Text-Independent Studies

Front 1

Barrish Et al.

Back 1

good behaviour game: effects of individual contingencies for group sequences of disruptive behaviour in a classroom.

Hint 1

hello

Front 2

Barrish et al

Back 2

Fourth grade classroom of 24 students, 2 observers, 1 hr each on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Observation: last half of the reading peiord, first half of the math period.
Out of sear behavior: defined as eaving the seat during a lesson or scooting the desk without permission. Exceptions included out of seat behavior that occurred when no more than 4 people signed out to go to the bathroom and during question time with theacher.
Talking out behavior: defined as whispering without permission: talking while raising one’s hand, to classmates/teachers, call name, blurting out answers or making vocal noises.To determine the effectiveness of an individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom

During the first period when the game was applied, the team with the fewest marks ( 10 or less) would win. The criterion for the second observed session was set at five marks or fewer. For the last session: criterions was the fewest marks, or 8 or less.
Experimental design: included both reversal and multiple baseline phases.

Hint 2

Baseline

2) Math baseline, reading baseline.

3) Math reversal, reading game
4) Math game and reading game ( both periods treated as one extended period), using same initial criteria of least number of marks, or 5 or fewer marks.
Results: game had a reliable effect: out of seat and taking out behaviours changed.
Baseline: TO: 96%
OOS: 82%
Sharp decline to 19% and 9%
Both teams almost always won the game. Of the 17th class periods, both teams won on all but three occasions (82% of the time)
Agreement for reliability 86%.
Agreement between observer and teacher: 85%.
Multiple baseline and reversal strategies:
Effect can be replicated across subject matter periods, game had a continuing role in maintaining the reduced level of disruptive behavior.
Future research: analysis of what contributed to the effectiveness of the game.
Teacher had to do extra preparation.
What’s good: simulutaneous baselines can be obtained in two or more subject matter periods.
What’s bad: 2 students: on the same team, consistently gained a number of marks for their team (TOB). In most cases, only one of the students was involved.
In one session, one of them announced that he was no longer going to play the game. Dropeed from game, marks that were imposed on entire group just imposed on him.
Numerous peer comments: social reinforcement for disruptive behviour. But disruption recorded as before.

Front 3

a

Back 3

c

Hint 3

c