THE TEACHER AS OBSERVER AND EXPERIMENTER IN THE MODIFICATION OF DISPUTING AND TALKING‐OUT BEHAVIORS¹

Abstract

Disputing and talking-out behaviors of individual pupils and entire classroom groups in special education classes and regular classes from white middle-class areas and from all black poverty areas ranging from the first grade to junior high school were studied. The classroom teacher in each case acted as the experimenter and as an observer. Various means of recording behaviors were used and reliability of observation was checked by an outside observer, another teacher, a teacher-aide, a student, or by using a tape recorder. Observation sessions varied from 15 min to an entire school day. After baseline rates were obtained, extinction of inappropriate disputing or talking-out behaviors and reinforcement of appropriate behavior with teacher attention, praise and in some cases a desired classroom activity or a surprise at the end of the week brought a decrease in undesired verbalizations. A reversal of contingencies brought a return to high levels of inappropriate talking with a return to low levels when reinforcement for appropriate talking was reinstated. The experiments demonstrated that teachers in a variety of classroom settings could obtain reliable observational records and carry out experimental manipulations successfully using resources available in most schools.A number of studies have been reported in which the systematic application of contingent teacher attention has been shown to be an effective means of modifying inappropriate school behavior. Hall, Lund, and Jackson (1968) and Broden, Bruce, Mitchell, Carter, and Hall (1970) demonstrated that teacher attention could be used effectively to modify disruptive and dawdling behaviors of individual elementary school pupils. Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden (1968) showed that increasing teacher attention contingent on appropriate behavior was effective in helping beginning teachers to gain classroom control. Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong (1968) and Madsen, Becker, and Thomas (1968) showed 'This research was partially supported by the Na- The behaviors selected for modification were primarily "talking-out" behaviors which disrupted the class and were disturbing to the teachers. The fact that this class of behaviors is of concern to teachers is born out by the fact that 14 teachers of a total of 60 selected talking out, arguing, or other verbal outbursts as a behavior to modify when given the op-141 1971, 4, 141-149 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 1971)

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

“…Interdependent group-oriented contingency programs that were not called the GBG have also been implemented to diminish disruptive behavior (e.g., Axelrod, 1973;Dietz & Repp, 1973;Hall, Fox et al, 1971;Salend & Lamb, 1989;Thomas, Lee, & Silverman, 1987); increase academic performance (e.g., Bear & Richards, 1980;Lloyd et al, 1996;McLaughlin, 1981;Stewart & McLaughlin, 1986;Turco & Elliott, 1990); increase academic performance and diminish disruptive behavior (Wilson & Williams, 1973); increase prosocial behavior (Gamble & Strain, 1979); increase on-task behavior (Packard, 1970;Willis & Crowder, 1972); increase on-task and diminish disruptive behavior (Crouch, Gresham, &Wright, 1985); and increase academic performance and prosocial behavior ). Salend and Lamb (1989) utilized an interdependent group contingency to diminish the inappropriate verbalizations of learning disabled students.…”

The Efficacy of an All‐positive Approach to Classroom Management

“…The corollary was that punishment did not work. Accumulated data, however, attest to the continued frequent use of negative feedback in dassroom environments (Strain, Lambert, Kerr, Stagg, & Lenker, 1983;White, 1975), to the efficacy of negative consequences for managing problematic behavior (e.g., Azrin & Powers, 1975;Drabman & Spitalnik, 1973;Iwata & Bailey, 1974;Rapport, Murphy, & Bailey, 1982;Van Houten, Nau, MacKenzieKeating, Sameoto, & Colavecchia, 1982), and to the failure of attempts to conduct dasses using only positive consequences (e.g., Becker, Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967;Hall et al, 1971;Rosen, O'Leary, Joyce, Conway, & Pfiffner, 1984;Sajwaj, Twardosz, & Burke, 1972). In the most recent attempt, Rosen et al (1984) demonstrated repeatedly that when special education teachers stopped providing negative feedback to students This research was supported in part by a grant from the Middle Country School District No.…”

USE AND ANALYSIS OF THE “GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME” TO REDUCE DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR1

“…Most have involved the use of individual consequences for the behavior of the students in the classroom. In some of the studies, teachers were systematically trained to ignore or reprimand individual students when they were disruptive and to praise these individual students when they were engaged in non-disruptive or study behaviors (e.g., Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas, 1967;Hall, Fox, Willard, Goldsmith, Emerson, Owen, Davis, and Porcia, 1971;Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968;McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Conderman, 1969; Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong, 1968; 'This research was supported by grant OEO-0-8-522422(10) Ward and Baker, 1968). In some of the studies, special events and privileges, with or without the use of token procedures, were employed as individual consequences for low levels of disruptive behaviors (e.g., Hall et al, 1971; O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas, 1969).…”