Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Effect of Group Contingencies On Students Behavioral Problem
The Effect of Group Contingencies On Students Behavioral Problem
9-2016
Recommended Citation
Lai, Ching Christy, "The Effect of Group Contingencies on Students' Behavioral Problems in a Classroom" (2016). Culminating
Projects in Community Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy. 20.
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cpcf_etds/20
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Community Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy at theRepository
at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in Community Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy by an
authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The Effect of Group Contingencies on Students’
by
A Thesis
September, 2016
Thesis Committee:
Kimberly Schulze, Chairperson
Eric Rudrud
2
Abstract
Inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms has raised wide interest
from educators (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014). Researchers have studied
different contingency systems so that students with disabilities and students that engage in
high rates of disruptive behaviors succeed in regular classrooms (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf,
1969; Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011; Greenwood, Hops, Delquadri, &
Guild, 1974). Of the reinforcement contingencies, group reinforcement contingencies are
more commonly used mainly due to their economic feasibility and practicality, and utilization
of the peer group to control and enhance classroom behavior (Litoe & Pumroy, 1975). The
present study aimed to study the effectiveness of independent and interdependent group
contingencies on students’ worksheet responses in a classroom. The present study found that
students with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) maintained similarly high worksheet
responses across both academic subjects and types of group contingencies. The group
contingencies appeared to be equally effective. However, more students preferred the
interdependent group contingency for all sessions during the choice conditions for both
academic subjects.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Kim Schulze, and my
committee member, Dr. Eric Rudrud. Without your time and guidance, this study would not
have gone so smoothly. Thank you for always trying to make our Skype meetings happen
despite our time difference. Your constructive feedback and thoughts have always inspired
me.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my agency director and my
supervisor for the Little Learners program at Autism Partnership Hong Kong, Mr. Toby
Mountjoy. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me to provide me with some helpful
Thanks to my amazing observers for spending the extra time on reviewing the videos
and recording the data, and, most importantly, the positivity and support that you have given
me.
Without you all, it would be impossible for me to come this far, presenting one of my
proudest work.
4
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6
Materials .............................................................................................................. 35
Pre-assessment ..................................................................................................... 38
V. Results ........................................................................................................................ 42
Page
References .............................................................................................................................. 48
Appendices
A. Figures........................................................................................................................ 51
Chapter I: Introduction
Inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms has raised wide interest
from educators (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the nation’s federal education law that ensures children
with disabilities are provided with the necessary and additional educational support by public
schools (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014). Researchers have studied different
contingency systems to facilitate students with disabilities and students that engage in high
rates of disruptive behaviors to succeed in regular classrooms (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf,
1969; Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011; Greenwood, Hops, Delquadri, &
decrease inappropriate behavior, increase peer’s acceptance (Nevin, Johnson, & Johnson,
1982; Speltz, Shimamura, & McReynolds, 1982), and facilitate teachers in teaching (Ling &
more commonly used mainly due to their economic feasibility and practicality, and utilization
of the peer group to control and enhance classroom behavior (Litoe & Pumroy, 1975).
7
Group Contingencies
individual’s performance (Cooper et al., 2007). Note that all of the individual contingencies
setting, i.e., independent group contingency. For example, the criterion for receiving a
reinforcer is to get accurate answers of 80% or above on a vocabulary test. The independent
group contingency applies to the entire class. Individuals who meet the criterion get access to
the reinforcer.
is presented to the group, with reinforcement being delivered based on the performance of an
individual or a small group (Cooper et al., 2007). For example, the criterion for receiving a
candy is to turn in the homework on time. The dependent group contingency applies to all
members in the group; however, all members, regardless if they turn in homework on time,
get access to the reinforcer only when the target student in the group turns in homework on
time.
arrangement in which the whole group has to meet the criterion to get access to reinforcement
(Cooper et al., 2007). For example, the criterion set for watching a movie as a reinforcer is to
go to school on time every day for a month. The interdependent group contingency system
8
applies to the entire class. To get access to the reinforcer, all students in the class have to go
to school on time every day for a month. Comparing to other group contingencies,
interdependent group contingency is the most popular group contingency for a number of
reasons (Ling & Barnett, 2013). First, it promotes cooperation among the whole class in
working together to earn the reinforcement. Second, the procedure requires fewer teachers or
contingencies (Skinner, Skinner, & Sterling-Turner, 2002). The current literature review
Herman and Tramontana (1971) studied the effects of instructions and group versus
individual reinforcement in modifying disruptive group behavior during rest periods. Six
preschool-aged students (four boys and two girls) from a class of nineteen participated in the
study. They were referred due to their high rates of disruptive behaviors. A partial interval
time-sampling technique with 10-second intervals to observe and 5-second intervals to record
classroom and experimental room, followed by token training and token reinforcement
(individual contingency and group contingency, respectively) in the experimental room. The
baseline condition in regular class represented the regular practice of class activities.
Afterwards, the six subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: individual contingency
group and group contingency group. Baseline condition of the two groups was then
conducted in the experimental room. During the token training and token reinforcement in the
experimental room, students were instructed to pick one of the ten toys being shown. Under
9
the individual contingency, students could earn access to the toy when they filled up their
own bins with ping pong balls. The delivery of ping pong balls was based on the display of
appropriate behavior, yet no explicit instructions were given by the implementer. The same
procedure was applied in the group contingency, except there was only one bin being filled.
Students could choose their own toys when they collectively filled their bin.
inappropriate behaviors during baseline with a mean of 18.1/ 20 intervals. After the token
training and token reinforcement, subjects’ inappropriate behaviors slightly decreased, with
During Phase II, instructions were added to reinforcement in the first condition,
behaviors.
differential effects between the two groups. Instructions without reinforcement produced a
slight decrease in inappropriate behavior under the individual contingency; and no change in
reinforcement and instructions in the regular class (with the rest of the class and teacher being
present), and return to baseline in regular class. Results showed that during baseline in
regular class condition after the termination of intervention in experimental room, students’
10
and instructions condition was applied in regular class, the intervention package did not
There were interesting findings from the study. First, instructions/rules of the
effects between the individual contingency group and group contingency group. Third, the
difference in results from experimental condition and regular class condition drew our
attention to the feasibility of both individual and group contingency in a natural classroom
setting. The advantage of having experimental condition prior to regular class condition was
to establish reinforcement contingency more effectively and efficiently, yet the disadvantage
of that was poor generalization. Instead of moving the group from experimental room into
regular class with the presence of the rest of the classmates and teacher, future researchers
should consider implementing the entire intervention in regular class, with the subjects only,
Long and Williams (1973) examined the comparative effectiveness of group and
individually contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students during math and
geography classes, using a reversal and multiple baseline design. Eight students (five males
and three females) and their teacher from a seventh-grade classroom participated in the study.
