Topic: Are token economies (i.e. reward systems used to reinforce desired behaviour) effective in modifying classroom behaviour?

Order Description Starting reference: Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 224–227. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3003_05 Mottram, L. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 65–74. doi:10.1300/j370v19n01_05 Please read the oral report & write summary pdf file before start writing, as all the information is in the pdf file!! Also, please follow the marking rubrics and do ONLY part 1. Are token economies (i.e. reward systems used to reinforce desired behavior) effective in modifying classroom behavior? Name: Institution: Are token economies (i.e. reward systems used to reinforce desired behavior) effective in modifying classroom behavior? This paper is a literature review of articles discussing the topic on whether token economies (i.e. reward systems used to reinforce desired behavior) are effective in modifying classroom behavior. The articles selected for the study are discussed below. The article titled breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation was authored by Boniecki & Moore and published in the Teaching of Psychology Journal in 2003. This article by Boniecki & Moore proposes to increase the participation of students especially for large classes. The procedure was based on a token economy in which the students earned a token for participation and they then exchanged the tokens for extra credit. Boniecki is an associate professor of psychology and counseling at the University of Central Arkansas. His areas of interest include stereotype formation and activation and racism. Moore is also a faculty at the University of Central Arkansas and specializes in psychology research areas. The aim of the study was to improve the participation of students especially in large classes. The rationale behind this study is to avoid silence. Silence is the uncomfortable time within the classroom when no student responds to the question posed by the instructor. Token economy and the extra credit awarded to the students increases their participation in classroom activities. The participants included sixty-three (63) undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of Central Arkansas. The psychology class met for 75 minutes weekly for a period of 16 weeks. The study was conducted over the last 11 meetings of the term. The first 4 of the 11 studies were baseline to the study. During this time, the instructor posed questions to the class and the students were expected to answer the questions. The students raised their hands and the instructor invited the students to answer the question in order of the time in which they raised their hands until the correct answer was given. If no student raised his or hand within 60 seconds, then the instructor answered the question and continued with the lesson. During the baseline study, no student received extra credit for answering any question. However, the token economy was introduced by the instructor after the baseline study. The instructor announced that any student who provided a correct answer to the question posed would receive a token. At the end of the lesson, each student would return the token in order for them to receive the extra credit. However, if any student did not return his or her token, then the credit was void. In the last three classes of the term, the instructor informed the students that he will no longer be rewarding them with tokens for correct questions answered. There were different measures taken by the research assistant. Some of the measures include amount of directed participation, latency of participation and amount of nondirected participation. There was an increased direct participation of the students during the period of the token economy. However, there was reduced participation when the token economy was removed. The latency of participation measured the amount of time taken before the first hand was raised after a question had been posed by the instructor. During the token economy, there was a faster latency of participation meaning that students raised their hands faster. Nondirected participation highlighted the number of times a student spontaneously asked the instructor a question or engaged the instructor in a discussion. From this, it can be seen that there was an increased nondirected participation during the token economy. One of the limitations of the study is that the design of the experiment does not allow for a definitive causal relationship between token economy and participation of students. This means that the study needed to have a comparable control group and random assignment of participants. This would allow for better evaluation of the token’s effectiveness. In conclusion, the study by Boniecki & Moore designed to determine the relationship between token economy and increased participation of students within a classroom environment. From the study it has been seen that there was increased participation of the students during the token economy period. However, participation was reduced when the token economy was removed. The other article by Mottram titled a classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors was published in the Journal of Applied School Psychology in 2002. This study was conducted by Mottram, Bray, Kehle, Broudy & Jenson and investigated the effectiveness of an integrated intervention comprising of token economy, classroom rules, response cost and mystery motivators in reducing disruptive behavior within classroom. To determine the effectiveness of an intervention comprising of token economy, classroom rules, response cost and mystery motivators in reducing disruptive behavior in classrooms. The composite intervention comprising of classroom rules, response cost, token economy and mystery motivators plays an important role in reducing disruptive behavior in classrooms. The main participants of this study were three male second grade students who had oppositional defiant disorder. There was also a control group of five (5) students who were used for the study. The behavior of the five students chosen was deemed to be appropriate. Multiple baselines was employed across the subject designs. The instructor determined the behaviors that were targeted for change among the students. The different interventions were then applied to the participant so that their behavior could be positively affected. There were follow-up activities to determine the behavior of the students after the intervention was removed. The results of the intervention showed a decreased prevalence of disruptive behavior among the three students. This can be seen in the increased teacher attention that ensured that the students did not find it necessary to engage in disruptive behavior. The rates of disruptive behavior among the three students were significantly lower than those of the control group. There was reduced reporting of disruptive behavior even after the intervention was removed. This can be explained by the fact that the students had already adapted to the new behavior that was expected of them. In conclusion, this study was designed to determine the effectiveness of an intervention comprising of token economy, classroom rules, response cost and mystery motivators in reducing disruptive behavior in classrooms. From the study it can be seen that the intervention was easy to implement and it helped the teacher in reducing the prevalence of disruptive behavior in classrooms. Through this, the students were able to be more attentive during the sessions. This intervention can be modified to fit into specific classroom environments and be used to reinforce positive behavior among students within a classroom. The objective is to determine the target behavior and influence the students to change their behavior so that they meet the target. When students have the skills but such skills may need some fine tuning, then alternate target behavior targets may be developed by the teacher. References Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 224–227. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3003_05 Mottram, L. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 65– 74. doi:10.1300/j370v19n01_05