JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

A CONDITIONING TECHNIQUE APPLICABLE TOELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOMS

RICHARD COLEMAN

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

A procedure was developed for use in a public school classroom where only one of thechildren needed treatment, sophisticated apparatus was not feasible, personnel were un-trained in conditioning techniques, and where disruption had to be minimized. Candyreinforcers were contingent upon working behavior. The total candy earned in the sessionwas divided equally among the class. Portable radio control apparatus was adopted to givefeedback to the child when he was displaying the desired working behavior. An increase inworking behavior and a decrease in talking aloud and out-of-seat behavior was observedfor each of the four subjects. When the feedback apparatus was removed, the desiredbehavior was maintained through candy reinforcement alone in all four subjects.

Studies using a variety of subjects have re-ported on the control of classroom behavior inboth institutions and special class settings.Birnbrauer and Lawler (1964) and Birnbrauer,Bijou, Wolf, and Kidder (1965) worked suc-cessfully with institutionalized retarded sub-jects. Zimmerman and Zimmerman (1962),O'Leary and Becker (1967), and Martin, Burk-holder, Rosenthal, Tharp, and Thorne (1968)reported behavioral control with emotionallydisturbed subjects in special class situations.Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper (1969) im-plemented effective procedures for culturallydeprived subjects in a special school. Meichen-baum, Bowers, and Ross (1968) reduced theinappropriate classroom behavior of institu-tionalized female adolescent delinquents, whilePhillips (1968) used tokens and privileges in aresidential facility for "pre-delinquent" boys.Nolen, Kunzelmann, and Haring (1967) andMcKenzie, Clark, Wolf, Kothera, and Benson(1968) modified the behavior of a group of

'This research was supported by Title VI-A ESEAGrant 69-087 from the North Carolina Department ofPublic Instruction. The author wishes to thank Mr.James Barden, Director of North Carolina Title VIPrograms, Raleigh, N.C.; Dr. John Burchard andDr. Barbara Wasik, University of North Carolina; fortheir generous assistance and invaluable direction; andDr. Wilmer Cody, Superintendent of Schools, ChapelHill, N.C. This report is based on a dissertation sub-mitted to the University of North Carolina in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree.Reprints may be obtained from the author, Centre St.,Dover, Massachusetts.

special class subjects described as having learn-ing disabilities.

Generally, most of the research concernedwith controlling classroom behavior has oc-curred in institutional and/or special classsettings in which the entire class received treat-ment, sophisticated apparatus could be used,and personnel could be relatively easily trainedin conditioning skills. Because these conditionsdo not typically prevail, different kinds of con-ditioning procedures would appear necessaryin the public school classroom. The recenttrend toward non-institutionalization and thegrowing disenchantment with special educa-tion classes would seem to give additional im-petus to the development of conditioningmethodologies applicable to the regular class-room. Dickinson (1968), Madsen, Becker, andThomas (1968), and Walker and Buckley (1968)reported some success in this regard.Working with a 9-yr-old subject in a regular

classroom, Patterson (1965) developed a pro-cedure in which the subject was signalled whenhe had earned a candy or penny reinforcer forappropriate attending behavior. At the end ofeach conditioning session, the total earningswere shared equally with his classmates. Theresults showed "a significant decrease in thenumber of responses per minute when com-paring the baseline operant with the condi-tioning scores [p. 373]."However, due to the existence of a number

of methodological problems in Patterson'sstudy, a definitive evaluation of his procedure

293

1970, 3, 293-297 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 1970)

19383703, 1970, 4, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-293 by B

ehavior Analyst C

ertification Board, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense

RICHARD COLEMAN

depends on further research. Therefore, theobjective of the present study was to replicatePatterson's technique with several subjectswhile also making necessary methodologicalrevisions, which were to include; (a) establish-ing inter-observer reliability at 0.80+ beforecollecting baseline, (b) defining a classroomactivity for each subject that would remainconstant throughout the study, and (c) utilizinga reversal experimental design.

In addition to evaluating Patterson's para-digm, by replication and methodological revi-sion, another objective of this research was toexpand and perhaps to refine Patterson's pro-cedures. Thus, it was proposed that radio con-trol apparatus be adapted to minimize class-room disruption while at the same timepermitting the subject and experimenter flexi-bility and mobility not possible with equip-ment using house current.