The students were selected based on their high engagement in disruptive behaviors. The
11
dependent variables included appropriate behavior, time-off task, and disruptive behavior. A
time sampling technique was employed to measure the target behaviors. Only one behavior
was measured in each 10-second interval, which was determined by the first occurring
behavior. There were seven experimental phases for math periods: Baseline, Structured
Lessons I, Group Contingent Free Time, Structured Lessons II, Individually Contingent Free
Time, Structured Lessons III, and Points (similar to individually contingent free time
condition, but with no exchange value of points), and eight experimental phases for
geography periods: Baseline I, Baseline II, Structured Lessons I, Group Contingent Free
Time, Structured Lessons II, Individually Contingent Free Time, Structured Lessons II, and
Points. There was a one-hour lunchtime between math and geography lessons. The baseline
condition was conducted to measure the frequency of target behaviors in usual lessons. No
rules were given out explicitly. The experimental phase, structured lessons, referred to the
explicit instruction of the classroom rules, without any programmed consequence. The goal
of the phase was to test if well-planned lesson activities with rules only were effective in
increasing appropriate behaviors. Under the group contingent free time condition, students
began with 18 minutes of free time with a deduction of one minute for each rule infraction.
Under the individually contingent free time condition, the reinforcer was determined by
Results showed that students engaged in low levels of appropriate behaviors during
the baseline (31% in math lessons and 29% in geography lessons). The structured lesson
condition did not produce noteworthy changes in appropriate behaviors, indicating that well-
planned lesson activities and rules were not effective in increasing students’ appropriate
behaviors. However, after the introduction of group contingent free time (an average of 80%
12
during math lessons) and individually contingent free time (an average of 76% during math
lessons), appropriate behaviors immediately and dramatically increased; when the procedure
was withdrawn, a sharp decline was observed in students’ desired behaviors (from a mean of
80% to 50% under group contingent free time condition), showing that the application of
group and individual contingency was effective in increasing students’ appropriate behaviors.
It was interesting to note that the procedure for earning free time was different
between group contingency and individual contingency, with the former using deduction of
points/free time and the latter using accumulation of points/ free time. Future studies could
examine if such variable has an effect on the intervention. In addition, the data collection
procedure in the study was a limitation. By only recording the first identifiable behavior of
each interval, Long and Williams (1973) may have underestimated some behaviors while
overestimating others. Future studies should include data collection on all dependent
variables.
Solomon and Tyne (1979) studied the relative effectiveness of individual and
interdependent group contingency systems in reducing off-task behaviors during a 35- to 40-
individual, and interdependent group contingency) was used to compare the effectiveness of
the two group contingency systems. Twenty first-graders from the same class in a rural lower
middle class school district were recruited as the participants. The dependent variable, off-
task behaviors, included four behaviors: physical contact with peer(s), verbal disruption, out-
13
of seat, and general disturbance. A time sampling interval (15 seconds observing, 5 seconds
recording) was used to measure off- task behaviors. A light cuing device, a bare 50-watt light
bulb was used to provide immediate feedback on student(s)’ engagement in off task behaviors
across all conditions. The light was activated by the observer when student engaged in any of
the off-task behaviors, and remained on as long as one of the students engaged in the target
behaviors, and ceased when the behavior(s) stopped. However, students who engaged in off-
task behaviors were not identified by the light nor the observer.
Under baseline condition, the lighting device was utilized with no programmed
consequence. The difference in terms of the use of the light device between the intervention
conditions and the baseline condition was the programmed consequence. Under the
interdependent group contingency, all students earned access to the reinforcement, i.e., 15-
minutes free time and a choice of unsweetened candy when they turned the light on less than
X times in one day. During the interdependent group contingency, the shifting criteria
schedule was utilized, from 10 off-tasks per day to four off-tasks per day. Under the
individual condition, student(s) who turned the light on less than X times in day could get
access to the same reinforcer that was used in the group contingency condition, based on his/
her own behavior. During the individual contingency, the shifting criteria schedule changed
Results showed that all students typically met the reinforcement criteria set for the
individual contingency in all sessions, while there was one session when students did not
meet the reinforcement criteria set for the group contingency. The data indicated that the
students engaged in an average of 0.71 off-task behaviors per minute during the baseline-
reversal condition, 0.14 off-task behaviors per minute during the individual contingency, and
14
0.15 off-task behaviors per minute during the group contingency condition. The study’s
results suggested that both contingency systems were equally effective in decreasing students’
off task behaviors, with an 80% reduction in target behaviors in individual condition and a
79% reduction in target behaviors in the group contingency condition when comparing to the
baseline condition. There was no difference between the effectiveness of the individual and
group contingency.
The use of a lighting device was a convenient procedure for teacher to signal any
undesired behaviors, which was likely to be used after the experiment. In addition, it included
the advantage of maximizing teaching time and less time on reprimanding. Moreover, the use
contingency and shape higher rates of desired behaviors. Future studies should include this
Nevin et al. (1982) studied the effects of group and individual contingencies on
academic performance and social relations of students with disabilities. The authors included
four studies in the article. All of the studies examined the relative effectiveness of group
designs.
In Study 1, four 6-year-old first graders (two boys and two girls) were the subjects of
the study, using an A-B design. All of them were low achieving students with disabilities in a
classroom of 23 children. The dependent variable of the study was the mastery of letter
names of the alphabet, i.e., the number of accurate responses on a flashcard task. During
baseline (individual contingency), students were instructed to study on their own and seek
help from the teacher if needed, teacher’s praise was delivered based on individual’s
15
instructed to study with a randomly assigned group of varying abilities, and to seek help from
the group members if needed, teacher’s praise was delivered based on overall performance of
the group. Results showed that the number of accurate responses on flashcard tasks of the
target subjects improved significantly under the interdependent group contingency condition,
In Study 2, an A-B-A reversal design was utilized. Eleven seventh-graders (six boys
and five girls) participated in the study. They were all low achievers in math and were
generally reported to be disruptive and “not getting along together” in a group. The
dependent variables were the percentage of subjects meeting the criteria for math
achievement, frequency of good study behaviors (i.e., on-task behaviors), and the social
acceptance of isolated subjects. The criteria being set on math achievement was the
completion of 150 math problems within the time limit (criterion changing from 15 minutes
to 10 minutes). The frequency of good study behaviors was measured by the presence of on-
or off-task behavior. The observer observed one subject for a 30-second intervals at one time,
until they completed collecting data for the whole class. The same procedure was repeated
once this cycle was completed. The social acceptance was measured through questionnaire
after the first baseline period and at the end of the group contingency condition. During the
baseline condition (individual contingency), subjects were instructed to work on their own
and seek help from the teacher if needed; subjects earned points based on their own
individual performance of meeting the criteria and demonstration of good study behaviors.
