Independent and Interdependent Group Contingencies

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

“…Fourth, similar gaps are seen in science scores when viewing the data comparing whites and Hispanics and those data comparing whites and blacks. Finally, these score gaps between those students who qualify and do not qualify for free or management strategies that have not only demonstrated results but are also time efficient and easy to implement (Litow & Pomroy, 1975;Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996).…”

“…Within the group contingency literature several positive features have been documented (e.g., McLaughlin, 1974;Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996;Skinner, Skinner, Skinner, & Cashwell, 1999). Researchers have reported the procedures to be time-saving, inexpensive, effective, easy to learn and implement, and easy to manage in a classroom setting (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Grandy et al, 1973;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Packard, 1970).…”

“…Other positive features have been reported in the group contingency literature. For example, group contingencies promote the group members' increased positive social cooperation, peer influence, and spontaneous peer tutoring (e.g., Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Hughs, 1992;Skinner et al, 1996). Finally, group contingencies are considered to be acceptable and fair by teachers (Elliott, & Turko, Gresham, 1987) and students (Goldberg & Shapiro, 1990).…”

“…Additionally, researchers have documented student harassment while implementing group contingency interventions (e.g., Harris & Sherman, 1973). Skinner et al (1996) has suggested that several disadvantages accompany group contingency programs. First, students who follow the rules and do their work find it punitive when other students loose points and subsequently lose the group reinforcer.…”

“…Additionally, while students may modify the behavior(s) identified as a contingency for the designated reward, they may, at the same time, exhibit other disruptive behaviors not identified for change (KelshawLevering et al, 2000). Finally, it may be unethical to exclude students with disabilities (Skinner et al, 1996).…”