METHODFrom a population of 2752 elementary school

children in grades 1 to 6, teachers, principals,social workers, and school psychology internssubmitted 43 names of children who were con-sidered to represent serious behavior problems.Computer analyses of behavior ratings, teacherconferences, and screening observations weremade until four subjects from four differentschools had been selected as meeting the crite-rion of manifesting a high frequency of overtinappropriate behavior.

SubjectsSubject A was an 8-yr-old male first-grade

"repeater" with a history of "extreme unman-ageability, frequent fighting, tantrums, and aninability to function in group situations." Hishome had recently deteriorated to the extentthat he and his brother had been placed witha foster parent. During two screening observa-tions, this subject moved continuously aboutthe room talking to himself and hitting otherchildren.

Subject B was an 8-yr-old male second-graderwho had been referred to school psychologicalservices for the past two years because of "rest-lessness, distractability, inattention, and hyper-activity". During one of the screening obser-vation periods, he was observed roaming aboutthe room for the entire 15 min.

Subject C was a 9-yr-old male second-grader

who had been referred for three successiveyears because of "hyperactivity and disruptive,aggressive behaviors". There was a history ofphysical aggression against both peers andteachers. During each of three 15-min informalscreening observations, Subject C spent mostof the time out of his seat sharpening his pen-cil and noisily talking to classmates.

Subject D was a sullen, obese, 12-yr-oldfemale fifth-grader who had a consistent his-tory of "serious behavior problems" anid mar-ginal academic performance. She had beenthreatened with expulsion because of allegedlyrunning a gang that extorted money fromother children. At the time of both preliminaryscreening observations, Subject D roamed theroom at will, talked aloud, hit other children,and refused to conform to discipline. On oneoccasion, despite teacher warnings, she re-mained out of seat for the full 15-min observa-tion period.

ApparatusThe transmitter was a 9-v model airplane

radio unit that activated a Veeder-Root re-settable counter from a range of up to 200 ft(Coleman and Toth, 1970). Pressing a switchtransmitted an audible click and registered acount in the recessed window of the digitalcounter near the subject. Both units wereportable and immediately operational.

ProceduresA situation was defined for each subject so

that the same kind of classroom activity wouldoccur at the same time of day throughout thestudy. For Subjects A, B, and C, the situationwas one in which the subject was expected towork quietly and independently at his deskwhile a small group of children met with theteacher for reading. For Subject D, the situa-tion was the first part of an afternoon languageclass in which the class was expected to accom-plish a written assignment.The three target behaviors were: (1) talking

aloud, defined as any unsolicited verbalization;(2) out of seat, defined as being up from deskwithout permission; and (3) working, definedas looking at a book and/or writing, drawing,coloring, but not doodling.A noncontinuous or discrete observational

technique was followed in which behavior wasrecorded during three alternating 10-sec inter-vals of each minute for the 1 5-min sessions.

294

19383703, 1970, 4, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-293 by B

ehavior Analyst C

ertification Board, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense

A CONDITIONING TECHNIQUE FOR ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS

O'Leary, O'Leary, and Becker (1967) had main-tained that non-continuous observing increasesreliability. Insofar as this study was concerned,this observational technique also permittedthe observer to look away from the subject tomake it less obvious that he was being observed.Two observers recorded data. Inter-observer

reliability was computed for within-intervalagreement for behavior occurrence by dividingtotal agreements by disagreements plus agree-ments for each cell of the three categories ofbehavior. Reliability ranged from 0.77 to 1.00with a mean of 0.91. Only one category fromone observation session was below the criterionof 0.80 for five days of 20 observations.