The points could be exchanged for free-time activities. During the interdependent group
contingency condition, subjects were instructed to work as a group and seek help from
16
teammates when needed; subjects earned points for their group based on the group’s
performance in meeting the criteria and the group’s demonstration of good study behaviors.
Everyone in the group under this condition received the same points.
Results of Study 2 showed that no subjects met the criteria for both the multiplication
tests and division tests during the baseline condition. However, all subjects were able to meet
the criteria for the multiplication tests and division tests by the ninth day and the fourth day
respectively. In terms of the frequency of on-task study behavior, subjects’ target behavior
increased from a range of 50-60% to a range of 50-75%, compared to the baseline data. When
the group-contingency condition was withdrawn, the students’ academic achievement and the
frequency of on-task study behaviors decreased and somewhat returned to the baseline level,
suggesting that the group contingency condition was effective in increasing subjects’
academic achievement and on-task study behavior. In terms of social acceptance, in general,
subjects were less identified as being rejected by peers after group-contingency period,
In Study 3, five (four boys and one girl) of the 16 ninth graders from a classroom
participated in the study. They were selected based on their academic and social limitations.
An A-B-A-B design was used to evaluate the relative effectiveness of interdependent group
contingencies and individual contingencies on rate of correct responses in daily math work
during math period, peer ratings of social acceptability, number of negative social interaction
with classmates in social studies class, and achievement in social studies class. During the
their individual performance; during the group contingency condition, students received
17
token exchange points based on all students reaching criteria (i.e., no less than seven correct
math problem), and the number of correct math problems completed by all students. The
group lost its earned points when it failed to meet the criteria. In addition, there were rules
during the group contingency condition given out by the teacher: helping a group member
who could not complete the math problem correctly was more likely to earn points for the
group as a whole; and to use the last five minutes of each math lesson to help a group
Results showed that the rate of students’ accurate math responding improved
significantly in the group contingency condition, with the highest accurate response rate of
42.00, compared to the highest rate of accurate responses (10.00) achieved during the
baseline condition. The rate of correct responding decreased significantly during the
high of 14.20), and increased significantly when the group contingency was reinstated (a
daily high of 155). The results indicated that the interdependent group contingency was more
In terms of peer ratings of the social acceptability of each classmate, the number of
negative nominations decreased (from 124 to 43), and the number of positive nominations
increased (from 84 to 92) after the group contingency condition. The number of negative
social interaction with classmates in social studies class was collected during the second
individual contingency and the group contingency conditions. Data showed that 9 in 18
students reported having negative social interaction towards the target students during the
second individual contingency condition and 1 in 20 students reporting having negative social
interaction towards the target students during the group contingency condition. It showed that
18
the number of negative social interaction with classmates decreased after the group
contingency condition.
after the individual contingency and second group contingency conditions. Results suggested
that all five students improved academically, and three of the students improved socially.
In Study 4, 22 first graders (15 girls and 7 boys) participated, with the focus on five of
the subjects, based on their socially rejected situations in class. The study was conducted to
on student self- esteem, student social relations, and student preference for learning under
individual or group contingencies. The school year started off with individual contingency
condition/ baseline, followed by a mixture of individual and group contingencies. For the first
two months of the school year, the individual contingency was used. During the initial
individual contingency condition, students were assigned to do their work individually and to
seek help from the teacher if needed. The teacher evaluated the students’ performance based
on their individual work. A mixture of individual and group contingencies was introduced
after the first two months. The individual contingency was used on easy worksheet tasks,
while the group contingency was used on more difficult tasks across different subject areas.
During the group contingency condition, students were randomly assigned into small groups
and were instructed to check each other’s progress and to provide help to each other. Students
Results showed that 19 of the 22 students scored higher on their self- esteem
questionnaire with less than six negative responses, compared to baseline with six or more
negative responses. All but one of the five students was chosen more often to be part of the
19
team after the group contingency condition. All students preferred learning under group-
Results from all four studies by Nevin et al. (1982) indicated the effectiveness of
There were general limitations in the studies. First, based on the target students’
deficits in social skill area, having them seek help from peers might not be feasible in a
natural setting. More descriptions on this procedure under group contingency condition
should be provided for the use of replication and evaluation. Second, students’ levels of peer
acceptance or dislike reports were mainly done through questionnaires. Since the group
contingency condition included the procedure of the teacher giving rules to the entire class,
emphasizing on helping students who do not get as much accurate responses, the study
purpose might be indirectly disclosed, which potentially affected the subjects in giving
Lloyd, Eberhardt, and Drake (1996) examined the effects of two teaching variables:
(a) the effect of group study on individuals’ performance, and (b) the relative effectiveness of
In Experiment 1, an ABAB reversal design was used to evaluate the effect of group
study. Twenty-seven students (15 girls, and 12 boys) in the first-year Spanish class
programmed consequence on their quiz scores was compared to the condition of students
studying in groups with reinforcement being delivered based on individual performance. The
20
dependent variable was the number of accurate words being translated from Spanish to
English. The independent variable was the group-study and individual-reward contingency
condition. The first phase (A) was a condition of individual study and no reward
contingencies. The second phase (B) was a condition of group study and individual
contingencies. Tangibles and social reinforcement were provided to any students who
achieved nine or more accurate responses for the day’s vocabulary quiz. The conditions were
Results showed that students’ scores improved to a mean of 87% during the first
intervention condition, compared to a mean of 70% during the baseline condition. Students’
scores decreased to a mean of 68% after the first withdrawal of the intervention condition,
and increased to a mean of 83% followed by the reintroduction of the intervention condition.
