The effectiveness of social reinforcement with normal and feebleminded children1

Stevensons, Harold W.; Cruse, Daniel B.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1961.tb01650.x

Cited by 41 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From conclusions reached by several experimenters (Stevenson & Cruse , 1961 ;Zigler & Butterfield, 1968), it appears to Forness (1973) and Havighurst (1970) that the primary techniques are most effective with the youngest children and children in the lowest developmental, social, or cultural stages. As children develop and expand their intellectual capacity, they should be "promoted," suggests Forness (1973) , to higher categories of reinforcers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Forness (J 973) for example, cites a number of experimental studies th at suggest the developmental nature of reinforcement (Stevenson and Cruse, 1961 ;Zigler and Kanzer, 1962;Stevenson and Knights, 1961 ;Ferster , 1967;Zigler and Butterfie ld , 1968 Forness (1973) ordered reinforcements into seven developmental levels, from the most primitive such as edibles, bodily satisfactions, toys, and money, through social acceptance on to the highest reinforcers such as competence or self-motivation . Forness (1973) based his categories or hierarchies broadly on psychological theory, but with the intention of making them relevant to classroom teaching practices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classroom Reinforcement and Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis

Lysakowski

Walberg

1981

The Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To estimate the instructional effects of rewards or positive reinforcement, both primary and secondary, on classroom learning, 102 effect sizes were calculated from statistical data in 39 studies spanning a period of 20 years and containing a combined sample of 4,842 students in 202 classes. The mean of the studymedian effect sizes is 1.17, which suggests average percentiles on learning outcomes of 88 and SO, respectively, for positively reinforced and control groups. Contrary to previous theory and opinions, the strong effects of instructional reinforcement appear constant across grades (kindergarten through college), socioeconomic levels, race, private and public schools, and community types; but tangible reinforcers may be slightly more effective than intangible ones; and girls and students in special schools and classes may be slightly more affected by reinforcements than other students.W hat aspects of rewards or reinforcement are most effective for leaming? What techniques, on average, produce optimal results for different gender, race, and socioeconomic-status groups of students? The purpose of this paper is to provide a quantitative summary of recent research relevant to these and other questions by using statistical techniques developed by Glass (1977), Light and Smith (1971), Rosenthal (1976), and others to synthesize studies within a research domain . The present synthesis con cerns experimental and quasi-experimental research in natural classroom settings.The idea that learning can be initiated, stimulated, or increased by conscious use of rewards is not a twentiethcentury discovery. Aristotle and Plato argued that learners mus t be stimulated or motivated to awaken interest and desire for learning. Birnbaum (1962) describes how edible re inforcements (nuts , figs, and honey) were used as rewards in the twelfth-cen tury teaching of the Torah (p. 385). Birnbaum (1975, p. 225) also cites medieval manuscripts teaching parents and guardians about the use of educational re inforcements-for example , immediate and delayed reinforcements as well as social , tangible, and other types -to in duce children to acquire study habits and to love learning. In these writings , the developmental aspects of reinforcement are clearly described; and primary and secondary reinforcements such as food and praise are both exemplified.Classic learning theorists of the current century (Watson

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Classroom Reinforcement and Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis

Lysakowski

Walberg

1981

The Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those researchers who are most concerned with the motivational properties of verbal events (e.g., Stevenson, 1965) have attempted to clarify the discrepant results by further analyses of subject, experimenter, and task variables; for example, the age of the subject whose reponses are being consequated (Allen, 1966;Allen, Dubanoski, & Stevenson,. 1966;Kelley & Stephens, 1964;Meyer & Seidman, 1961;Spear, 1970;Stevenson & Cruse, 1961), or the complexity of the task being performed (Allen, 1966;Kennedy & Willcutt, 1965;Meyer & Offenbach, 1962;Rosenhan, 1966;Stevenson & Cruse, 1961). The conclusions are not clearcut; but given the variables of the study reported here, the most pertinent conclusion is that for young children learning a complex task (such as reading), praise is more effective than criticism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

