Bchav. Res & Therap).
1975. Vol.
13. pp 85-92. Pergamon
Press Prmted
m Great Bntaan
GENERALIZATION TO THE CLASSROOM OF PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TAUGHT TO TEACHERS* DOUGLASMCKEOWN. JR.. HENRYE. ADAMSand REX FOREHAND Psychology
Clinic. Dept. of Psychology. Athens, GA 30602. (Receircd
2 Mar
University
of Georgia,
U.S.A. 1974)
Summary-Twenty teachers were assigned to four conditions: (I) teachers who participated in a laboratory group and received a written manual: (2) teachers who participated only in the laboratory group; (3) teachers who received only a written manual. and (4) teachers who did not receive either source of information. The results indicated that teachers who participated in a laboratory group increased in knowledge compared_ to Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group. Further, there was a decrease in disruptive behavior only in the classrooms of teachers who had participated in a laboratory group on behavior modification principles.
The application of behavior modification principles to classroom behavior demonstrates the effectiveness of various techniques for modifying behavior as well as the need for modifying many of the antiquated methods used by teachers to control classroom behavior. The efficacy of applying behavior modification principles to individual behavior problems in the classroom is well documented in the literature (Madsen, er al., 1968; Walker and Buckley, 1968). Further, there have been many applications of behavior modification to entire classrooms (O’Leary ef al., 1969; Schmidt and Ulrich, 1969). Direct intervention (e.g., at home, at school) as opposed to intervention within the clinic and laboratory setting has the advantage of directly changing behavior in the environment where the maladaptive behavior occurs which. to some extent, eliminates the problem of generalization of appropriate behavior. In addition. the fact that teachers and parents have been found to be effective behavior modifiers reduces the time required of professional therapists for therapeutic interventions (Madsen and Madsen, 1970; Wahler et al., 1965). Wahler and Erikson (1969). for example. have demonstrated the effectiveness of non-professional volunteer workers in changing the behavior of children with various problems in both home and school settings. Many manuals have been devised to provide didactic explanations of behavior modification principles and procedures to aid nonprofessionals in their attempt to intervene with maladaptive behavior patterns. These books and manuals have been written for use by teachers (Buckley and Walker, 1970: Homme. 1971; Madsen and Madsen, 1970; McKeown, 1971). for use by parents (Holland. 1970; Smith and Smith, 1966; Valett, 1969) and for use by both teachers and parents (Becker, 1969; Hall. 1970; Patterson and Gullion, 1968). Group procedures in training teachers and parents to deal effectively with deviant behavior recently have been attempted by a few investigators (Hirsch and Walder, 1969; McKeown, 1971). Unfortunately, there have been even fewer controlled studies to measure * Request for reprints should be sent to Douglas McKeown. Ph.D.. Health Center. 615 N. MacArthur Ave., Panama City. FL 32401. x5
Northwest
Florida
Community
Mental
86
D. MCKEOWN. JR.. H. E. ADAMS and R. FOREHAND
the effectiveness of these group teaching procedures (Nay. 1971; Patterson. Cobb and Ray. 1973). While many classroom teachers have been exposed to didactic literature dealing with the use of behavior modification techniques in the classroom, it has not been demonstrated that this exposure encourages the teacher to actually try these procedures in the classroom or that such applications are effective. A pertinent question is what method of instruction will facilitate both the acquisition and application of behavioral principles‘? If such a teaching method was available, the behavior modifier’s role in classroom behavior problems would be to teach principles and techniques of behavior modification to groups of teachers, allowing teachers to make individual interventions with behavior problems. The present study was designed to compare the effectiveness of group instruction of teachers (written material, lecture. discussion. and role-playing) with presentation of written material alone. This was accomplished by comparing: (1) teachers who participate in a laboratory group as well as receive written information; (2) teachers who participate in a laboratory group only; (3) teachers who receive written information only and: (4) teachers who receive neither a laboratory group nor written information. Even though a knowledge of behavior modification principles may be beneficial. the ultimate criterion of usefulness is whether the teacher applies this knowledge effectively to the classroom environment. Consequently, the effectiveness of the teaching techniques was evaluated both in terms of knowledge of behavioral principles and change in the frequency of classroom disruption. METHOD
Subjects
Subjects (Ss) were 20 elementary school teachers from the Atlanta Public School System who volunteered to participate in a short course of instruction in Behavior Modification. Teachers were assigned to groups according to the following information obtained from a teacher questionnaire: number of years taught school and number of children in classroom. There were eight different schools represented. Teachers were divided into two grade categories: those who taught the lower grades of kindergarten through three and those who taught the upper grades of four through seven. Each group had three teachers from the lower grades and two teachers from the upper grades. Response measures
All 20 Ss were given a questionnaire, consisting of 20 multiple choice questions, which assessed knowledge of behavior modification principles. The questions were derived from materials presented in A Teacher’s Manual 011 Behavior Modificatiorl in the Classroom (McKeown, 1971). The questionnaire was administered approximately 2 weeks prior to the beginning of the laboratory course and was re-administered approximately 2 weeks after completion of the program. All 20 teachers’ classrooms were observed for a total of 120 min during which an observer obtained a time sampling of disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior, for purposes of this study, was defined as any off-task behavior which was initiated by a child and was not a result of teacher instructions or classroom rules. Included in this category of disruptive behavior were: out of seat. idle conversation, shouting out. hitting- pushing, whistling, playing with things, and production of noise with any instrument not intended for such use.