In addition, the average range of scores decreased after the intervention was applied, with 8.7
during baseline, 6.1 during the first intervention condition, and 9.5 during the second
baseline, and 7.2 during the second intervention phase. Lloyd et al. (1996) showed that the
intervention was responsible for the increase in accuracy responses on Spanish quiz scores.
improving Spanish quiz score between the individual reinforcement contingency and the
using an ABCBC reversal design. Seventeen students in a first-year Spanish class were the
subjects. The dependent variable was the same as Experiment 1; the independent variables
were the individual and interdependent group reinforcement contingency. (A) and (B)
conditions were the same as Experiment 1. In the first condition (A), students studied
studied in groups and received reinforcement based on individual performance. In the third
condition (C), students studied in groups and received reinforcement based on overall
performance of the groups. Members of the group with the higher score or the members of
both groups who met the mean score of nine or higher earned the reinforcement. Social
validation on the preference of group contingencies was also investigated through anonymous
surveys.
During the baseline condition (A), the mean quiz score was 67%; during the
individual group contingency (B), the mean quiz score increased to 86%; during the
interdependent group contingency (C), the mean quiz score was 91%. The first withdrawal of
the interdependent group contingency and the replication of the individual group contingency
decreased the average quiz score to 81%, and the second replication of interdependent group
contingency increased the mean quiz score to 90%. Results from the study showed that the
interdependent group contingency produced more improvement on Spanish quiz score than
the individual contingency, within a group study condition. Moreover, more than 90% of the
contingency within a group study context; however, the study measured the mean of correct
responses within the groups. The limitation of the procedure could be the failure in
identifying if the intervention was effective in improving the Spanish quiz score performance
in low achieving students, in particular. Individual’s quiz scores could be further examined.
contingencies on children’s academic and social behaviors. Twelve students (four girls and
22
eight boys) from a learning disabilities class, ranging from 7- to 10-years-old, participated.
They were chosen based on their severe academic deficiencies. The dependent variables were
the correct responses completed on arithmetic worksheet problems during a 10-min period;
and the social interaction among the participants and the students in class, which were
nonverbal behavior. The presence or absence of social interaction among the participants and
the students were measured through a 7-second observe, and 7-second record time sampling
The two baseline conditions were introduced in serial order, followed by the
conducted to identify four target students who were the lowest performing students; at the
same time, it served to identify the highest performing students, who later were assigned to
the same group with one of the target students. During the second baseline, students were
assigned into four groups of three students, and each group worked alone in an experimental
room. The four contingency conditions included individual contingency, all-member group
contingency (i.e., interdependent group contingency with the delivery of reinforcement based
dependent group contingency with the delivery of reinforcement based on a low performing
target student’s performance), and unidentified responder group contingency (with the
experimenter posted a sign to signal students the condition they were under. Prior to the start
of each condition, task instructions and the target student in each group were announced to
students in the group, except for the unidentified responder group contingency. Under the
23
in each group after the work period had ended. Students’ preference of the contingency
condition was also evaluated through the use of a 5-point Likert scale on questionnaires on
Results showed that the four target students consistently performed better on
arithmetic problems under the group contingency conditions than baseline conditions. Two of
the target students performed best during the identified responder group contingency
condition, while the other two students performed best during the all- member group
contingency condition. One of the subjects performed well under both conditions. There was
no significant relative effect for contingencies on the subjects’ mean worksheet scores.
Two of the groups showed consistent increase in positive social interactions under the
identified responder group contingency condition. However, there was no significant finding
on the increase in positive social interactions under any contingencies, as compared to the
baseline condition. Student rating of contingencies showed that students rated the identified
responder group contingency the highest, while the individual contingency the lowest.
Speltz et al. (1982) reported that the different contingencies were equally effective on
improving students’ mean score on arithmetic worksheets. The major limitation of the study
was the measurement of social interaction during group contingencies. Given that students
were instructed to help each other, it manipulated the positive social interaction data.
Therefore, there was no surprise to see that the positive social interaction increased during the
identified responder group contingency. Future studies should evaluate social interaction
among students after the work period, instead of during the work period.
24
reversal and multiple baseline design, was used to study the intervention effect. Twenty-four
fourth graders participated in the study, with seven referred by teacher to school principal due
to their high levels of disruptive behaviors. The target behaviors were out-of-seat and talking-
out behavior. The intervention was carried out during math and reading periods. Students
were divided into two teams based on their seating positions. Students were informed to be
taking part in a competition between two teams to achieve reinforcement criteria to get access
to the “natural” reinforcers, e.g., wear victory tags, put a star by each of its members’ names
on the winner’s chart, line up first for lunch, and take part at the end of the day in a 30-min
free time during which the team(s) would have special projects etc. Both teams could win at
the same time. Whenever a member of the team engaged in a disruptive behavior, a mark was
marked under the team; therefore, the individual consequence was shared by all members of
the team. The reinforcement criterion were set based on the number of inappropriate behavior
being marked during the periods, i.e., either team had fewer mark or either or both teams had
five marks or less. There were four corresponding phases: (I) math (baseline), reading
(baseline); (II) math (game1), reading (baseline); (III) math (reversal); reading (game); (IV)
Results showed that after the game was applied in math period, there was a sharp
decline in students’ talking-out behavior (from a median interval of 96% to 19%), and out-of-
seat behavior (from 82% to 9%), compared to baseline. During the same phase, when reading
baseline was conducted, students’ level of talking out loud behavior remained at baseline and
25
a slightly lower out of seat behavior. The withdrawal of the game showed a significant
increase to higher or baseline level of disruptive behaviors, indicating the effectiveness of the
game. During the last phase when the game was applied in both periods, both disruptive
behaviors declined and remained low. Both teams won in all games, except on three
occasions.
The results of the study showed that interdependent group contingency was effective
in decreasing students’ disruptive behavior in classroom. It was interesting to find that the use
of natural reinforcers was effective enough to decrease students’ disruptive behavior. The
advantage of using natural reinforcers was that they were more convenient to prepare and
access in a regular classroom setting. Future research directions could include the replication
of the procedure in a special needs classroom, and the relative effectiveness of using
external/back up reinforcers and natural reinforcers, using the same group contingency
system.
with the use of a reversal design experiment. Four classrooms (kindergarten: 32 children,
third grade: 34 children, fifth grade: 25 children, sixth grade: 30 children) from an elementary
school, participated. The dependent variable was attention, which could be controlled by
various stimuli (verbal, written, teacher etc.) Attention was measured by cumulating the time
on a timer. The timer was only engaged when every student was attending. A percentage was
calculated by dividing the cumulative time by the total time for the session. The independent
baseline condition, which was conducted after the first baseline, a light that turned on
contingent upon student’s inattentive behavior, was utilized. Teachers explained the rules to
the students prior to the start of the experimental condition, and evaluated their behavior at
Results showed that during baseline, students demonstrated low rates of attention.
