Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:35:12.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting Generalization of Appropriate Classroom Behaviour: a Comparison of Two Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

John Stumpf  and
Jacqueline Holman
John Stumpf
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Jacqueline Holman
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study applied a number of behaviour modification strategies in an attempt to reduce the level of disruptive classroom behaviour, and to programme for generalization of treatment effects across time and settings. Eight disruptive students represented either the Control, the Experimenter-selected Objects, or the Self-selected Activities Group. During intervention phases subjects in the Experimenter-selected Objects Group received school related material reinforcers for low levels of disruptive behaviour. The Self-selected Activities Group experienced a more complex set of conditions: partial self-determination of natural reinforcers, self-evaluation and recording, bonuses, group contingencies, individual progress graphs, eventual transition from continuous to intermittent reinforcement, and inclusion of common stimuli in the training and generalization settings. The results indicated that both reinforcement programmes dramatically reduced disruptive behaviour. The less complex package employed with the Experimenter-selected Objects Group, however, yielded significantly better generalization of treatment effects across time in the training setting, as well as across settings during the intervention phases. Additionally, this group showed significantly better maintenance of generalization across settings following programme termination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 29 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M. and Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behaviour game: effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behaviour in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 2, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolstad, O. D. and Johnson, S. M. (1972). Self regulation in the modification of disruptive classroom behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 5, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broden, M., Hall, R. V., Dunlap, A. and Clark, R. (1970). Effects of teacher attention and a token reinforcement system in a junior high school special education class. Exceptional Children 36, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, K. D., Colletti, G., Ersner-Hershfield, R., Hershfield, S. M. and Wilson, G. T. (1977). Self-control in school children: stringency and leniency in self-determined and externally imposed performance standards. Behavior Therapy 8, 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, R. and Clement, P. (1980). Teacher-controlled and self-controlled reinforcement with underachieving black children. Child Behavior Therapy 2, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felixbrod, J. J. and O'Leary, K. D. (1974). Self-determination of academic standards by children: toward freedom from external control. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 845–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferritor, D. E., Buckholdt, D., Hamblin, R. and Smith, L. (1972). The non-effects of contingent reinforcement for attending behaviour and work accomplished. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 5, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. A. and Baer, D. M. (1981). “Do I have to be good all day?” Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 14, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R. V., Lund, D and Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, J. (1977). The moral risk and high cost of ecological concern in applied behavior analysis. In Ecological Perspectives in Behaviour Analysis. Rogers-Warren, A. and Warren, S. F. (Eds), Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Holman, J. and Baer, D. M. (1978). Facilitating generalization of on-task behaviour through self-monitoring of academic tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 9, 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Advances in child behaviour therapy applications and implications. American Psychologist 34, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, S. M., Shemberg, K. M. and Carbonell, J. (1976). Operant clinical intervention: behaviour management or beyond? Where are the data? Behaviour Therapy 7, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kounin, J. S. and Gump, P. V. (1958). The ripple effect in discipline. The Elementary School Journal 59, 158–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuypers, D. S., Becker, W. C. and O'Leary, K. D. (1968). How to make a token system fail. Exceptional Children 35, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, T. F. (1982). A comparison of individual and group contingencies on spelling performance with special education students. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 4, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, K. D., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B. and Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school: a replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 2, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, K. D. and Drabman, R. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in the classroom: a review. Psychological Bulletin 75, 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G. R. (1974). Interventions for boys with conduct problems: multiple settings, treatments and criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42, 471–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, M. S. and Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self control in the classroom: a review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 12, 467–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, T. F. and Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 10, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, P. A., Becker, W. C. and Armstrong, M. (1968). Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behaviour by systematically varying teacher's behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 1, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkewitz, H., O'Leary, K. D. and Ironsmith, M. (1975). Producing generalization of appropriate behaviour through self-control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholody 43, 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, H. W. and Buckley, N. K. (1968). The use of positive reinforcement in conditioning attending behaviour. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 1, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, H. W. and Buckley, N. K. (1972). Programming generalization and maintenance of treatment effects across time and across settings. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 5, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.