Next, baseline data were obtained for eachsubject until the subjects' behavior appearedrelatively stable or until a minimum of 10baseline observations had been made over a10-day period.After tabulation of baseline, each subject re-

ceived an individual pre-training session inwhich the experimenter gave the subject abook or paper and pencil with instructions topretend he was in class. Working behavior re-sulted in a counter click and an M&cM on acontinuous-interval schedule of 10 sec. It wasthen explained that he and the experimenterwere going to do the same thing in his class-room and that each time he heard a "click", hehad earned a piece of candy by doing his work.The subject was also advised that the only dif-ference would be that he would share his earn-ings with his classmates.At this point, the subject and the experi-

menter returned to the classroom where theexperimenter addressed the class as follows:As you know, (subject's name) sometimeshas trouble sitting still and doing his work.This machine is going to help him. Eachtime it clicks, it means he has earned apiece of candy by doing his work. Thismachine will also keep score. At the endof the session, (subject's name) will dividehis candy among all of you. You can helpby doing your work and not bothering(subject's name).

During Condition 1 (CN 1), working be-havior defined as looking at book, and/or writ-ing, drawing, coloring, but not doodling, wasconditioned with a counter "click" using avariable-interval schedule with a 10-sec mean.At the beginning of each session of CN 1, and

also on those occasions when the subject ig-nored interruption or harrassment from an-other pupil, the rate of reinforcement for workbehavior was increased. Following CN 1, a re-versal phase was introduced in which all ex-perimental manipulations and contingencieswere removed. This was in turn followed by areinstatement of CN 1, thus following an ABAexperimental design.To measure the contribution of the appara-

tus itself to the conditioning technique, Con-dition 2 (CN 2) consisted of withdrawing theapparatus from the procedures. The subjectwas instructed that he had been doing verywell with the help of the machine, but that theexperimenter now wanted to see how hard thesubject would work without it. The subjectwas told that the experimenter would keepscore instead of the machine and that if he didhis work, he could earn as much candy as hehad with the machine.

RESULTSAs can be seen in Fig. 1, there was an in-

crease in working behavior and a decrease intalking-aloud and out-of-seat behavior for allfour subjects when comparing baseline withCN 1 data. Reversal procedures resulted in be-havioral frequencies that approximated base-line. Although the data obtained for CN 2(removal of apparatus) were quantitatively in-sufficient, the frequencies obtained for the twosessions suggested that the control establishedin CN 1 was maintained in CN 2.

DISCUSSIONThe conditioning technique developed by

Patterson (1965) and described as CN 1 in thisstudy was effective in controlling classroombehavior and would, therefore, seem useful inclassroom situations where the entire class-room population is not being treated, elabo-rate apparatus is not feasible, and staff isessentially untrained in conditioning skills.The radio control apparatus, which was

small, completely portable, and immediatelyoperational, permitted the examiner to entera classroom unobtrusively and at once beginthe conditioning procedures. It also allowedthe examiner mobility that would not havebeen possible with house current. The factorof experimenter mobility would seem to be

295

19383703, 1970, 4, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-293 by B

ehavior Analyst C

ertification Board, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense

RICHARD COLEMAN

BASELINE CN. I REVERSAL CN. I CN.2

45-I TALKSALOUDf-

35- OUTOFSEAT 0.0030-25-'720 // ' SUBJECT

154

wo-

BASELINE CN. I REVERSAL CN. CN. 2~4535-i

Cr-30- k No jSUBJECT525 t /I IB< 20 – '

15JK5W15

BASELINE CN. IREVERSAL CN. I CN.2Z 45(j40.35.J IV I v .

> 30-w25t

-2Is10 9

BASELINE CN. I REVERSAL CN.I Ct42

z ~

SUBJECTD

Fig. 1. Behavioral records showing the relationship between talking aloud, out-of-seat, and working responsesfor the four subjects.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

SESSIONS

296

19383703, 1970, 4, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-293 by B

ehavior Analyst C

ertification Board, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense

A CONDITIONING TECHNIQUE FOR ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS 297

critical in a public school elementary class-room where, to be inconspicuous, one needs tobe able to adapt to a typically loose structuredand frequently unpredictable regimen.