During the Baseline 2 condition, where the light was used with no instructions or
were given explicitly, a temporary increase in attention was shown in some students and for
some classrooms. When instructions and interdependent group contingency was incorporated
in the experimental condition, there was an immediate and dramatic increase in students’
attention. The classes gradually reached to a 75-80% level of time attending to teacher’s
However, the study had some limitations. Since “classroom attention” was controlled
by various stimuli (verbal, written, the teacher etc.), the stimuli presented in each classroom
posed an effect on students’ attention, which might contribute to the fluctuating and
information on the teaching materials used, teaching activity set up and task difficulty should
contingencies: rules, rules + feedback, and rules + feedback + group and individual
during mathematics and reading periods. A multiple baseline design was used to study the
27
second-grade, and third-grade classrooms, respectively. The teachers and students (28
third-grade classroom) of the three classrooms participated. The dependent variables were the
appropriate classroom behavior and teacher social consequences. The teacher served as the
primary observer of classroom behavior. Teacher social consequences was measured based on
the accuracy of delivery of contingent positive and negative feedback, by the consultant.
There were five conditions in the study: teacher baseline, rules, rules + feedback, package
(rules + feedback + group and individual consequences), and a follow up, which was
conducted 3 weeks after the termination of intervention. Teachers and students selected the
goal together. During the experiment, teacher used a clock light to measure the frequency of
appropriate behavior.
were 47.0%, 60.1%, and 29.7%, respectively. During the rule condition, there was no change
in students’ social appropriate behaviors in all three classrooms. During the rule + feedback
condition, two of the three classrooms showed an increase in students’ appropriate classroom
behavior. During the “package” condition, all three classrooms showed consistent increase in
students’ appropriate classroom behavior. The mean levels of appropriate behaviors were
81.2, 84.6, and 74.2% in classroom A, B, and C, respectively. Similar effects maintained three
weeks after the termination of the intervention program in all three classrooms. In terms of
teacher social consequences, two of the three teachers consistently provided accurate social
consequences; all three teachers consistently provided low to near-zero incorrect social
28
measure students’ behavior should be made when the teacher him/herself served as the
primary observer. In the study, teachers stopped using Packard’s (1970) clock-light apparatus
after the intervention program was terminated, showing that the social validity of having the
apparatus for behavior measurement might not be high. At the same time, teacher social
consequences could be refined to improve treatment integrity and treatment effectiveness. For
example, ongoing training that includes instructions of procedure and feedback would be
beneficial in a long run, increasing the maintenance effect of the intervention. The accurate
delivery of contingent positive and negative feedback is important, especially during the
Ling and Barnett (2013) did a study on increasing preschool student engagement
during group learning activities, i.e., circle time, by using a group contingency. A combined
delayed multiple baseline and reversal design was used to study the effect of interdependent
group contingency procedure used across two preschool classrooms, morning and afternoon
classrooms. Five students from the morning class and two students from the afternoon class
were selected as the participants of the study. They were selected based on their engagement
in high level of disruptive behaviors during circle time through direct observations and
teacher’s interview. The dependent variables included two student variables, disruptions and
engagement; and three instructional variables, teacher positive attention (T-PA), teacher
negative attention (T-NA), and teacher direct instructions (TDI). A 15-second interval time
sampling was used to measure disruptions, T-PA and T-NA. A momentary time sampling on
29
every fifth interval was used to measure students’ engagement and TDI. The teacher used a
counter to keep track of the number of disruptive behavior during the sessions and evaluated
The study started with an initial baseline condition (A1), in which the variables were
measured with teacher using the behavior management procedures typically used in
was then withdrawn (A2) and reinstated (B) to evaluate if the procedure contributed to the
(morning class: from a mean of 72.30% during baseline to 28.57% during intervention;
afternoon class: from a mean of 46% to 9.04%). The morning class met the criteria for
reinforcement during 60% of the intervention sessions, and the afternoon class met the
criteria for reinforcement during 100% of the intervention sessions. In terms of engagement,
the procedure was effective in increasing and maintaining high and stable rates of students’
engagement in the morning class (from a mean of 67.86% to 94.68%) and afternoon class
(from a mean of 76.61% to 98.28%), respectively. In terms of teacher attention, the procedure
contributed to the slight increase in positive attention (morning class: from a mean of 14.42%
to 16.40%, afternoon class: from a mean of 6.12% to 19.73%) and decrease in negative
attention (morning class: from a mean of 30.7% to 12.04%, afternoon class: from a mean of
11.92% to 5.73%). In terms of teacher directed instruction, the procedure was effective in
30
increasing and maintaining high and stable rate of teaching instructions (morning class: from
increasing students’ engagement, and teacher directed instructions. However, the study had
limitations. Results of the study showed that although the intervention procedure was
effective in decreasing disruptive behavior, the rates of disruptive behavior was still high in
general during circle time activities; that showed that the procedure might not be achieving
the purpose of the study to a certain extent. Procedures or phases of the intervention could be
further broken down into smaller steps. For example, start off with the use of interdependent
group contingency in a smaller group or including fewer number of students with disruptive
behaviors in a group to provide more success rate and attention to the selected students before
Donaldson et al. (2011) evaluated the Good Behavior Game (GBG) in kindergarten
classrooms by using a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across classrooms. The GBG
was an interdependent group contingency system that included procedures of dividing the
class into teams, creating simple rules, and arranging contingencies for breaking or following
those rules (Donaldson et al., 2011). Ninety-eight students from five kindergarten classrooms
and five teachers participated in the study. The teachers served as the implementers of the
procedure, as well as the observer role. The dependent variables included target responses:
out of seat, talking out of turn, and touching another student. The target responses were
measured through a computer program designed for frequency data collection in real time.
