The Effects of Self-and Externally-Imposed Schedules of Reinforcement on Oral Reading Performance

Abstract

The experimental analysis of behavior has frequently utilized single subjects to determine the impact of various rewards, schedules of rewards, situational variables, and other factors that might affect behavior. While these single subject designs have advanced in sophistication, many researchers remain concerned that the findings of such studies may not be broadly applicable. This particular study has two unique features. First, the issue of generality is addressed directly by having eight subjects undergo the experimental treatments. Second, the study investigates the impact of child perferences in either choosing or being assigned a reward schedule on their learning. The findings represent one of the few experimental examples that exists for the widely held notion that different treatment strategies may be more appropriate for some children than others, often termed the subject by treatment interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura, A. , and Perloff, B. : Relative efficacy of self–monitored and externally–imposed reinforcement systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 111–116.

Bijou, S. W. , and Baer, D. M. : Child development. Vol. 1: A systematic and empirical theory. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, 1961.

Campbell, D. T. , and Stanley, J. C. : Experimental and quasi–experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand–McNally, 1963.

Dmitriev, V. : Motor and cognitive development in early education. In N. G. Haring (Ed.): Behavior of exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1974, pp. 69–114.

Edgar, E. , and Billingsley, F. : Believability when N = 1. The Psychological Record, 1974, 24, 147–160.

Felixbrod, J. J. , and O'Leary, D. K. : Effects of reinforcement on children's academic behavior as a function of self–determined and externally–imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 241–250.

Liebert, R. M. , Spiegler, M. D. , and Hall, M. : Effects of the value of contingent self-administered and non–contingent externally imposed reward on children's behavioral productivity. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 18, 245–246.

Long, J. D. , and Williams, R. L. : The comparative effectiveness of group and individually contingent free time with inner–city junior high school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 465–474.

Lovitt, T. C. : Self–management projects with children with behavioral disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 138–150. a

10.

Lovitt, T. C. : Applied behavior analysis techniques and curriculum research. In N. G. Haring: A Program Project for the Investigation and Application of Procedures of Analysis and Modification of Behavior to Handicapped Children. Annual Report, July, 1973, University of Washington, Project OEG–0–70–3916 (607), National Institute of Education, b

11.

Lovitt, T. C. , and Curtiss, K. A. : Academic response rate as a function of teacher– and self–imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 49–53.

12.

Lovitt, T. C. , Guppy, T. E. , and Blattner, J. E. : The use of a free–time contingency with fourth graders to increase spelling accuracy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 151–156.

13.

McCraken, G. , and Walcutt, C. C. : Basic reading. New York: Lippincott, 1965.

14.

Meacham, M. L. , and Wiesen, A. E. : Changing classroom behavior: A manual for precision teaching. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company, 1969.

15.

Osborne, J. G. : Free–time as a reinforcer in the management of classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 113–118.

16.

Sidman, M. : Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, 1960.