Principles
of behaviour
modification
87
Prior to the beginning of the experimental program each of the 20 teachers’ classrooms was observed for a period of 60 min. Observers sat in the rear of the classroom; they did not interact with or respond to the children. Two separate 15 min samples of classroom behavior were obtained on each of two separate days for a total of 60 min observation. Following completion of the experimental program. all 20 classrooms once again were observed for a total of 60 min in the same manner. During pre- and post-experimental observation, the observer employed a time sampling technique to obtain a measure of disruptive behavior. Prior to observation, the classroom was divided into six sections according to seating arrangement. Each section was observed for 10 set out of every minute. If disruptive behavior occurred in the target section during the 10 set time sample, a check (J) was recorded on a data sheet. If disruptive behavior did not occur in the target section during the 10 set time sample, a zero (0) was recorded. A total of 720 measures was obtained for pre- and post-experimental observation for each teacher’s classroom. Pre- and post-experimental observations were obtained by two college graduates skilled in classroom observation and trained by the experimenter (E). Both observers obtained observations on classrooms assigned to each experimental condition. Treatment conditions to which each teacher was assigned were unknown to the observers. A 3-hr session was devoted to the training of the observers to enhance agreement on the response categories. During training, the observers observed a classroom for four 15 min time samples in order to obtain a measure of reliability on observer counts of disruptive behavior. The classroom was not one involved in the study but disruptive behavior rates in this classroom appeared comparable to the classrooms in the study. Agreement between observers was 86.1%. Manual A Teacher’s Manual on Behavior Modification in the Classroom (McKeown, 1971) was provided each teacher in the appropriate experimental groups. This manual is similar to Modifying Classroom Behavior (Buckley and Walker, 1970). Procedure
Each of the 20 Ss participated in one of four experimental conditions following completion of the pre-experimental questionnaire and the 60 min pre-experimental observation period on disruptive behavior. Teachers in two of the experimental conditions participated in a laboratory group. Five of these teachers received a copy of the manual during the first group meeting (LM group) and five did not receive a copy of the manual (L group). It was explained to the teachers that some of them would have copies of the manual and they could use it to see if it was beneficial to them. These teachers received a schedule of reading assignments for each group meeting. The other five teachers were told that they would be given a copy of the manual after completion of the program. The group of 10 Ss met once a week for li hr for a period of 6 weeks. Subjects were given a general lecture on the principles and applications of behavior modification to the classroom during the first meeting with emphasis on how to count and define behavior. They were asked to practice in their classrooms during the subsequent week the techniques and procedures covered in that session. Following the initial group meeting. subsequent meetings were devoted to discussion of applications of behavior modification to classroom behavior problems. Case examples were presented, questions were answered, and techniques were illustrated by role-playing. The second
88
D. MCKEOWN. JR.. H. E. ADAMSand R. FOREHAN)
meeting continued the discussion of defining and counting behavior. Teachers discussed and were given feedback on their progress in defining and counting target behaviors assigned the previous week. In the third session. the identification of reinforcers and planning of interventions were discussed. In the fourth meeting. the planning and implementation of specific interventions were covered. Emphasis was placed on the use of positive and negative reinforcers, as well as the systematic application of ignoring. The fifth meeting was concerned with the interventions that had been implemented by the teachers. Institution of a token economy to both individual students and total classrooms was discussed. The sixth meeting was concerned with the continuation of the intervention program with emphasis on how to fade out programs gradually and effectively. During the last 3 weeks of meetings. each teacher’s classroom was visited by E for approximately 14 hr. Teachers, at this time, were given recommendations and suggestions by E. The third group (M group) consisted of five teachers who met with E for a short period during which they were informed that they would be able to participate in a laboratory group in approximately 8 weeks. They were given a copy of the manual and were asked to read one lesson a week in the manual so that they would become familiar with the material prior to the beginning of the laboratory group. They were also asked to begin to apply the principles and techniques as they were reading the manual so that they would be familiar with the application of behavior modification principles in the classroom. Letters were sent to these teachers every 2 weeks to remind them of the reading assignments. When these teachers were re-administered the questionnaire (post-experimentally), they were asked to indicate how much of the manual they had read. All teachers indicated they had read the manual. Following the completion of the post-experimental measures, these teachers were given the opportunity to participate in a group similar to the LM group. Two teachers accepted the invitation to participate in this group. The control group (C group) consisted of five teachers who served as a no treatment control group. They participated only in pre- and post-experimental measures and did not receive any information on behavior modification. Following completion of post-experimental measures, these five teachers were also given the opportunity to participate in a laboratory group similar to the LM group. All five teachers accepted the invitation to participate in this group. RESULTS
Questiormaire data
The reliability of the questionnaire was determined by correlating the odd with even items and using a Spearman-Brown correction formula. This yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.76. Since the questionnaire was short (20 items) and a reliability coefficient of this nature can be expected to increase as length of the questionnaire increased, it was felt that the questionnaire could be accepted as having sufficient internal consistency (Cronbath. 1970). There were differences between groups in the pretest administration of the questionnaire as determined by a one way analysis of variance (F = 14.2 4f = 3/14, p < OQOI) (see Table 1). Consequently, a change score between pre and post scores was used as the response measure. This change score reflects an increment in knowledge rather than absolute knowledge. A factorial design with two between factors (groupno group; manual-no manual) was used to analyze the data. The analysis indicated. as is apparent in Table 1,
Principles Table
of behaviour
I. Means and standard
deviations
modification
89
for questionnaire
data for four groups
Laboratory
No Laboratory
Pre
Post
Change score
Manual R S.D.
