No abstract

144 boys and girls in Grades 2 and 6 were presented a 2-choice simultaneous brightness-discrimination task. Ss were either verbally reinforced for correct responses (Rn), verbally punished for incorrect responses (Wn), or verbally reinforced for correct and punished for incorrect responses (RW). Two levels of task complexity defined as the number of irrelevant stimulus dimensions were utilized. Regardless of Ss' sex, age, or the complexity of the task, the Rn combination produced significantly slower learning than did the nearly equivalent Wn and RW combinations. The simple task was learned significantly more rapidly than the complex task.

Following 0, 3. fl. 12, or 24 exposures to a red or a green light, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-old childnm were required UII each of

No abstract

A variety of behavioral procedures have been employed in recent years to modify disruptive classroom behavior. Such methods have been developed with the belief that curtailing disruptive behavior would strengthen positive classroom performance. In this study, two procedures, the good behavior game and the teacher-attention method, were compared to determine short-run effectiveness. Four teachers (two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade) implemented both methods in their classrooms over a five-week period. Presentation of methods was alternated in a counterbalanced design to control for order effects. Each of the four classrooms consisted of 25 students. A time-sampling procedure was used to record the presence or absence of disruptive behavior within 15-second intervals. Disruptive behavior was defined as any talking-out or out-of-seat behavior without permission. The results indicated that both procedures were effective in modifying disruptive classroom behavior, but that the-good behavior game reduced disruptive behavior significantly better than the teacher-attention method. In addition, all teachers preferred the game to the teacher-attention procedure. This reaction seemed related to the effort involved in initiating the two activities. The good behavior game required less effort on the teacher's part. However, use of the game alone raises certain ethical considerations. One such issue involves abuse of peer pressure. Also, there is a possibility that negative rules may tend to promote resentment. Positively stated rules would ameliorate that problem. Another relates to the possibility that some teachers might be carried away by the ease of the game's implementation to the extent that behavior control becomes the primary objective in the classroom. As a result, one might consider use of the game to maximize short-term change, but then phase out this procedure in favor of another method (e.g., teacher attention) for long-run effects.