The Effects of Different Types of Teaching Methods and Verbal Feedback on the Performance of Beginning Readers

Nelson

1974

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Initial reading acquisition was taught to 64 kindergarten children for 11 weeks utilizing a two x two x four factorial design. The two antecedent conditions were the Lippincott (phonics -Ph) and Scott-Foresman (sight recognition -SR) Series. The two consequent conditions were positive verbal feedback following correct reading responses (R-N) and negative verbal feedback following incorrect reading responses (N-W). Four experimenter-teachers (ET) were used. Utilizing standardized tests of reading achievement, it was found that Ph produced a reading response of letter-sound combinations, whereas SR produced recognition of a limited number of words. There were no consistent differences for the variables of teacher, IQ, or sex.The initial focus of behavior modification as applied to school settings was to manipulate the type of consequences (e.g., teacher and/or peer attention, high-probability responses a la the Premack principle, tokens) contingent upon social behaviors that were judged as appropriate or inappropriate to classrooms (see O'Leary & O'Leary, 1972, for an overview of this area). This focus is currently widening along two dimensions: to include academic as well as social behaviors, and to modify both of these types of behavior by manipulating antecedent as well as consequent conditions (Nelson, 1973).The present study, including reading within the framework of operant psychology (Bloom, 1973;Goldiamond & Dyrud, 1966), simultaneously investi-*This article is a summary of the author's doctoral dissertation at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The author is indebted: to her committee chairman, Alan O. Ross, for his assistance; to Sachem School District, for cooperation and subjects; to the Stony Brook students who participated in this investigation (Emily Davidson, Nancy Fenrick, Julie Heiman, Jerry Jed, Lynn Mofenson, Linda Nash, Linda Rudin Hay, Roger Shadlowsky, David Sheslow, May Tung, and Denise Whikehart); to the J. B. Lippincott Company for a discount; and to the Graduate School at Stony Brook for a grant-in-aid. Portions of this paper were presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, April, 1973. †Request reprints from the author, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412. 306Journal of Reading Behavior 1974 VI, 3 gated the effects of manipulations of both antecedent and consequent conditions on the reading behavior of beginning readers. The antecedent conditions selected were two published series which utilized different methods of teaching reading; the consequent conditions were two types of verbal feedback from the reading instructors.Although the current study did compare two reading series, the Lippincott Basic Reading Program (1969) and the Scott-Foresman Basic Reading Program (1965) which respectively are examples of the phonics and sight recognition methods of teaching reading, this comparison was not made to add fuel to the "which is the best method" argument (Aukerman, 1971)...

show abstract

“…A punishment condition (e.g., &dquo;You are not doing very well,&dquo; &dquo;That's no good&dquo;), however, did depress performance. Stevenson and Cruse (1961) compared retarded and nonretarded subjects and reported equivocal results. Although the retarded responded more than the nonretarded overall, in the first experiment they did not respond differentially to the reward vs. neutral condition, while in the second experiment they did.…”

Section: The Developmental Position: a Critical Look At The Studiesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Critique of the Developmental Position in Mental-Retardation Research

Spitz¹

1983

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In mental-retardation research the developmental approach states that when retarded groups at a particular developmental level—as determined by mental age (MA)—perform more poorly on experimental tasks than do nonretarded groups who are at the same developmental level, the poorer performance of the retarded groups is due to the baleful influence of motivational and related noncognitive processes. A critical review of the ample literature raises questions about the statements by developmentalists that there is a substantial body of valid evidence to support their claims.

show abstract

The effectiveness of social reinforcement with normal and feebleminded children1

Cited by 41 publications

References 3 publications

Classroom Reinforcement and Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis

Classroom Reinforcement and Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis

The Effects of Different Types of Teaching Methods and Verbal Feedback on the Performance of Beginning Readers

Critique of the Developmental Position in Mental-Retardation Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About