RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTIONS IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 259

ERVIN-TRIPP, S. Language development. In Lois W. Hoffman and M. L. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child Development Research. (Vol. 1) New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966, 55-105.

FLAVELL, J. H., & WOHLWILL, J. F. Formal and functional aspects of cognitive development. In D. Elkind and J. H. Flavell (Eds.), Studies in cognitive development: essays in honor of Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, 67-120.

HARRIS, D. B. Children's drawings as measures of intellectual ability: a revision and extension of the Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1963.

HORN, J. L. Organization and abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review,

JOHN, V. The intellectual development of slum children: some preliminary findings. American

L'ABATE, L., MILLER, J., & KELLY, K. Exploratory studies of receptiveexpressive functions in

L'ABATE, L. A communication-information model. In L. L'Abate (Ed.), Models of clinical psy-

L'ABATE, L. An input-output approach to psychodiagnosis of children. World Journals of Psycho-

MACCOBY, E. E. What copying requires. Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 1968,10,1963-1970. MCNEIL, D. Production and perception: the view from language. Ontario Journal of Educational

OLSEN, D. R., & PAOLIUSO, S. M. From perceiving to performing: an aspect of cognitive growth.

VAN DE CASTLE, R. L. Development and validation of a perceptual maturity scale using figure pre-

1968, 76, 242-259.

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1963, 33, 813-822.

children. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University, 1971.

chology. Atlanta: Georgia State University, 1969, 65-73. (a)

synthesis, 1969, 1, 68-73. (b)

Research, 1968, 10, 181-185.

Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 1968, 10, 155-231.

ferences. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 314-319.

CHILD-MONITORED TOKEN READING PROGRAM' RICHARD A. WINETT, C. STEVEN RICHARDS, LEONARD KRASNER

State University of New York at Stony Brook MIRIAM KRASNER

North Country Elementary School, Stony Brook, New York

Numerous investigators have demonstrated the effectiveness of behavior modi- fication techniques in the classroom (for a review, see O'Leary and Drabman, 1971). To date, however, most of these studies have dealt with children who manifested extreme forms of disruptive and other deviant behaviors in special classroom set- tings. Furthermore, in almost all of these studies, children were reinforced either by the teacher or the experimenter for appropriate behavior. The purposes of the present study were to ascertain whether a token program could increase reading performance in a normal classroom setting and to test the feasibility of a token program monitored by the children themselves.

METHOD Presenting Problem

The teacher reported that during a 20-minute period set aside for reading, several of the children in the class were not reading but, instead, were wandering around the classroom, playing with toys and talking with peers. Many of the other children were reading for only part of the session. During the reading period the teacher was conducting reading conferences with individual children, and the noise

"This project waa supported by NIMH Grant # 11938. The authors want to express their thanks to the rincipal, vice principal and the children of North Country Elementary School, Stony Brook, New Y%k, for their cooperation in this project.

260 RICHARD A. WINETT, C. STEVEN RICHARDS, LEONARD KRASNER, MIRIAM KRASNER

and confusion markedly interfered with her sessions. Because the teacher was con- ducting individual reading, she was not in a position to supervise the rest of the class.

During the reading period, children were free to sit anywhere they wished in the classroom. For example, they could sit on small rugs on the floor. In addition, children had a wide selection of books in the classroom from which to choose. Thus the classroom was organized on a fairly informal basis and reading was structured as an enjoyable activity, but in actuality few children were reading consistently. The teacher wanted to preserve the informal classroom atmosphere and, at the same time, to motivate the children to read during her sessions.

Procedure After baseline recording, all children were given a detailed written description

of the “Reading Game” to be played during their reading period. In order to be certain that all children understood the contingencies described in the instructions, the teacher first modeled dispensing of tokens (monitoring) and then had children role play being monitor. The teacher then gave the children feedback on role playing and answered all their questions.

The rules and procedures of the Reading Game were: (a) Reading was defined as looking at a book, although working on language arts also was acceptable be- havior. (b) A monitor randomly circulated around the classroom during the 20- minute reading period. If a child were reading, the monitor would place a token (poker chip) in a token box (milk container) beside the child. (During a reading period, a child could earn a maximum of seven to eight tokens.) (c) The monitor announced the beginning and end of the reading period. (d) A different child was monitor each day. (e) If a child argued, talked to or looked a t the monitor, no token was received on that turn. (f) The monitor and the child who was reading in- dividually with the teacher received the maximum number of tokens earned that day. (g) Children were allowed to sit anywhere in the classroom they wished during reading period. (h) After reading period, the teacher recorded the number of tokens each child earned in the token book. The monitor then collected each child’s tokens. (i) Twice per week children could buy a variety of goods that were on display in the classroom. These items varied from inexpensive trinkets to school supplies and tickets to local movies. Each token was worth approximately one penny. Children were free to buy or save as they wished.

Subjects The Ss for this experiment were 25 second-grade children, five of whom were

designated as target children (ie., while all children were involved in the program, data are presented on only these five). Two of the target children were reading above grade level, while the other three were reading below grade level.