The independent variable, the GBG, was carried out by reminding students of the game rules
and reinforcement criterion prior to the start of the game. For every occurrence of one of the
31
three disruptive behaviors, one hatch mark would be marked on the board, with teachers’
announcing the violation of rule. Whichever team with fewer hatch marks won the game, or
both teams won the game if they met the reinforcement criterion. The reinforcement criterion
Results showed that compared to the high level of disruptive behaviors measured
during the baseline condition (M=13,5,4,7, and 8 responses per minute in each classroom,
respectively), disruptive behaviors decreased in all classrooms after the game was introduced
the study, future researchers should make adjustments to increase treatment integrity. The
treatment integrity averaged 60% across all classrooms, which was not very high. That may
explain why disruptive behaviors still maintained after intervention. Although interdependent
group contingency was comparatively easier to implement and was less labor intensive,
longer training and concurrent feedback should be included in the training phase to maximize
Ling, Hawkins, and Weber (2011) studied the effects of a class wide interdependent
group contingency designed to improve the behavior of an at-risk student during group
academic activities with an ABAB withdrawal design. The student participant was an 8-year-
old boy, who was referred due to his high levels of off-task behaviors in a first-grade
classroom. The dependent variables included engagement (active and passive) and off-task
behavior (motor and verbal). A 15-s momentary time sampling technique was used to
measure the dependent variables. The intervention included the use of three smiley face
stickers. All students, including the target student, had to demonstrate sitting nicely and
32
attending behaviors to earn each smiley face. Upon the completion of the three smiley faces,
the class was reinforced at the end of the group activities. Negative feedback was given to the
Results showed that student engagement increased from a range of 45.80% to 73% of
intervals during baseline to above 80% after the introduction of intervention, and returned to
baseline level during the first withdrawal of the intervention. Student engagement increased
again after the reinstatement of the procedure, proving that the interdependent group
the target student was 86.70% across both interventions. In terms of off-task behavior, the
target student engaged in high rates of off-task behaviors during baseline condition (M=56%).
After the first introduction of procedure, off-task behaviors of the target student decreased
immediately. The off-task behaviors increased when the system was withdrawn, yet, were
lower than the initial baseline. They decreased again after the procedure was reintroduced.
The average of student’s off task behaviors was 25% across both interventions.
Although the interdependent group contingency in the study had an immediate effect
on the target students’ behavior, the long- term goal of the intervention was a concern. The
system required the whole class to earn three smiley faces to get access to the reinforcement.
Assuming the system was working smoothly, the reinforcement schedule should be quite
dense that the teacher might not be able to spend much time on teaching. Further, when the
whole class got frequent access to the only reinforcer, i.e., the beanie dolls, the chance of
satiation was quite high. Future studies should include a phase progression. For example,
moving on from initially earning three smiley faces to five smiley faces, gradually and
systematically delaying the reinforcement upon students’ success in earning the smiley faces.
33
In addition, the implementers should conduct preference assessments from time to time to
All in all, significant evidence showed that a group reinforcement contingency was
According to Litoe and Pumroy (1975), 7 out of 14 studies indicated no significant difference
classroom settings (Donaldson et al., 2011). In addition, results showed that it was effective
in improving academic performance (Lloyd et al., 1996), appropriate behaviors (Ling et al.,
Greenwood et al. (1979) investigated the social validation on the Program for
Academic Survival Skills (PASS), which was an interdependent group contingency system.
Results from follow-up questionnaires indicated that an average of 60% of teachers continued
using the procedure in a long run. It suggested that the interdependent group contingency had
high social validity. Based on the evidence and advantages, interdependent group
Group reinforcement contingency system has been widely used across classrooms to
(Herman & Tramontana, 1971; Long & Williams, 1973). Evidence shows that an
contingency (Herman & Tramontana, 1971). To date, group reinforcement contingencies have
been applied to typically-developing students (Solomon & Tyne, 1979), and students with
disabilities (Nevin et al., 1982). The language repertoire of these individuals allowed
schedule of reinforcement was sparse, generally at the end of the session. However, these
procedures may not be applicable to individuals with ASD due to their social and language
impairment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). No related study with individuals with
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing
setting that simulated a regular classroom setting. The procedure was adapted for the children
with ASD by teaching them to understand the interdependent group contingency by providing
students in the group. Although the children were not in a mainstream classroom, this study
might show the potential of using an interdependent group contingency with children with
The study was conducted at Autism Partnership, Hong Kong, an agency that provides
behavioral therapy service for families with children with Autism Spectrum Disorder based
on the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis. Six children participated. They ranged from
3- to 6-years-old and were diagnosed with ASD. One of the students dropped out of the study
They study was conducted in Little Learners, which was a classroom simulated group
session that took place from Monday to Friday (1:00 p.m.-3:15 p.m.). The session room was
approximately 4m x 7m and contained two desks, fourteen chairs, two shelves of teaching
materials (e.g., books, arts and crafts materials, toys), a trash bin, and two carpets
(approximately 1m x 2m, and 0.8m x 0.8m, respectively). The intervention was conducted at
Busy Bee Corner at the same time every day for approximately 15 minutes in total. During
independent work time, the therapist provided a worksheet to the students and asked them to
sessions and an independent group contingency in Little Learners. None of the participants
experienced the use of interdependent group contingency prior to the intervention. The author
and the other therapist at Little Learners was the implementer. All sessions were videotaped
and reviewed by the observer later for data collection. A trained therapist, other than the
Materials
A video camera was used to record all baseline and training sessions. Worksheets, as
seen in Appendices D and E, were used to measure the percentage of worksheet responses.
36
The length of each worksheet corresponded with how many responses the student could
complete in 5 minutes. A token board, as shown in Appendix C, was used during the
interdependent group contingency condition. Reinforcers (i.e., edibles, e.g., candies, chips,
and crackers) were used throughout the experimental conditions in the study. A data tracking
sheet, as shown in Appendix B, were used to record the percentage of completed worksheet
Finish Work was operationally defined as writing in all the answers for the questions
on the worksheet within the 5-minute time limit, regardless of the accuracy of responses. The
instructional tasks included a worksheet task (e.g., therapist issued the instruction “Everyone,
do your work”). The skills (e.g., counting, tracing line, coloring, etc.) that were required to
complete the worksheet were within the students’ repertoire. Data were collected on the
number of completed responses of each student. The experimenter kept all worksheets. Data
were converted to a percentage by dividing the total number of completed responses by the
In addition, the average for all team members’ completion of the worksheet was
computed. Data were converted into a percentage by dividing the total number of completed
responses given by all team members by the total number of all worksheets, and multiplying
out of 10 questions. The average in which all team members’ completion on the worksheet
Data on interobserver agreement (IOA) was collected across all phases for 100% of
sessions. The IOA was calculated by dividing the agreements on the number of completed
responses on the worksheet task by the total number of agreements and disagreements, and
multiplying by 100. The mean for interobserver reliability on students’ worksheet responses
was 100%.
