Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:59:54.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Challenge to Group-Oriented Teaching: Typical Responses to Typical Rewards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

C. F. Sharpley  and
J. W. Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although operant techniques have been successfully used to modify the classroom behaviours of children, some recent suggestions for the implementation of specialist educational interventions have emphasized the need to individualize instruction which utilizes such methods. The present study shows evidence of individual variations within marked group effects in an operant situation. The presence of such variations to responses which are modified by powerful reinforcers suggests that recent trends in special education towards mainstreaming need to take individual characteristics of subject-behaviours into careful consideration when implementing policies in the normal classroom.

Type
Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , November 1979 , pp. 15 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1979

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

Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 91–97.Google Scholar
Baum, J. The politics of Back-to-Basics. Change, 1976, 8, (10), 32–36.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., Madsen, C.H., Arnold, R., & Thomas, R.R. The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education, 1967, 1, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beissel, G.F. Increasing verbalizations by a disadvantaged preschool child. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 931–934.Google Scholar
Brigham, T.A., Finfrock, S.R., Breunig, M.K. & Bushell, D. The use of programmed materials in the analysis of academic contengencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 177–182.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H.J. “Neuroticism” and handwriting. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 94–96.Google Scholar
Flunckiger, F.A., Tripp, C.A., & Weinbeck, G.H. A review of experimental research in graphology, 1933-1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, E.L. Classroom applications of self-determined reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 123–132.Google Scholar
Graves, D.H. Research update: Back to Basics-the Bennett study. Language Arts, 1976, 53, 822–827.Google Scholar
Hall, R.V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Haring, N.G., & Bateman, B. Teaching the Learning Disadvantaged Child. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
Haring, N.G., & Schiefelbusch, R.L. Teaching Special Children. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.Google Scholar
Hart, B.M., Reynolds, N.J., Baer, D.M., Brawley, E.R., & Harris, F.R. Effect of contingent and non-contingent social reinforcement on the cooperative play of a preschool child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 73–76.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. The effects of vicarious reinforcement on attentive behaviour in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 71–78.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. Behaviour Modification in Applied Settings. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. The Token Economy: A Review and Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Klein, R.D., Hapkiewicz, W.G., & Roden, A.H. (Eds) Behavior modification in educational settings. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973.Google Scholar
O’Leary, K.D., & O’Leary, S.G. (Eds.) Classroom management: the successful use of behavior modification. New York: Pergamon, 1972.Google Scholar
Schutte, R.C., & Hopkins, B.L. The effects of teacher attention on following instructions in a kindergarten class. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 117–122.Google Scholar
Sharpley, C.F., Irvine, J.W., & Hattie, J.A. Changes in performance of children’s handwriting as a result of varying contingency conditions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, in press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, B.F. Operant behavior. In Honig, W.K. (Ed) Operant behavior: areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.R., Becker, W.C., & Armstrong, M. Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher’s behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 35–45.Google Scholar
Ulrich, R., Stachnik, T., & Mabry, J. (Eds.) Control of human behavior: behavior modification in education, Vol. 3. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1974.Google Scholar
Watts, B.H. Special education in the seventies: promises and problems. The Slow Learning Child, 1975, 22, 67–82.Google Scholar
White, O.R. Behaviorism in special education: an area for debate. In Kneedler, R.D. & Tarvers, S.G. (Eds.), Changing Perspectives in Special Education. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, in press.Google Scholar
White, O.R., & Haring, N.G. Exceptional teaching: a multi-media training package. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1976.Google Scholar
Wolf, D.T. Language and discord or the new descent of Eris. English Education, 1976, 7, 131–138.Google Scholar
Wolf, M.M., Giles, D.K., & Hall, R.V. Experiments with token reinforcement in a remedial classroom. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 51–64.Google Scholar