Dependent Variable The dependent variable consisted of a randomly-ordered series of 20-second

observational periods on each of the five target children. Each data point (see Table 1) represented two consecutive days of recording and approximately2 20

‘During this period, children occasionally left the classroom to exchange books at the library or go to the bathroom. In some cases, they were reading done with the teacher for part of the reading period.

CHILD-MONITORED TOKEN READING PROGRAM 261

observations (10 per day) per child a t each point. Children were rated independently by two observers. A child was rated as “reading” if during the entire 20-second interval he constantly looked at a book or was doing language arts. Any other behavior (including momentarily looking up from a book) was scored as “not reading. ’)

RESULTS Reliability checks indicated that the two observers agreed in 98.5y0 of recorded

intervals. Intervals on which observers disagreed were recorded as “reading.” The group base rate on the five target children showed that they read during

41.10/, of recorded intervals. The first set of observations made after instigation of the token procedure (1 week after the start of the program) indicated reading during 61.9% of recorded intervals. A second set of observations recorded 2 weeks after the first set showed a reading rate of 67.5%. TABLE 1. PERCENT OF 20-SECOND OBSERVATION PERIODS RECORDED AS READING AT THREE DATA

POINTS FOR FIVE TARGET CHILDREN

Subject Baseline Set One Set Two Reading Level

1 36.370 50% 72.270 Above 2 31.8% 50% 60% Below 3 59 % 95% 100% Above 4 22% 62% 61.1% Below 5 61.1% 30% 61.1% Below

Group 41.1% 61.9% 67.5% -

Examination of individual data indicated the effectiveness of token procedures to increase the reading rates of four of the five target children. Increases from base rate to the second set of observations were: S1 35.9y0, 52 28.2%, 53 410J0, S4 39.1% and 55 0%. Highest reading rates were observed in the two advanced readers (S1 and 53).

Observations by the raters as well as a filmed account of the procedures in- dicated that monitors reliably reinforced contingencies.

On a subjective level, the teacher, observers and visitors to the classroom noted a marked decrease in noise level and much less inappropriate wandering about the room. The teacher reported that with the token procedure there was no longer any need for a student teacher assistant during this period. She also noted that because children were responsible for knowing the amount of tokens they earned, their accumulative savings, and the number of tokens needed to make their purchases, there was a marked increase in addition and subtraction skills. It also was reported that there was considerable excitement in the class about reading. All the children in the classroom became “turned on” to reading, a feeling that pervaded their activities throughout the day. Because of these changes in the children, it was decided to continue the token program for the remainder of the school year.

DISCUSSION By far the most significant finding of this investigation was not that a token

program can increase reading, but rather that children as young as second graders

262 RICHARD A. WINETT, c. STEVEN RICHARDS, LEONARD KRASNER, MIRIAM KRASNER

are capable of monitoring and maintaining their own program with minimum adult supervision. Behavior modification programs can only be practical if they take minimal professional time and are readily comprehended by and conducted by those individuals who participate in them. In this respect, it is hoped that the procedure used in this study-particularily the instructions, modeling, role playing, feedback sequencewill serve as a prototype for other investigations.

The grossness of the measure used, although helpful to convey the results of the study to teachers and parents, apparently underestimated the true potency of the token program for the four successful children. For example, one child (S2), who during the baseline period generally wandered about the room, sat and held a book during most of the token program. Because she frequently looked up from her book, she did not score that highly during the token program (60%). Nevertheless, sitting quietly and occasionally reading is a vast improvement over her previous behavior. It would be more fruitful to categorize systematically various behavioral elements involved in reading (Le. , picking out a book, sitting, etc.) in order to develop a sensitive dependent measure that could indicate successive approxima- tions to actual continuous reading. In line with this reasoning, it also might be possible to train children to reinforce peers for their successive approximations to the final goal. For example, the child who failed to respond to the token program subsequently was retained in this grade the following year. Perhaps this child could have profited from a more individualized program that might possibly have been administered by peers.

It also will be important in future projects to develop procedures to make a spot check on the reliability of the monitor’s behavior. Thus, both reading rate and monitor effectiveness should be reported. In addition, other behaviors (such as noise and activity level) also should be recorded, since it is apparent that a good deal of change occurs in behaviors that are not involved directly in the contingency program.

Having children work to earn tokens to engage in high probability classroom behaviors (Homme, et al., 1963; Premack, 1965) such as recess, playing with type- writers and taperecorders, etc. are ideal ways to cut down drastically the cost of such programs. In addition, such a procedure can bring children’s behavior under the control of natural classroom contingencies and thus eliminate problems of generalization.

In conclusion, the demonstration of the effectiveness of a child-monitored token reading program in a normal classroom setting clearly indicates the feasibility of utilizing behavior modification principles for a wide range of educational endeavors.

Psychological Center State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, N. Y. 11790

REFERENCES HOMMP L. E., DE BACA, P. C., DFXINE] J. V., STEINEXORST, R., & RICKCHT, E. J. Use of the Premack

p r h p l e in controlling the behavior of nursery school children. Journal of Iha Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963,6,544.

O’LEARY, K. D., & DRABMAN, R. Token reinforcement programs in the classroom: IL review. Psy- chologicul Bulletin, 1971, in press.

PREMACK, D. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium 012 Motivation 1966. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.