7.2 3.2
12.6 5.0
5.4 4.0
x.4 4.0
10.8 3.7
2.4 3.9
No manual R SD.
9.0 I.9
12.6 0.9
3.6 I.7
4.8 3.6
5.6 3.9
0.8 3.7
Pre
Post
Change score
that Ss who participated in the laboratory group increased significantly more in knowledge than Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group (F = 4.53, df= l/16. p < 0.05). Disruptive data
An analysis of variance on the mean scores of the disruption data with two between factors (groupno group; manual-no manual) and one repeated factor (pre-post disruption change) was conducted. The main effect of the pre-post comparison was significant (F = 28.18, df = l/l 6, p < 0.001 ), indicating a decrease in disruption from pre to post measures. There was a significant interaction between lecture group versus no lecture group and change in disruption from the pre to post measure (F = 10.38, df = l/l 6, p < 0.01). Figure 1 presents the mean number of disruptions for each of the four pre and post observation periods for the lecture groups and no lecture groups. An examination of the effect in Fig. 1 indicates that Ss who had participated in lectures showed a significant decrease in disruptive behavior in their classrooms which was not the case in classrooms of teachers not exposed to a group. Additionally, Fig. 1 reveals that the effect is stable across observation periods. Relationship
between knowledge
arld disruption
Since there was a significant change in both disruption and knowledge, the relationship between amount of decrease in disruption and amount of increase in knowledge was examined. Rank-order correlation coefficients were computed on change scores for each of the
“I
0
20
M
LECTURE
O-IX
4
NO
I
2
PRE Fig. 1. Mean number
LECTURE
‘5
of disruptions
3
4
,
I
1
,
I
2
3
4
POST
across four pre and four post observations and no lecture groups.
periods
for lecture
90
D. MCKE~WV. JR.. H. E. ADAMS and R. FOREHAW
four groups. The LM group showed a correlation of -0.70. the correlation for the L group was - 0.325. for the M group - 0.475. and for the C group + 0.325. Correlation coefficients were also computed for group vs no group. These correlations were - 0.442 for group participation and -0.285 for no group participation. The correlation for the total Ss was -0.469. which was significant at the 0.05 level. Because of the small A:. none of the other correlations was significant. However. it would appear that there is a high correlation between knowledge and disruption for Ss who participate in a group and receive a manual but only a minimal relationship between Ss who receive no treatment. Correlations are moderate for Ss who receive the manual or participate in the group only. DISCUSSION
Two different modes of change in teacher behavior were observed: (1) gain in knowledge as measured by a questionnaire and (2) decrease in disruption as measured by observer counts. The major purpose of this study was to observe to what degree teachers were able to generalize to the classroom information presented in a laboratory group so that disruptive responses decrease. Those Ss who participated in a laboratory group showed a significantly greater decrease in class?oom disruption than Ss who did not participate in such a group. Further, those Ss who participated in a laboratory group also demonstrated a significantly greater increase in knowledge than Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group. Much of the previous research in this area has involved giving teachers literature pertaining to behavior modification and then assessing the teacher in terms of how well they have learned the ideas and concepts. However. when a teacher is given behavior modification literature. there is no guarantee that she will read it. In addition. the usefulness of gaining a knowledge of behavior modification principles is best evaluated in terms of the degree to which these principles are then applied to the teacher’s classroom. Previous research has not examined such a relationship between knowledge and application. The present study indicates that a gain in knowledge as well as decreased disruption in the classroom is most effectively produced through participation in a laboratory group as opposed to presentation of written information alone. It was felt that participation in the laboratory group was more effective due to a number of factors. First. teachers were provided with feedback as to their attempted applications of behavioral principles. If they encountered difficulties, it was possible to suggest alternative techniques or variations to the technique that they were attempting to apply. Questions. criticisms, and clarifications occurred in the laboratory sessions. These events were not possible without the group supervision. Second, teachers received positive reinforcement for attempts at applying behavioral principles. This reinforcement probably included decreased disruptive behavior in the teacher’s classroom. praise from E. and peer support and praise within the group. Third, teachers were shaped in the group in the same way that they attempted to shape the children in their classrooms. Teachers were reinforced for defining the problem behavior. for counting its occurrence. for identifying reinforcers. and then for institution of an intervention. In this way. teachers were trained not to expect a change in behavior immediately but to shape behavior in incremental steps. Finally, participation in the laboratory group provided the opportunity for modeling appropriate behavior. Role-playing was the primary technique whereby teachers could observe and then model E. It is felt that this procedure helped the teachers in developing appropriate programs for behavior problems which previously had caused disruptions in the classrooms. None of these factors could
Principles
of behaviour
modification
91
have been conveyed adequately by reading the manual alone. The data would suggest. with regard to the present investigation. that a manual on behavior modification is an ineffective device for conveying principles of behavior modification. One reason for the extremely small effects of the manual may be that there was no real assurance that Ss adequately read the manual. Demonstration of the effectiveness of teaching Ss in a group as opposed to previous methods of individual instruction would suggest that a group is a vehicle for economizing a mental health professional’s time. Since only 9 hr of teaching were involved in the laboratory group, an expenditure of less than 1 hr per teacher was required to train teachers in the use of behavioral principles. The majority of previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of teachers as behavioral technicians in terms of questionnaire data and decrease in referrals. In contrast. the present study measured the effectiveness of teachers as behavior modifiers in terms of decrease in disruptive behavior in the classroom. Success in decreasing disruptive behavior in the teachers’ classrooms is believed to have been the result of having trained behavioral technicians who could effectively apply behavioral principles as opposed to having trained teachers who have only a cognitive understanding of behayioral principles. Further research should focus on which of the techniques acquired in laboratory group participation that teachers use in decreasing disruptive behavior. Subjective reports from the observers indicated that teachers were more positive during the post measures but they did not specify the exact procedures that the teachers were using. Teachers also reported that they believed themselves to be more effective in the classroom. indicating that knowing how to handle classroom problems may increase teachers’ confidence in their ability. Ackrtowledge,,lerlr-The aid and cooperation.