Observer Training
Observers were behavioral therapists employed by the agency. They had a minimum
of one- year experience on treatment implementation and treatment data collection. Training
consisted of the author providing an informational meeting about the study that included the
explanation on the role and commitment of a data collector, the operational definition of the
target behavior, the data collection method, and the training process. The author also
reviewed the data tracking forms, role played data collection procedures, and calculated the
percentage of completed responses with the observers individually. The author allowed time
The author explained the job duties of being a data collector, followed by elaborating
on the operational definition of “finish working” by providing examples for the completed or
incompleted responses on the worksheet tasks. The author taught the observers how to use
the data collection form. The author provided practice worksheets to the observers and asked
The author reviewed and compared the data with the data sheet that the author
completed prior to the observer training. To be qualified to serve as an observer of the study,
the observer needed to reach a 100% IOA during two consecutive role play sessions, which
was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and
38
disagreements, and multiplying by 100. The observer had a maximum of two attempts to pass
the training. If the observer did not pass the second attempt, he/ she could not participate in
individuals with autism in a classroom setting. The same group of students worked on both
conditions, the Language Arts worksheet condition and the Mathematics worksheet condition.
There were two sessions every day: students worked on a language worksheet task after they
came into the classroom and completed their school routine, and students worked on a
mathematics worksheet task during the second half of the school day, which was at least 1
hour apart from the first language worksheet task. The study consisted of four experimental
conditions for each academic subject. The conditions for the Language Arts worksheet
and Choice Condition. The conditions for the Mathematics worksheet were counterbalanced:
Choice condition.
Pre-assessment
Prior to the study, a pre-assessment was conducted to show that the skills that were
required to complete the worksheet task were within the participants’ repertoire. The pre-
assessment was carried out by the implementer working with each student individually. The
implementer asked the student to complete a worksheet, in which the skill required was
within the student’s mastered learning curriculum (e.g., colors, matching, counting). The
39
implementer provided a verbal praise for every question that the student completed correctly
and a choice of edible when the five minutes ended. If a student verbally said “I don’t know”
or made any requests for seeking help, the implementer removed that worksheet immediately,
and moved on to the next worksheet. The implementer worked on a second attempt on
another kind of worksheet with the students who could complete the worksheet. For example,
if Student A was not able to do a counting worksheet on the first attempt, the implementer
would work on a coloring worksheet with the student on the second attempt. The procedure
ended when there was at least one kind of worksheet being identified as the mastered
independent work for Language Arts and Mathematics respectively. One worksheet was used
for each academic subject. The number of questions that each student needed to work on
were approximately the same. Pre-assessment information were used to determine the length
of worksheets. In addition, the time limit for both academic subjects was the same, i.e., 5
minutes.
The same independent group contingency procedure that the Little Learners have
been using was used during this condition. The teacher gave out the worksheets to the
students, and gave the instruction, “Everyone, do your worksheet. If you finish your
worksheet by the time I say “Time’s up,” you get a treat.” When time was up, the teacher
held onto a box that contained 6 choices of edibles and announced the end of the worksheet
task. The choices of edibles were selected based on the reinforcement sampling procedure
used by Autism Partnership Hong Kong. The teacher then evaluated with each student. The
student got access to a choice of the edibles based on their own performance on completing
the worksheet. If a student could not complete the worksheet, the teacher provided mild
40
feedback, telling the student that since he/she did not finish the worksheet, he/she did not get
a treat or he/ she would need to try harder next time. The experimental condition was
implemented until stable data points were collected. Data were collected on the number of
Appendix C, was used. The teacher gave out the worksheets to the students, and announced
that “Everyone, do your worksheet. If all of you finish your worksheets by the time I say
“Time’s up,” everyone gets a treat.” The teacher clarified with the students by asking if the
students were able to get a treat when there was only one friend finishing the worksheet and
emphasized again on “All students need to finish their work”. When time was up, the teacher
used a token board to evaluate with the students. The teacher put the student’s picture on the
token board if he/she completed the worksheet. All students’ faces needed to be on the token
board for the whole group to get a treat from the teacher. When one or more students did not
complete the worksheet, the teacher informed the students by saying that “Not everyone
finished their worksheet, I cannot give out the treat for you guys. Remember the whole group
needs to finish to get a treat.” The experimental condition was conducted until stable data
points or an increasing trend was identified. Data were collected on the percentage of
Best Treatment
Choice Condition
The study ended with the choice condition, in which students were asked to choose
one of the two group contingencies, independent or interdependent group contingency, before
performing the worksheet task. The contingency implemented was decided by the preference
made by the majority of the students. The implementer asked the student one by one outside
the classroom and prior to each worksheet task if he or she wanted to work on his/ her own or
work with friends on candy jar (i.e., the group tokens) for the (academic subject) worksheet
work. If half of the students chose the independent group contingency, while the other half
choose the interdependent group contingency, the experimenter drew the contingency from a
bag in front of all students, which contained two slips that represent the two contingencies.
The implementer announced the group contingency that would be used prior to each
Chapter V: Results
Figures 1 and 2 show the results for individual students for Language Arts and
Mathematics worksheet respectively. Figure 3 (top panel) shows the mean percentage of
completed worksheet responses for Language Arts and Mathematics worksheet across
conditions. The first condition for Language Arts (independent) and Mathematics
(interdependent) was carried out for 13 sessions each. Each of the remaining conditions
consisted of 5 sessions.
During the Language Arts independent group contingency, the mean percentage of
students’ worksheet responses was 93.4% (range 61.9% to 100%) with responses increasing
to 100% during the fourth session and remaining above 90% for all remaining sessions (mean
of last 10 sessions =98.7%). The interdependent group contingency was introduced after the
Based on the data, the best treatment condition was the interdependent group
contingency for the Language Arts worksheet. The average percentage of students’ completed
After the best treatment condition, one participant (Student 1) dropped out with five
students remaining in the study. During the choice condition, the number of students who
chose the interdependent group contingency was 5, 4, 4, 3, and 4. The interdependent group
contingency was used during all five sessions under the choice condition, with the average
Mathematics Worksheet
students’ worksheet responses was 87.3% (range 48.3% to 100%) with responses increasing
to 100% and stable during the seventh session and remaining above 80% for all remaining
sessions (mean of last seven sessions = 97.1%). The independent group contingency was
introduced after the interdependent group contingency. The average percentage of students’
completed worksheet responses for the independent group contingency was 96.8% (range
84.2% to 100%).
