RULES, PRAISE, AND IGNORING: ELEMENTS OF ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM CONTROL 1

126

Past studies have shown that disruptive behavior can be eliminated and attending behavior accelerated in an academic setting. The relationship between these behaviors and academic performance is not well understood. The effects of behavioral and performance contingencies on classroom behavior and on academic performance were investigated. The subjects, third-grade students from an inner city elementary school, were exposed to a series of conditions including baseline, behavior contingencies, performance contingencies, and a mix of behavior and performance contingencies using a reversal design. The students worked 100 randomly selected mathematics problems for 20 minutes each day during each period. Behavioral contingencies improved attending and decreased disruptions but did not improve performance. Performance contingencies increased per cent correct problems but attending declined and disruptions increased. The combined contingencies increased both performance and attending. The experiment was replicated with another class of children varying the sequence of conditions and the amount of token reinforcement that could be earned. The findings emphasized the importance of designing specific contingencies for specific target behaviors. Behavioral contingencies did not have the positive effect on performance often implied, nor were performance contingencies alone able to maintain acceptable classroom behavior.A number of recent studies (Hall, Lund, and Jackson, 1968;Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong, 1968;Hamblin, Buckholdt, Ferritor, Kozloff, and Blackwell, 1971) have shown that teachers could be trained to increase appropriate behavior and decrease disruptive behavior through modifying contingencies of reinforcement in the classroom. These techniques have been used with

Section: Social Behaviormentioning

confidence: 66%

THE NONEFFECTS OF CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT FOR ATTENDING BEHAVIOR ON WORK ACCOMPLISHED¹

Ferritor

Buckholdt

Hamblin

et al. 1972

126

“…Thus, the majority of investigators have examined interactions between parents and their children (e.g., Patterson, Cobb, and Ray, in press) or between teachers and their pupils (e.g., Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Based partly on information derived from these assessments, training programs have been devised to shift adult social attention from the children's problem behavior to their more desirable actions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PEER REINFORCEMENT CONTROL OF CLASSROOM PROBLEM BEHAVIOR¹

Solomon¹,

Wahler²

1973

131

Peer and teacher interactions with five "disruptive" children were studied in an elementary school classroom. The intent of the study was to analyze experimentally peer reinforcement control of the disruptive children's problem behaviors. Social attention provided by all peers was found to be directed exclusively to the problem behaviors during baseline. Following baseline, several manipulations of selected peer social attention demonstrated the reinforcement function of this stimulus class. Naturalistic approaches to child behavior modification have typically emphasized adult control of the problem child's actions. Thus, the majority of investigators have examined interactions between parents and their children (e.g., Patterson, Cobb, and Ray, in press) or between teachers and their pupils (e.g., Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Based partly on information derived from these assessments, training programs have been devised to shift adult social attention from the children's problem behavior to their more desirable actions. As the majority of studies showed, such shifts can produce sizable therapeutic changes in the children's behavior.Unfortunately, a third source of social contingencies, present in both home and school settings, has received little systematic inquiry. This source, provided by the behavior of the problem child's peer group, has been described as an important determinant of deviant and normal child behavior (O'Leary and O'Leary, 1972 (1966) attempted to modify the aggressive behavior of a 5-yr-old boy through a point system applied to the boy and his peer group following non-aggressive interactions by either party. Although the boy's aggressive interactions declined, the causal roles of peer behavior and the adult controlled point system were confounded. In further work, Patterson, Shaw, and Ebner (1969) (SPRING 1973)

“…Even when observational codes include nonverbal teacher behaviors such as facial expressions and physical contact (Becker et al, 1967) or proximity of the teacher to the pupil , it remains unclear whether these behaviors contribute to behavior change in the students independently of verbal approval alone. One reason that nonverbal attending behavior usually is not evaluated is that verbal approval, as opposed to facial expressions and physical contact, constitutes most (about 85 %) of teacher attending behavior (Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Moreover, teacher training is more likely to emphasize and alter verbal behavior as opposed to nonverbal behaviors (facial expressions and physical contact) (Kazdin, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

THE EFFECT OF NONVERBAL TEACHER APPROVAL ON STUDENT ATTENTIVE BEHAVIOR¹

Kazdin

Klock

1973

The effect of contingent nonverbal teacher approval on student attentive behavior was examined in a dassroom with 12 retarded children. After baseline data were gathered on contingent verbal and nonverbal teacher approval and student attentive behavior, the teacher was instructed to increase her use of contingent nonverbal approval (smiles and physical contact) and to maintain her baseline level of verbal approval. After a reversal phase, the nonverbal approval phase was reinstated. Nonverbal teacher behaviors increased during the experimental phases, whereas verbal teacher approval (alone or in conjunction with nonverbal behaviors) did not increase. Attentive behavior increased for 11 of 12 students during the phases in which contingent nonverbal teacher approval increased. Correlational data suggested that nonverbal teacher approval accounted for behavior change of the students to a greater extent than did changes in the amount of teacher approval per se or in the teacher's use of verbal approval.Teacher approval or attention has been used extensively to alter student behavior in the classroom. 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. Even when observational codes include nonverbal teacher behaviors such as facial expressions and physical contact (Becker et al., 1967) or proximity of the teacher to the pupil , it remains unclear whether these behaviors contribute to behavior change in the students independently of verbal approval alone. One reason that nonverbal attending behavior usually is not evaluated is that verbal approval, as opposed to facial expressions and physical contact, constitutes most (about 85 %) of teacher attending behavior (Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Moreover, teacher training is more likely to emphasize and alter verbal behavior as opposed to nonverbal behaviors (facial expressions and physical contact) (Kazdin, in press). Nevertheless, nonverbal teacher behaviors alone may provide an important source of reinforcement in the classroom. Indeed, several texts and manuals on behavior modification in the classroom advocate the use of nonverbal approval behaviors either to supplement praise or to provide reinforcement in their own right (