In a class of five disruptive students, the effects of teacher presentation rate of academic response opportunities and point delivery were assessed on classroom disruption, performance accuracy, and student response rate. Two levels of teacher presentation rate were paired with two point delivery rates resulting in four treatment conditions: high point rate/fast presentation; high point rate/slow presentation; low point rate/fast presentation; low point rate/ slow presentation. Using a multielement design, it was demonstrated that the fast presentation rate was associated with significantly less disruptive behavior than the slow presentation rate. Point delivery had little effect. For some subjects the slow presentation rate was associated with higher student performance accuracy, although the fast presentation rate produced high overall rates of correct performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ayllon, T. , & Roberts, M. D. (1974). Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 71-76.
2.
Barlow, D. H. , & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210.
3.
Canter, L. , & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approachfor today's education. Los Angeles: Lee Canter and Associates.
4.
Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.
5.
Drabman, R. S. , & Lahey, B. B. (1974). Feedback in classroom behavior modification: Effects on the target and her classmates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 591-609.
6.
Ferritor, D. E. , Buckholdt, D., Hamblin, R. L., & Smith, L. (1972). The noneffects of contingent reinforcement for attending behavior on work accomplished. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 7-17.
7.
Greenwood, C. R. , Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
8.
Grobe, R. P. , Pettibone, T. J., & Martin, D. W. (1973). Effects of lecturer pace on noise level in a university classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 73-75.
9.
Hall, R. V. , Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., & Thurston, L. (1982). The importance of opportunity to respond in children's academic success. In E. B. Edgar, N. G. Haring, J. R. Jenkins, & C. G. Pious (Eds.), Mentally handicapped children: Education and training. Baltimore: University Park Press.
10.
Haring, N. G. , Liberty, K. A., & White, O. R. (1980). Rules for data-based strategy decisions in instructional programs: Current research and instructional implications. In W. Sailor et al. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
Harris, F. C. , & Lahey, B. B. (1978). A method for combining occurrence and nonoccurence interobserver agreement scores. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 523-527.
12.
Harris, V. W. , & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the "good behavior game" to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 405-417.
13.
Hops, H. , & Cobb, J. A. (1973). Survival behaviors in the educational setting: Their implications for research and intervention. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, andpractice. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
14.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
16.
Marascuilo, L. A. , & McSweeney, M. (1977). Nonparametric and distribution free methods for the social sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
17.
Marholin, D. , & Steinman, W. M. (1977). Stimulus control in the classroom as a function of the behavior reinforced. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 465-478.
18.
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Staats, A. W. , & Staats, C. K. (1963). Complex human behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
20.
Sulzer, B. , Hunt, S., Ashby, E., Koniarski, C., & Krams, M. (1971). Increasing rate and percentage correct in reading and spelling in a fifth-grade public school class of slow readers by means of a token system. In E. A. Ramp & B. L. Hopkins (Eds.), A new direction for education: Behavior analysis (Vol. 1). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
21.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B. , & Mayer, G. R. (1977) Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
22.
Ulmann, J. D. , & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1975). Multielement baseline design in educational research. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
Walker, H. , & Hops, H. (1976). Increasing academic achievement by reinforcing direct academic performance and/or facilitative nonacademic responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 218-225.
24.
Warner, S. P. , Miller, F. D., & Cohen, M. W. (1977). Relative effectiveness of teacher attention and the "good behavior game" in modifying disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 737-737.
25.
Zeiler, M. (1977). Schedules of reinforcement: The controlling variables. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