authors
wish to express their appreciation
to the Atlanta
Public
School System for their
REFERENCES BECKER W. C. (1969) Parrms md Truclws: A Child MLIIILI~~~~~ Progrm. Research Press. Champaign, IL. BUCKLEY N. K. and WALKER H. M. (1970) Morijf:t,inc) Classroont Bc&rt~ior. Research Press, Champaign. IL. CRONBACH L. J. (1970) Essertrials ~fPsycho/o~grcul Tm~r~(g. Harper & Row. New York. HALL R. V. (1970) Mmagirlg Behavior. Parts I-III. H. & H. Enterprises. Marriam, Kansas. HIRSCH I. and WALDER L. (1969) Training mothers in groups as reinforcement therapists for their own children. 77th Anrtuul Corwr~tio~~ qfrhr Auwricclrl Ps~~cholo~gic~I Associatiorl. Washington, D.C. HOLLAND C. J. (1970) An interview guide for behavioral counseling with parents. Brhar. T/wrap): 1, 70-79. HOMME L. E. (1971) How to use Contirlgcwc~~ Cormacriug it1 the Classroon7. Research Press, Champaign, IL. MADSEN C. H. and MADSEN C. K. (1970) Trachi,lg/Discipli,Ir: Brhauioral Principles toward a Positive Approach. Allyn & Bacon. Boston. MADSEN C. H., BECKER, W. C. and THOMAS. D. R. (196X) Rules. praise. and ignoring: elements of classroom control. J. a&. Brhac. AwI/. 1. 139-150. M~KEOWN D. (1971) A Teacher’s Muru~l OH Brhurror Modificutiotl iu the Clu.ssroon~: w/tar to try IW.YTwith little Rupe-t. Georgia Mental Health Institute. Atlanta. NAY R. (1971) Written. lecture. lecture-modelling, and modelhng-role-playing as instructional techniques for parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Univ. of Georgia. O’LEARY K. D., BI.CI;ER W. C.. EVANS M. B. and SAI DAGRAS R. A. (1969) A token reinforcement program in public school. J. uppl. Bchtrr. ilrttrl. 2, 3-13. -PATTERSON G. R. and GL.LLION M. E. (1968) Liriug with Childrof: Nvw Merhods fbr Parents md Teachers. Research Press. Champaign. IL. PATTERSONG. R.. Conn J. A. and RAI R. S. (1973) A social engineering technology for retraining aggressive boys. In I.s.sue.\ trnrl Trmls iu Bchtrrior .Ilot/i/tc~rrrio/r (Eds. H. E. ADAMS and I. P. I!NIKI:L). Thomas. Springfield. IL. SCHMIDT G. W. and ULRICH R. E. (1969) Erects of group contingency events upon classroom noise. J. appl. Brhuu. Aml. 2, 171ll79.
92
D. MCKEOWN,JR.. H. E. ADAMSand R. FOREHAND
SMITHJ. M. and SMITHD. E. P. (1966) Child Manayrmrnt: A Progru~tfor Parents. Ann Arbor Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI. VALET-IR. E. (1969) Modifying Childwn’s Brharior: A Guide,for Parems und Prqfessimals. Fearon. Belmont. CA. WAHLERR. G. and ERIK~ONM. (1969) Child behavior therapy. Bchar. Res. & Thrrup!,7, 71-78. WAHLERR. G., WINKELG. H.. PETERSON R. E. and MORRISON’ D. C. (1965) Mothers as behavior therapists for their own children. &bar. Res. & Thrrapv 3. I l?- 124. WALKERH. M. and BUCKLEYN. K. (1968) The use of positive reinforcement in conditioning attending behavior. J. appl. Behav. Anal. 1, 245-250.
