Learning conditions were individually programed in a group setting to provide sequential arrangement of reading material and systematic presentation of reinforcing events to optimize each child's performance. Arrangements of reinforcing events were designed first to accelerate performance rate, then to maintain the high rate. When learning conditions were individually appropriate, each child averaged between 100 and 200 more correct responses every day and spent very few minutes avoiding reading. The students not only made more correct responses daily and worked longer, but also progressed in instructional reading levels from one and one-half to 4 years over 5 months of instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BijouS. W.Operant extinction after fixed-interval schedules with young children.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1958, 1, 25–29.
2.
BijouS. W., & BaerD. M.Operant methods in child behavior development. In HonigW. (Ed.), Operant behavior: areas of research and application.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
3.
BijouS. W., & SturgesP. T.Positive reinforcers for experimental studies with children-consumables and manipulables.Child Development, 1959, 3, 151–170.
4.
BirnbrauerJ. S., WolfM. M., KidderJ. D., & TagueCeciliaClassroom behavior of retarded pupils with token reinforcement.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965, 2, 219–235.
FersterC. B., & DeMyerM. K.The development of performance in autistic children in an automatically controlled environment.Journal of Chronic Disorders, 1961, 13, 312–345.
9.
GoldiamondI., & DyrudJ. E.Reading as operant behavior. In MoneyJ. (Ed.), The disabled reader.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.
10.
HaringN. G., & KunzelmannH. P.The finer focus of therapeutic behavioral management. In HellmuthJ. (Ed.), Educational therapy. Vol. I.Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1966.
11.
HermannKnudReading disability: A medical study of word-blindness and related handicaps.Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1959.
12.
HewettF.Teaching reading to an autistic boy through operant conditioning.Reading Teacher, 1964, 17, 613–618.
13.
HommeL. E., deBacaP., DevineJ. V., SteinhorstR., & RickertE. J.Use of the Premack principle in controlling the behavior of nursery school children.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 544.
14.
KellcherR. T., & GollubL. R.A review of positive conditioned reinforcement.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 543–597.
15.
MoneyJ. (Ed.) Reading disability. Progress and research needs in dyslexia.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.
16.
StaatsA. W., & ButterfieldW. A.Treatment of nonreading in a culturally deprived juvenile delinquent: an application of reinforcement principles.Child Development, 1965, 36, 925–942.
17.
StaatsA. W., FinleyJ. R., MinkeK. A., & WolfM. M.Reinforcement variables in the control of unit reading responses.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1964, 7, 139–149.
18.
StaatsA. W., StaatsC. K., SchutzR. E., & WolfM.The conditioning of textual responses using “extrinsic reinforcers.”Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 33–40.
19.
ZimmermanE. H., & ZimmermanJ.The alternation of behavior in a special classroom situation.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 59–60.
