The effect of a teacher's presence on the classroom behavior of conduct-problem children

Abstract

Six institutionalized conduct-problem children performed in a classroom under three reinforcement conditions: (1) noncontingent reinforcement: (2) reinforcement for being on task and (3) reinforcement for the accuracy and rate fo their academic behavior. Within each of these conditions, the teacher was either present throughout the class session or absent for a portion of the session. In the teacher's absence, on-task behavior was markedly reduced and disruption was markedly increased, regardless of the reinforcement condition in operation. In contrast, the teacher's absence had no effect on academic accuracy and had a major effect on academic rate only when reinforcement was delivered noncontingently. Furthermore, the extent to which the children became disruptive in the teacher's absence was reduced when reinforcement was contingent upon academic accuracy and rate, instead of being contingent upon being on task or delivered noncontingently. It is suggested that the reinforcement of academic behavior, rather than on-task behavior or classroom social behavior, not only will improve the latter behaviors as well, but possibly also make them less dependent upon the presence and continued surveillance of the teacher.

Stimulus Control in the Classroom as a Function of the Behavior Reinforced

“…However, of particular interest is the finding that the children were less disruptive and tended to remain on task more in the teacher's absence when academic behavior was being reinforced. This is consistent with an earlier study, in which it also was found that the extent to which the children became disruptive in a teacher's absence was reduced when reinforcement was contingent on the accuracy and rate of their behavior, rather than being delivered noncontingently or for simply being on task (Marholin et al, 1975).…”

“…The increases in task orientation and decreases in disruptive behavior when academic achievement alone was being reinforced are similar to the findings by Ayllon and Roberts (1974), Kirby and Shields (1972), Marholin et al (1975), and Winett and Roach (1972). However, of particular interest is the finding that the children were less disruptive and tended to remain on task more in the teacher's absence when academic behavior was being reinforced.…”

“…It may be that the failure to demonstrate previously trained behavior in a new environment is due to the absence of discriminative stimuli that were established in the training environment (Marholin et al, 1976;Marholin, Steinman, McInnis, and Heads, 1975). In the classroom setting, for example, the teacher is often the sole or major discriminative stimulus for desired behavior.…”

“…If an adult has been established as a discriminative stimulus for reinforced behavior, it should be expected that the presence of that adult will result in increases in that behavior and absence will result in decreases (Steinman, 1970a(Steinman, , b, 1976 (Marholin et al, 1975). The child will simply learn a conditional discrimination in which responding appropriately to various classroom stimuli is functional only when the teacher is present.…”

“…The former procedure should reduce the teacher's presence as a discriminative stimulus for on-task and nondisruptive behavior; the latter should tend to establish further the teacher's presence as a discriminative stimulus for these behaviors (Marholin et al, 1975).…”