1975. Vol.
13. pp 85-92. Pergamon
Press Prmted
m Great Bntaan
GENERALIZATION TO THE CLASSROOM OF PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TAUGHT TO TEACHERS* DOUGLASMCKEOWN. JR.. HENRYE. ADAMSand REX FOREHAND Psychology
Clinic. Dept. of Psychology. Athens, GA 30602. (Receircd
2 Mar
University
of Georgia,
U.S.A. 1974)
Summary-Twenty teachers were assigned to four conditions: (I) teachers who participated in a laboratory group and received a written manual: (2) teachers who participated only in the laboratory group; (3) teachers who received only a written manual. and (4) teachers who did not receive either source of information. The results indicated that teachers who participated in a laboratory group increased in knowledge compared_ to Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group. Further, there was a decrease in disruptive behavior only in the classrooms of teachers who had participated in a laboratory group on behavior modification principles.
The application of behavior modification principles to classroom behavior demonstrates the effectiveness of various techniques for modifying behavior as well as the need for modifying many of the antiquated methods used by teachers to control classroom behavior. The efficacy of applying behavior modification principles to individual behavior problems in the classroom is well documented in the literature (Madsen, er al., 1968; Walker and Buckley, 1968). Further, there have been many applications of behavior modification to entire classrooms (O’Leary ef al., 1969; Schmidt and Ulrich, 1969). Direct intervention (e.g., at home, at school) as opposed to intervention within the clinic and laboratory setting has the advantage of directly changing behavior in the environment where the maladaptive behavior occurs which. to some extent, eliminates the problem of generalization of appropriate behavior. In addition. the fact that teachers and parents have been found to be effective behavior modifiers reduces the time required of professional therapists for therapeutic interventions (Madsen and Madsen, 1970; Wahler et al., 1965). Wahler and Erikson (1969). for example. have demonstrated the effectiveness of non-professional volunteer workers in changing the behavior of children with various problems in both home and school settings. Many manuals have been devised to provide didactic explanations of behavior modification principles and procedures to aid nonprofessionals in their attempt to intervene with maladaptive behavior patterns. These books and manuals have been written for use by teachers (Buckley and Walker, 1970: Homme. 1971; Madsen and Madsen, 1970; McKeown, 1971). for use by parents (Holland. 1970; Smith and Smith, 1966; Valett, 1969) and for use by both teachers and parents (Becker, 1969; Hall. 1970; Patterson and Gullion, 1968). Group procedures in training teachers and parents to deal effectively with deviant behavior recently have been attempted by a few investigators (Hirsch and Walder, 1969; McKeown, 1971). Unfortunately, there have been even fewer controlled studies to measure * Request for reprints should be sent to Douglas McKeown. Ph.D.. Health Center. 615 N. MacArthur Ave., Panama City. FL 32401. x5
Northwest
Florida
Community
Mental
86
D. MCKEOWN. JR.. H. E. ADAMS and R. FOREHAND
the effectiveness of these group teaching procedures (Nay. 1971; Patterson. Cobb and Ray. 1973). While many classroom teachers have been exposed to didactic literature dealing with the use of behavior modification techniques in the classroom, it has not been demonstrated that this exposure encourages the teacher to actually try these procedures in the classroom or that such applications are effective. A pertinent question is what method of instruction will facilitate both the acquisition and application of behavioral principles‘? If such a teaching method was available, the behavior modifier’s role in classroom behavior problems would be to teach principles and techniques of behavior modification to groups of teachers, allowing teachers to make individual interventions with behavior problems. The present study was designed to compare the effectiveness of group instruction of teachers (written material, lecture. discussion. and role-playing) with presentation of written material alone. This was accomplished by comparing: (1) teachers who participate in a laboratory group as well as receive written information; (2) teachers who participate in a laboratory group only; (3) teachers who receive written information only and: (4) teachers who receive neither a laboratory group nor written information. Even though a knowledge of behavior modification principles may be beneficial. the ultimate criterion of usefulness is whether the teacher applies this knowledge effectively to the classroom environment. Consequently, the effectiveness of the teaching techniques was evaluated both in terms of knowledge of behavioral principles and change in the frequency of classroom disruption. METHOD
Subjects
Subjects (Ss) were 20 elementary school teachers from the Atlanta Public School System who volunteered to participate in a short course of instruction in Behavior Modification. Teachers were assigned to groups according to the following information obtained from a teacher questionnaire: number of years taught school and number of children in classroom. There were eight different schools represented. Teachers were divided into two grade categories: those who taught the lower grades of kindergarten through three and those who taught the upper grades of four through seven. Each group had three teachers from the lower grades and two teachers from the upper grades. Response measures
All 20 Ss were given a questionnaire, consisting of 20 multiple choice questions, which assessed knowledge of behavior modification principles. The questions were derived from materials presented in A Teacher’s Manual 011 Behavior Modificatiorl in the Classroom (McKeown, 1971). The questionnaire was administered approximately 2 weeks prior to the beginning of the laboratory course and was re-administered approximately 2 weeks after completion of the program. All 20 teachers’ classrooms were observed for a total of 120 min during which an observer obtained a time sampling of disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior, for purposes of this study, was defined as any off-task behavior which was initiated by a child and was not a result of teacher instructions or classroom rules. Included in this category of disruptive behavior were: out of seat. idle conversation, shouting out. hitting- pushing, whistling, playing with things, and production of noise with any instrument not intended for such use.