Based on the data, the best treatment condition was the independent group
contingency for the Mathematics worksheet. The average percentage of students’ completed
worksheet responses for the best treatment condition was 96.1% (range 83.3% to 100%).
The remaining five students continued to participate during the choice condition.
During the choice condition, the number of students who chose the interdependent group
contingency was 4, 3, 3, 4, and 4. The interdependent group contingency was used during all
five sessions under the choice condition, with the average percentage of completed worksheet
responses at 100%.
students’ average percentage of completed worksheet responses under both conditions were
quite high. However, results from the choice condition showed that the majority of the
students preferred the interdependent group contingency over the independent group
contingency
44
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of group contingencies on
of the task again upon negative feedback, which was the common practice in Little Learners)
Prior to the study, students had been using the independent group contingency, which
may explain its shorter time in obtaining stable points on their worksheet responses. On the
contrary, the interdependent group contingency was novel to all. An additional five sessions
were needed for the students to understand the interdependent group contingency during the
during the Language Arts worksheet. At the same time, for students who understood the
interdependent group contingency sooner than others, crying was observed upon the
implementer’s announcement of not earning the reinforcers. Data showed that after the
students understood the interdependent contingency, it took fewer sessions for the
experimenter to collect stable data points, e.g., during the implementation of interdependent
group contingency for the second experimental condition for the Language Arts worksheet.
The data showed that most students preferred the interdependent group contingency
over the independent group contingency. In addition, it was interesting to note that some of
the students tried to help the students who were comparatively slower in completing the
worksheet. Students went to their peers’ seats and made comments including, “Go go go!
Faster, faster!” There were a few attempts where one of the students tried to do the work for
another student. However, the implementer stopped him by telling him that each student
45
needed to complete his own work. He changed his strategy by telling the answers to his peers
and cheering for the other students. In addition, during the interdependent group contingency,
it was observed that some students stood up and looked at others’ worksheets and commented
“(Student 1) finished! (Student 2) finished!” and encouraged those who had not finished.
Future studies could include the measurement of both positive and negative social interaction
there were limitations. Firstly, due to students’ individual difference on cognitive level and
fine motor skills, the worksheet types, which all students had the repertoire to complete were
limited to only a few (i.e., tracing words, coloring for Language Arts worksheet, and
counting, coloring, cutting and pasting for Mathematics worksheet). That might contribute to
higher completed responses for some of the students due to the easier level of work. Future
research could choose a population with a similar cognitive level, so the group can all work
on the same sets of slightly harder worksheets. Alternatively, the experimenter could choose a
novel type of worksheet for all students. A one-to-one teaching phase could be included.
When all students master the skill to complete a certain type of worksheet, the group
worksheets.
Secondly, the number of worksheet responses required of each student was different.
The number of worksheet responses required was estimated by the number of worksheet
responses that the student completed during the pre-assessment phase. The number of
worksheet responses was slightly more than the number that was observed during the pre-
assessment phase. An alternative method for response measurement for future direction could
46
include a rule, like completing a certain number of worksheet responses to get access to the
reinforcement. Moreover, one of the students had not mastered writing or tracing skills prior
to the study. Therefore, the student attempted all worksheet responses by sticking the
answers, which had Velcro sticker at the back, onto the laminated worksheet. These problems
contingency prior to the study, future studies could consider choosing a population, who had
could be applied to different tasks within the group session. Ideally, the more often the
interdependent group contingency can be used across segments, the less labor is required and
the less intrusive the teaching facilitation will be, particularly in a classroom with students
with special needs. Therefore, generalizing the use of the interdependent group reinforcement
contingency across different target behaviors and different segments throughout the session
may show meaningful results on the effectiveness of the reinforcement contingency itself.
independent group contingency prior to the study on the target behaviour (i.e., finish work on
worksheet task), the percentage of completed worksheet responses was quite high. Future
research could examine choosing a target behavior, in which the baseline data may be quite
contingencies.
The present study was conducted in a simulated classroom with students with ASD.
The procedure could be replicated in the future to evaluate the effectiveness and preferences
47
of the two group contingencies with children with ASD and typically developing students in a
mainstream classroom.
contingency took slightly longer. The major advantage of using the interdependent group
contingency included the lower demand of labor, since the therapist did not need to monitor
each student or provide concurrent feedback. Future research could collect data on choice of
group setting and might have a higher chance in helping students transition to learn in a
natural group setting, i.e., mainstream classroom. In addition, the awareness to other’s work
and the spontaneous commenting in helping and encouraging peers were an additional benefit
of the study.
48
References
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of
Cooper J. O., Heron T. E., & Heward W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.).
Donaldson, J. M., Vollmer, T. R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K. P. (2011). An evaluation
Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Delquadri, J., & Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for
Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Walker, H. M., Guild, J. J., Stokes, J., Young, K. R., Keleman,
validation and replication studies in Utah and Oregon. Journal of Applied Behavior
Herman, S. H., & Tramontana, J. (1971). Instructions and group versus individual
Ling, S. M., & Barnett, D. W. (2013). Increasing preschool student engagement during group
Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (2011). Effects of a class wide interdependent group
Litoe, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies.
Lloyd, J. W., Eberhardt, M. J., & Drake, G. P. (1996). Group versus individual reinforcement
Long, J. D., & Williams, R. L. (1973). The comparative effectiveness of group and
individually contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students. Journal
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
with-disabilities-education-act-idea/
Nevin, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of group and individual
Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2002). Best practices in contingency
Solomon, R., & Tyne, T. F. (1979). A comparison of individual and group contingency
Appendix A: Figures
52
53
54
55
Figure 1. Percentage of completed Language Arts worksheet responses over participants and
experimental conditions.
56
Figure 3. Average percentage of completed worksheet responses over academic subjects and
experimental conditions.
58
Procedure: Please collect data on the number of completed questions in each student. Please
put down (number of completed questions/total questions) on the box. Start a new column for
every day.
Operational definition of “finish work:” Student writes the answer for the question on the
worksheet task within the 5-minute time limit, regardless of the accuracy of response.
Language Arts
Data
Date
Student 1:
Student 2:
Student 3:
Student 4:
Average:
59
Mathematics
Experimental condition: Independent/Interdependent
Data
Date
Student 1:
Student 2:
Student 3:
Student 4:
Average:
60