BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION WITH CULTURALLY DEPRIVED SCHOOL CHILDREN: TWO CASE STUDIES¹

Abstract

Techniques of behavior modification were employed with two second-grade Negro girls in a demonstration school for culturally deprived children to increase the girls' appropriate classroom behaviors. A classification system that provided for continuous categorization of behavior was used to code the children's behavior in two classroom situations. Data were also taken on the type, duration, and frequency of the teachers' verbal interactions. The study included four conditions: Baseline, Modification I, Postmodification, and Modification II. The treatment variable was positive social reinforcement-attention and approval contingent upon desirable classroom behaviors-which was presented, withheld, or withdrawn (timeout from social reinforcement). Withholding of social reinforcement was contingent upon inappropriate attention-getting behaviors. Timeout from social reinforcement was contingent upon behaviors classified as aggressive and resistive. After 25 days of Modification I, desirable behavior increased markedly for each girl. The teachers were then asked to return to their Baseline level of performance. The resultant behaviors demonstrated that for one girl, behavior was still primarily under the control of the treatment contingencies. For the second child, many desirable behaviors that had increased in frequency during Modification I remained high, but inappropriate behaviors increased. When treatment was reinstated, the amount of time spent in desirable behaviors increased and remained high for both girls. Three checks during the three months following data collection showed that these behaviors continued to remain high.Within a classroom setting, disruptive behaviors can prevent a child from making maximum use of school time. Culturally deprived children are already at an academic disadvantage when they begin school, and when these children demonstrate aggressive, antisocial, or resistive behaviors, they become even further handicapped.In attempting to alter a child's classroom behaviors, it is not as pertinent to question the development of these behaviors as it is to recognize that the behaviors can be maintained by the existing environment.

SELF‐REGULATION IN THE MODIFICATION OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR1

“…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.…”

THE EFFECT OF NONVERBAL TEACHER APPROVAL ON STUDENT ATTENTIVE BEHAVIOR1

“…In many studies, teacher approval is operationalized as verbal praise (Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman, 1969;Ward and Baker, 1968;Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper, 1969). Yet, in other studies, verbal approval is supplemented with nonverbal attending behaviors on the part of the teacher such as smiling, patting, holding, touching, moving toward the child, making eye contact, varying tone of voice, among others (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas, 1967;Buell, Stoddard, Harris, and Baer, 1968;Cooper, Thomson, and Baer, 1970 their individual effect on student behavior is rarely evaluated.…”

Current Behavior Modification in the Classroom: Be Still, Be Quiet, Be Docile

“…Important investigations could study: (a) effective means of convincing school districts to adopt (perhaps, on an "experimental" basis) informal classrooms; (b) appropriate evaluative criteria for such schools; it seems apparent that such criteria should differ from currently employed standards (for example, they might include (Holt, 1967). At its best, rather it is a carefully planned total social environment (see Pearl, 1971 Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper (1969), working with two culturally deprived children (who, incidentally, were initially aggressive) included working independently, initiating conversations with others, helping others and talking and playing with peers as behaviors to be reinforced. Winett, Richards, Krasner, and Krasner (1971) showed that even second-grade children can effectively manage their own contingency program.…”

“…For example, in the Thomas et al, (1968) study the frequency of aggressive behavior was so low during baseline and intervention as to receive no separate breakdown in the results section, as was true of other predesignated 'disruptive" behaviors. Aggressive behavior was only noted as a central problem (description of experimental subjects) in Madsen et al, (1968) ;Coleman, (1970);and Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper (1969).…”