Principles
of behaviour
modification
87
Prior to the beginning of the experimental program each of the 20 teachers’ classrooms was observed for a period of 60 min. Observers sat in the rear of the classroom; they did not interact with or respond to the children. Two separate 15 min samples of classroom behavior were obtained on each of two separate days for a total of 60 min observation. Following completion of the experimental program. all 20 classrooms once again were observed for a total of 60 min in the same manner. During pre- and post-experimental observation, the observer employed a time sampling technique to obtain a measure of disruptive behavior. Prior to observation, the classroom was divided into six sections according to seating arrangement. Each section was observed for 10 set out of every minute. If disruptive behavior occurred in the target section during the 10 set time sample, a check (J) was recorded on a data sheet. If disruptive behavior did not occur in the target section during the 10 set time sample, a zero (0) was recorded. A total of 720 measures was obtained for pre- and post-experimental observation for each teacher’s classroom. Pre- and post-experimental observations were obtained by two college graduates skilled in classroom observation and trained by the experimenter (E). Both observers obtained observations on classrooms assigned to each experimental condition. Treatment conditions to which each teacher was assigned were unknown to the observers. A 3-hr session was devoted to the training of the observers to enhance agreement on the response categories. During training, the observers observed a classroom for four 15 min time samples in order to obtain a measure of reliability on observer counts of disruptive behavior. The classroom was not one involved in the study but disruptive behavior rates in this classroom appeared comparable to the classrooms in the study. Agreement between observers was 86.1%. Manual A Teacher’s Manual on Behavior Modification in the Classroom (McKeown, 1971) was provided each teacher in the appropriate experimental groups. This manual is similar to Modifying Classroom Behavior (Buckley and Walker, 1970). Procedure
Each of the 20 Ss participated in one of four experimental conditions following completion of the pre-experimental questionnaire and the 60 min pre-experimental observation period on disruptive behavior. Teachers in two of the experimental conditions participated in a laboratory group. Five of these teachers received a copy of the manual during the first group meeting (LM group) and five did not receive a copy of the manual (L group). It was explained to the teachers that some of them would have copies of the manual and they could use it to see if it was beneficial to them. These teachers received a schedule of reading assignments for each group meeting. The other five teachers were told that they would be given a copy of the manual after completion of the program. The group of 10 Ss met once a week for li hr for a period of 6 weeks. Subjects were given a general lecture on the principles and applications of behavior modification to the classroom during the first meeting with emphasis on how to count and define behavior. They were asked to practice in their classrooms during the subsequent week the techniques and procedures covered in that session. Following the initial group meeting. subsequent meetings were devoted to discussion of applications of behavior modification to classroom behavior problems. Case examples were presented, questions were answered, and techniques were illustrated by role-playing. The second
88
D. MCKEOWN. JR.. H. E. ADAMSand R. FOREHAN)
meeting continued the discussion of defining and counting behavior. Teachers discussed and were given feedback on their progress in defining and counting target behaviors assigned the previous week. In the third session. the identification of reinforcers and planning of interventions were discussed. In the fourth meeting. the planning and implementation of specific interventions were covered. Emphasis was placed on the use of positive and negative reinforcers, as well as the systematic application of ignoring. The fifth meeting was concerned with the interventions that had been implemented by the teachers. Institution of a token economy to both individual students and total classrooms was discussed. The sixth meeting was concerned with the continuation of the intervention program with emphasis on how to fade out programs gradually and effectively. During the last 3 weeks of meetings. each teacher’s classroom was visited by E for approximately 14 hr. Teachers, at this time, were given recommendations and suggestions by E. The third group (M group) consisted of five teachers who met with E for a short period during which they were informed that they would be able to participate in a laboratory group in approximately 8 weeks. They were given a copy of the manual and were asked to read one lesson a week in the manual so that they would become familiar with the material prior to the beginning of the laboratory group. They were also asked to begin to apply the principles and techniques as they were reading the manual so that they would be familiar with the application of behavior modification principles in the classroom. Letters were sent to these teachers every 2 weeks to remind them of the reading assignments. When these teachers were re-administered the questionnaire (post-experimentally), they were asked to indicate how much of the manual they had read. All teachers indicated they had read the manual. Following the completion of the post-experimental measures, these teachers were given the opportunity to participate in a group similar to the LM group. Two teachers accepted the invitation to participate in this group. The control group (C group) consisted of five teachers who served as a no treatment control group. They participated only in pre- and post-experimental measures and did not receive any information on behavior modification. Following completion of post-experimental measures, these five teachers were also given the opportunity to participate in a laboratory group similar to the LM group. All five teachers accepted the invitation to participate in this group. RESULTS
Questiormaire data
The reliability of the questionnaire was determined by correlating the odd with even items and using a Spearman-Brown correction formula. This yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.76. Since the questionnaire was short (20 items) and a reliability coefficient of this nature can be expected to increase as length of the questionnaire increased, it was felt that the questionnaire could be accepted as having sufficient internal consistency (Cronbath. 1970). There were differences between groups in the pretest administration of the questionnaire as determined by a one way analysis of variance (F = 14.2 4f = 3/14, p < OQOI) (see Table 1). Consequently, a change score between pre and post scores was used as the response measure. This change score reflects an increment in knowledge rather than absolute knowledge. A factorial design with two between factors (groupno group; manual-no manual) was used to analyze the data. The analysis indicated. as is apparent in Table 1,
Principles Table
of behaviour
I. Means and standard
deviations
modification
89
for questionnaire
data for four groups
Laboratory
No Laboratory
Pre
Post
Change score
Manual R S.D.
7.2 3.2
12.6 5.0
5.4 4.0
x.4 4.0
10.8 3.7
2.4 3.9
No manual R SD.
9.0 I.9
12.6 0.9
3.6 I.7
4.8 3.6
5.6 3.9
0.8 3.7
Pre
Post
Change score
that Ss who participated in the laboratory group increased significantly more in knowledge than Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group (F = 4.53, df= l/16. p < 0.05). Disruptive data
An analysis of variance on the mean scores of the disruption data with two between factors (groupno group; manual-no manual) and one repeated factor (pre-post disruption change) was conducted. The main effect of the pre-post comparison was significant (F = 28.18, df = l/l 6, p < 0.001 ), indicating a decrease in disruption from pre to post measures. There was a significant interaction between lecture group versus no lecture group and change in disruption from the pre to post measure (F = 10.38, df = l/l 6, p < 0.01). Figure 1 presents the mean number of disruptions for each of the four pre and post observation periods for the lecture groups and no lecture groups. An examination of the effect in Fig. 1 indicates that Ss who had participated in lectures showed a significant decrease in disruptive behavior in their classrooms which was not the case in classrooms of teachers not exposed to a group. Additionally, Fig. 1 reveals that the effect is stable across observation periods. Relationship
between knowledge
arld disruption
Since there was a significant change in both disruption and knowledge, the relationship between amount of decrease in disruption and amount of increase in knowledge was examined. Rank-order correlation coefficients were computed on change scores for each of the
“I
0
20
M
LECTURE
O-IX
4
NO
I
2
PRE Fig. 1. Mean number
LECTURE
‘5
of disruptions
3
4
,
I
1
,
I
2
3
4
POST
across four pre and four post observations and no lecture groups.
periods
for lecture
90
D. MCKE~WV. JR.. H. E. ADAMS and R. FOREHAW
four groups. The LM group showed a correlation of -0.70. the correlation for the L group was - 0.325. for the M group - 0.475. and for the C group + 0.325. Correlation coefficients were also computed for group vs no group. These correlations were - 0.442 for group participation and -0.285 for no group participation. The correlation for the total Ss was -0.469. which was significant at the 0.05 level. Because of the small A:. none of the other correlations was significant. However. it would appear that there is a high correlation between knowledge and disruption for Ss who participate in a group and receive a manual but only a minimal relationship between Ss who receive no treatment. Correlations are moderate for Ss who receive the manual or participate in the group only. DISCUSSION
Two different modes of change in teacher behavior were observed: (1) gain in knowledge as measured by a questionnaire and (2) decrease in disruption as measured by observer counts. The major purpose of this study was to observe to what degree teachers were able to generalize to the classroom information presented in a laboratory group so that disruptive responses decrease. Those Ss who participated in a laboratory group showed a significantly greater decrease in class?oom disruption than Ss who did not participate in such a group. Further, those Ss who participated in a laboratory group also demonstrated a significantly greater increase in knowledge than Ss who did not participate in a laboratory group. Much of the previous research in this area has involved giving teachers literature pertaining to behavior modification and then assessing the teacher in terms of how well they have learned the ideas and concepts. However. when a teacher is given behavior modification literature. there is no guarantee that she will read it. In addition. the usefulness of gaining a knowledge of behavior modification principles is best evaluated in terms of the degree to which these principles are then applied to the teacher’s classroom. Previous research has not examined such a relationship between knowledge and application. The present study indicates that a gain in knowledge as well as decreased disruption in the classroom is most effectively produced through participation in a laboratory group as opposed to presentation of written information alone. It was felt that participation in the laboratory group was more effective due to a number of factors. First. teachers were provided with feedback as to their attempted applications of behavioral principles. If they encountered difficulties, it was possible to suggest alternative techniques or variations to the technique that they were attempting to apply. Questions. criticisms, and clarifications occurred in the laboratory sessions. These events were not possible without the group supervision. Second, teachers received positive reinforcement for attempts at applying behavioral principles. This reinforcement probably included decreased disruptive behavior in the teacher’s classroom. praise from E. and peer support and praise within the group. Third, teachers were shaped in the group in the same way that they attempted to shape the children in their classrooms. Teachers were reinforced for defining the problem behavior. for counting its occurrence. for identifying reinforcers. and then for institution of an intervention. In this way. teachers were trained not to expect a change in behavior immediately but to shape behavior in incremental steps. Finally, participation in the laboratory group provided the opportunity for modeling appropriate behavior. Role-playing was the primary technique whereby teachers could observe and then model E. It is felt that this procedure helped the teachers in developing appropriate programs for behavior problems which previously had caused disruptions in the classrooms. None of these factors could
Principles
of behaviour
modification
91
have been conveyed adequately by reading the manual alone. The data would suggest. with regard to the present investigation. that a manual on behavior modification is an ineffective device for conveying principles of behavior modification. One reason for the extremely small effects of the manual may be that there was no real assurance that Ss adequately read the manual. Demonstration of the effectiveness of teaching Ss in a group as opposed to previous methods of individual instruction would suggest that a group is a vehicle for economizing a mental health professional’s time. Since only 9 hr of teaching were involved in the laboratory group, an expenditure of less than 1 hr per teacher was required to train teachers in the use of behavioral principles. The majority of previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of teachers as behavioral technicians in terms of questionnaire data and decrease in referrals. In contrast. the present study measured the effectiveness of teachers as behavior modifiers in terms of decrease in disruptive behavior in the classroom. Success in decreasing disruptive behavior in the teachers’ classrooms is believed to have been the result of having trained behavioral technicians who could effectively apply behavioral principles as opposed to having trained teachers who have only a cognitive understanding of behayioral principles. Further research should focus on which of the techniques acquired in laboratory group participation that teachers use in decreasing disruptive behavior. Subjective reports from the observers indicated that teachers were more positive during the post measures but they did not specify the exact procedures that the teachers were using. Teachers also reported that they believed themselves to be more effective in the classroom. indicating that knowing how to handle classroom problems may increase teachers’ confidence in their ability. Ackrtowledge,,lerlr-The aid and cooperation.