After behavioral control had been estab-lished, teacher praise was used to attempt totransfer behavioral control from the experi-menter to the teacher. Apparatus was devel-oped consisting of a timer that activated ablinking light using a variable-interval sched-ule with a 3-min mean. The teacher was in-structed to look at the subject when the lightwas flashing. If the subject were working ap-propriately, she was to praise him. To helpsupport this procedure initially, the teacherwas also to administer candy to the subject atthe end of the session for completed and pro-ficiently done assignments. During this pro-cedure, the candy was no longer shared. Onlyone teacher was able consistently to followinstructions in terms of when and how to ad-minister verbal praise. Another teacher was re-acting so negatively to one of the subjects (Sub-ject C) that she refused to praise the child. Ingeneral, the teacher's concern for academic ex-cellence seemed to preclude praising just"good" behavior. In any event, the evidencewas insufficient to indicate whether or notteacher praise was sufficiently reinforcing tocontrol the behavior of any of the subjects.Although a functional analysis of the vari-

ables contributing to CN 1 was begun in CN2, the imminent ending of the school year pre-cluded fruition of a systematic analysis of theeffects of the various treatment variables. Thisapproach needs considerable research attention.

Institutional and/or special class situationswould be expected to be sufficiently differentfrom those in a public school classroom, so thatconditioning procedures that have been dem-onstrated to be effective in the former wouldnot be necessarily applicable to the latter. Ifconditioning procedures could be made ap-propriate to the public school classroom, notonly would the need for institutional andspecial class placements be reduced, but theoperations of the classroom and the entireeducational milieu could perhaps be put intothe testtube of an experimental analysis ofbehavior.

REFERENCESBirnbauer, J., Bijou, S., Wolf, M., and Kidder, J. Pro-

grammed instruction in the classroom. In L. P.

Ullman and L. Krasner (Eds.), Case studies in be-havior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1965. Pp. 358-363.

Birnbrauer, J. S. and Lawler, Julia. Token reinforce-ment for learning, Mental Retardation, 1964, 2,275-279.

Coleman, R. and Toth, E. The adaptation of com-mercially available radio control equipment tobehavior therapy. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1970, 3, 221-222.

Dickinson, D. Changing behavior with behavioraltechniques. Journal of School Psychology, 1968, 6,278-283.

Madsen, C., Becker, W., and Thomas, D. Rules, praiseand ignoring: elements of elementary classroomcontrol. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968,1, 139-150.

Martin, M., Burkholder, R., Rosenthal, T., Tharp, R.,and Thorne, L. Programming behavior change andreintegration into school milieu of extreme adoles-cent deviates. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968,6, 371-383.

McKenzie, H., Clark, M., Wolf, M., Kothera, R., andBenson, C. Behavior modification of children withlearning disabilities using grades as tokens andallowances as back-up reinforcers. Exceptional Chil-dren, 1968, 35, 745-752.

Meichenbaum, D., Bowers, K., and Ross, R. Modifica-tion of classroom behavior of institutionalized fe-male adolescent offenders. Behavior Research andTherapy, 1968, 6, 343-353.

Nolen, P., Kunzelmann, H., and Haring, N. Behaviormodification in a junior high learning disabilitiesclassroom. Exceptional Children, 1967, 34, 163-168.

O'Leary, K. and Becker, W. Behavior modification ofan adjustment class: a token reinforcement system.Exceptional Children, 1967, 34, 637-642.

O'Leary, K., O'Leary, S., and Becker, W. Modificationof deviant sibling interaction pattern in the home.Behavior Research and Therapy. 1967, 5, 113-120.

Patterson, G. An application of conditioning tech-niques to the control of a hyperactive child. InL. P. Ullman and L. Krasner (Eds.), Case studies inbehavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1965. Pp. 370-375.

Phillips, E. Achievement place: token reinforcementprocedures in a home-style rehabilitation settingfor "pre-delinquent" boys. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 1968, 1, 213-223.

Walker, H. and Buckley, N. The use of positive rein-forcement in conditioning attending behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 245-250.

Wasik, B., Senn, K., Welch, R., and Cooper, B. Be-havior modification with culturally deprived schoolchildren: Two case studies. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 1969, 2, 181-194.

Zimmerman, E. and Zimmerman, I. The alteration ofbehavior in a special classroom situation. Journalof the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5,59-60.

Received 3 November 1969.(Revised 12 October 1970.)

19383703, 1970, 4, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-293 by B

ehavior Analyst C

ertification Board, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense