulation procedure, and this advantage persisted into extinction. These results suggest that selfregulation procedures provide a practical, inexpensive, and powerful alternative in dealing with disruptive behavior in children.Disruptive classroom behavior has often been the target of behavior modification technology. Many studies have demonstrated that rates of disruptive behavior can be substantially reduced by the systematic application of externally managed contingencies (e.g., Allen, Hart, Buell, Harris, and Wolf, 1964;Patterson, 1965;Homme, DeBaca, Devine, Steinhorst, and Rickert, 1963;Schmidt and Ulrich, 1969;Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper, 1969;O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas, 1969;Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong, 1968 (1969) demonstrated the potential of self-regulation for increasing a student's academic response rate. They found that higher academic rates occurred when the pupil arranged the contingency requirements than when the teacher specified them. In another classroom study, Glynn (1970) found that selfdetermined reinforcement was as effective as experimenter-determined reinforcement in increasing academic response rate and that differential token reinforcement experience influenced subsequent rates of self-determined reinforcement. Several other studies conducted in laboratory settings have further suggested the potential utility of self-monitoring and self-reinforcement in the modification of behavior. The results of studies on self-administered reinforcement have consistently demonstrated that behavior may be modified and maintained as well with a self-administered token reinforcement system as with an externally managed reinforcement system. Marston and Kanfer (1963)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Lovitt and Curtiss (1969) demonstrated the potential of self-regulation for increasing a student's academic response rate. They found that higher academic rates occurred when the pupil arranged the contingency requirements than when the teacher specified them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

SELF‐REGULATION IN THE MODIFICATION OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR¹

Bolstad

Johnson

1972

J of App Behav Analysis

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lovitt and Curtiss (1969) found that with a 12-yr-old student, higher rates of responding occurred when the student arranged the contingency requirements than when the teacher specified them. (SPRING 1973) ment magnitude, accounted for this subject's gain in performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

BEHAVIORAL SELF‐CONTROL OF ON‐TASK BEHAVIOR IN AN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM¹

Glynn

Thomas

Shee

1973

J of App Behav Analysis

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Techniques of behavioral self-control were employed in a class where a high level of ontask behavior had been established with externally administered reinforcement procedures. The behavioral self-control techniques maintained behavior at its ongoing high level both immediately following the externally administered reinforcement treatments and during follow-up treatments after five and seven weeks. Variability in on-task behavior was reduced during the behavioral self-control phases of the study.Classroom behavior that is independent of teacher control or control by any agent external to the learner is a commonly acknowledged primary goal of education. A practical means of attaining this goal lies in the development of procedures of behavioral self-control in classroom settings.A conceptual base for the analysis of selfcontrol is offered below in terms of four behavioral components. Bandura and Perloff (1967) outlined a similar conceptual system. The components are:(1) self-assessment-the individual may examine his own behavior and decide whether or not he has performed a specific behavior or class of behaviors.( 2) Various recent studies have employed one or more, but not all, of these components. For example, the self-monitoring procedures of McFall (1970) and Thomas, Abrams, and Johnson (1971) incorporated both self-recording and self-assessment. Usually, the behavioral self-control components are combined with experimenter imposed restrictions (Kanfer, Bradley, and Marston, 1962;Kanfer and Duerfeldt, 1967).While there is a considerable body of literature dealing with the components of behavioral self-control (Kanfer and Marston, 1963;Marston, 1964;Goldiamond, 1965;Bandura and Whalen, 1966;Bandura, Grusec, and Menlove, 1967;Masters, 1968;Chapman, Smith, and Layden, 1971) only a few studies have been conducted in classroom settings. Lovitt and Curtiss (1969) found that with a 12-yr-old student, higher rates of responding occurred when the student arranged the contingency requirements than when the teacher specified them. The contingency manager, not the reinforce-105 1973, 63, [105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] NUMBER 1 (SPRING 1973)

show abstract

“…

Various studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of behavioral techniques in increasing in-class study behavior (Bushell, Wrobel, and Michaelis, 1968;Hall, Lund, and Jackson, 1968;Lovitt and Curtiss, 1969). In a college or university, however, the study behavior of concern is usually that which occurs outside the classroom, and usually requires the student to manage his own behavior.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%