authors
wish to express their appreciation
to the Atlanta
Public
School System for their
REFERENCES BECKER W. C. (1969) Parrms md Truclws: A Child MLIIILI~~~~~ Progrm. Research Press. Champaign, IL. BUCKLEY N. K. and WALKER H. M. (1970) Morijf:t,inc) Classroont Bc&rt~ior. Research Press, Champaign. IL. CRONBACH L. J. (1970) Essertrials ~fPsycho/o~grcul Tm~r~(g. Harper & Row. New York. HALL R. V. (1970) Mmagirlg Behavior. Parts I-III. H. & H. Enterprises. Marriam, Kansas. HIRSCH I. and WALDER L. (1969) Training mothers in groups as reinforcement therapists for their own children. 77th Anrtuul Corwr~tio~~ qfrhr Auwricclrl Ps~~cholo~gic~I Associatiorl. Washington, D.C. HOLLAND C. J. (1970) An interview guide for behavioral counseling with parents. Brhar. T/wrap): 1, 70-79. HOMME L. E. (1971) How to use Contirlgcwc~~ Cormacriug it1 the Classroon7. Research Press, Champaign, IL. MADSEN C. H. and MADSEN C. K. (1970) Trachi,lg/Discipli,Ir: Brhauioral Principles toward a Positive Approach. Allyn & Bacon. Boston. MADSEN C. H., BECKER, W. C. and THOMAS. D. R. (196X) Rules. praise. and ignoring: elements of classroom control. J. a&. Brhac. AwI/. 1. 139-150. M~KEOWN D. (1971) A Teacher’s Muru~l OH Brhurror Modificutiotl iu the Clu.ssroon~: w/tar to try IW.YTwith little Rupe-t. Georgia Mental Health Institute. Atlanta. NAY R. (1971) Written. lecture. lecture-modelling, and modelhng-role-playing as instructional techniques for parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Univ. of Georgia. O’LEARY K. D., BI.CI;ER W. C.. EVANS M. B. and SAI DAGRAS R. A. (1969) A token reinforcement program in public school. J. uppl. Bchtrr. ilrttrl. 2, 3-13. -PATTERSON G. R. and GL.LLION M. E. (1968) Liriug with Childrof: Nvw Merhods fbr Parents md Teachers. Research Press. Champaign. IL. PATTERSONG. R.. Conn J. A. and RAI R. S. (1973) A social engineering technology for retraining aggressive boys. In I.s.sue.\ trnrl Trmls iu Bchtrrior .Ilot/i/tc~rrrio/r (Eds. H. E. ADAMS and I. P. I!NIKI:L). Thomas. Springfield. IL. SCHMIDT G. W. and ULRICH R. E. (1969) Erects of group contingency events upon classroom noise. J. appl. Brhuu. Aml. 2, 171ll79.
92
D. MCKEOWN,JR.. H. E. ADAMSand R. FOREHAND
SMITHJ. M. and SMITHD. E. P. (1966) Child Manayrmrnt: A Progru~tfor Parents. Ann Arbor Publishers. Ann Arbor, MI. VALET-IR. E. (1969) Modifying Childwn’s Brharior: A Guide,for Parems und Prqfessimals. Fearon. Belmont. CA. WAHLERR. G. and ERIK~ONM. (1969) Child behavior therapy. Bchar. Res. & Thrrup!,7, 71-78. WAHLERR. G., WINKELG. H.. PETERSON R. E. and MORRISON’ D. C. (1965) Mothers as behavior therapists for their own children. &bar. Res. & Thrrapv 3. I l?- 124. WALKERH. M. and BUCKLEYN. K. (1968) The use of positive reinforcement in conditioning attending behavior. J. appl. Behav. Anal. 1, 245-250.
