Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study identified rewards common to both regular and special education classrooms and compared ratings of these reinforcement alternatives between handicapped and nonexceptional students. A 12-item questionnaire assessing the desirability of various rewards identified previously in a pilot study was completed by 72 subjects. Results indicated that ratings by nonexceptional students in regular classroom settings did not differ significantly from those of their handicapped peers in self-contained room placements. Rewards rated as most desirable by both groups were the receipt of good grades and free time privileges for work completion. Results are discussed in terms of programing for the generalization and maintenance of behavior change between special and regular education settings.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alberto

, & Troutman

(1982). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ballard

, & Zettel

(1977). Public law 94–142 and section 504: What they say about rights and protections. Exceptional Children, 44, 177–184.

Blackham

G. J.

, & Silberman

(1980). Modification of child and adolescent behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cautela

J. R.

, & Kastenbaum

(1967). A reinforcement survey schedule for use in therapy, training, and research. Psychological Reports, 20, 1115–1130.

Daly

M. D.

, Jacob

, King

D. W.

, & Cheramie

(1984). The accuracy of teacher predictions of student reward preferences. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 520–524.

Ferster

C. B.

, & DeMeyer

(1962). A method for the experimental analysis of autistic children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 32, 89–98.

Hayes

, & Higgins

S. T.

(1978). Issues regarding the IEP: Teachers on the front line. Exceptional Children, 44, 267–273.

Kazdin

A. E.

(1982). The token economy: A decade later. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 431–445.

MacMillan

D. L.

(1973). Behavior modification in education. New York: Macmillan.

10.

Martens

B. K.

, & Witt

J. C.

(in press). Ecological behavior analysis. In Hersen

, Eisler

R. M.

, & Miller

P. M.

(Eds.), Progress in behavior modification: Vol. 22. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Serralde de Scholz

H. C.

, & McDougall

(1978). Comparison of potential reinforcer ratings between slow learners and regular students. Behavior Therapy, 9, 60–64.

12.

Stokes

T. F.

, & Baer

D. M.

(1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

13.

Sulzer-Azaroff

, & Mayer

G. R.

(1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

14.

Tramontana

(1972). Social versus edible rewards as a function of intellectual level and socioeconomic class. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 33–38.

15.

Wahler

R. G.

, Berland

R. M.

, & Coe

T. D.

(1979). Generalization processes in child behavior change. In Lahey

B. B.

, & Kazdin

A. E.

(Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology: Vol.2. New York: Plenum.

16.

Wolfensberger

(1960). Differential rewards as motivating factors in mental deficiency research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64, 902–906.

Rewards Common to the Classroom Setting: A Comparison of Regular and Self-Contained Room Student Ratings

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References