|Contingency Management in the College Classroom
|Sunday, May 25, 2008
|4:30 PM–5:20 PM
|Chair: Philip L. Gunter (Valdosta State University)
|Analysis of ABA Project Data to Demonstrate Impact on P-12 Achievement in Educator Preparation Programs.
|Domain: Applied Research
|PHILIP L. GUNTER (Valdosta State University)
|Abstract: Data from single subject design projects conducted by 50 teachers-in-training across two years are summarized to produce effect size descriptions. All projects were conducted as a requirement for completion of a course in applied behavior analysis as part of the candidates' educator preparation programs. All projects used rate of words read correctly as the dependent variable, and all field and analysis procedures were monitored by the course instructor to ensure project fidelity and data reliability. The findings are discussed in terms of the appropriateness of such practices to produce data to demonstrate the positive impact of educator preparation programs on the academic achievement of P-12 learners, given that such information is imperative to ongoing program accreditation.
|Contingency Management in the Classroom.
|Domain: Applied Research
|ALEXANDER ZINICOLA (James Madison University), Alex N. Byland (James Madison University), Amanda N. Sorg (James Madison University), Allyson Vasi (James Madison University), Jessica Greta Marie Irons (James Madison University), Bryan K. Saville (James Madison University)
|Abstract: The purpose of this research is to investigate the utility of contingency management (CM) procedures for effecting behavior change in the college classroom. This study is intended to be a feasibility study for the use of CM for increasing “good student behaviors” (e.g., no cell phone interruptions, on-time assignments, on-time attendance, and studying during class study sessions) so that if target behaviors are emitted, conditions will be optimal for knowledge acquisition. Using a quasi-experimental, between-groups, counter-balanced design, students were assigned (according to course section) to one of 3 groups. Each group was assigned to each of three conditions once: Cheat Sheet Condition in which students gained access to professor-prepared concept sheets, in exchange for “good student behaviors,” a Monetary Reinforcer condition in which students gained access to monetary reinforcers (maximum $10) contingent upon “good student behaviors,” and a Yoked-Control Condition in which students gained access to concept sheets contingent upon the point gains in the Cheat Sheet conditions. The yoked-control group received concept sheets that included the average number of concepts earned by the Cheat Sheet condition. Preliminary analyses suggest differences in good student behaviors across conditions and differential effectiveness of CM on various target behaviors.