Add to and fix literature review

1

Valeria Castano

5913840

Florida International University

Behavioral and classroom management is one of the roles that teachers undertake to avoid disruption of their classes on a daily basis. The above mentioned aspects are arguably the issues that make teaching such a complex profession. Disruptive behavior among learners consumes valuable time for teachers on classroom control and discipline that could have otherwise be used on academic instruction (Carnet et al., 2014). Under the modern educational dispensation, token economies have emerged to be critical aspects that define task behavior especially with regards to the effects of preservative behavior. According to Carnett et al (2014), the interventions that come along from token economies revolve around delivering of small tangibles with effect on target behaviors notwithstanding their presence or absence. According to the same researchers, human behavior can be established, diminished, as well as maintained by the aid of token economy systems. From the onset, it is worth noting that Carnet et al (2014) argue that tokens are regarded as neutral stimuli that attain reinforcing power through actions that pair with the prevailing backup reinforces. The intention of the study is underpinned on the comparison of the effects of token economy on the preservative interests of children and on-task behavior. There is a gap to be filled that is supposedly targeted at finding the most effective ways of actualizing task behavior. The arguments of Carnet et al (2014), confirm that there exists a myriad of impacts that are derived from preservative interest-based token economy especially with regards to issues that involve on-task behavior of children with complications such as autism.

Token Economies

Doll, McLaughlin and Barretto (2013) hold the argument that token economies are the most commonly used interventions that are applied in the promotion of changes in behavior and the procedure of achieving the change is dynamic depending on individuals, settings and behavior. The fact that token economy is a concept that has attracted the attention of many actors in the educational field, there is need for further research to be done to improve its efficiency especially with regards to responding to the inconsistencies that come up when environments change (Doll, McLaughlin & Barretto, 2013). Before the emergence of token economies, Doll, McLaughlin and Barretto (2013) argue that there existed incentives-based structures that acted to create and sustain a number of cultures and considered them part and parcel of various institutions. Arguably, governments of today make use of the concept of token economies to influence the ability of shaping behaviors of children as well as grown-ups within the society. Considering children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), the classroom behavior as well as their learning process can be enhanced through the application of token economy. Hine, Ardoin and Call (2018), hold the opinion that tokens can be conditioned in a manner that make them act as reinforcers; an initially neutral stimulus that has reached the point of acquiring value in relation to the available primary reinforcers while at the same time serving as independent reinforcers (Hirst, Dozier & Payne, 2016). To cement their arguments, the researchers use the example of rats that acquire new responses by the use of token reinforcement (Hine, Ardoin & Call, 2018). In the analogy, there is a finding that the token-specific responses from rats are similar to the ones obtained when they are subjected to primary reinforcement.

Hine, Ardoin and Call (2018) conclude that there exists a number of barriers that make it difficult for one to condition tokens to act as effective reinforcers. Insufficient quality of backup reinforcers is one of the most prevalent barriers that limit the attainment of token conditioning to act as effective reinforcers (Williamson & McFadzen, 2020). Other barriers include inconsistent pairing, the inability to overcome the effects that arise in motivating operations as well as difficulties in shaping the exchange response (Williamson & McFadzen, 2020). Classroom participation can be improved by the use of token economies especially if the environment and classroom setting is well understood. According to the assertions of Boniecki and Moore (2003), the contingency that exists between the presence or absence of token economy as well as the amount of speed of participation on classroom interactions suggests that there was the involvement of tokens behind the increase in participation. It is believed that token economy procedures can be simple and effective especially if they are directed towards breaking silence in large classes (Boniecki & Moore, 2003). Token economy enjoys the advantage of being flexible and easily being able to adapt to different types of teaching styles.

Interests

There exists a series of interests that can be derived from the concept of token economies and their application in the real-life. According to Carnet et al (2014), there exists a lot of benefits that can be derived from interest-based tokens especially with regards to a special education classroom. Considering children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), the classroom behavior as well as their learning process can be enhanced through the application of token economy (Hirst, Dozier & Payne, 2016). When challenging behavior existing among learners is understood, the characteristics of the learners can be incorporated in the implementation of token economy interventions with a sole aim of ensuring that their class participation is positively enhanced. In the event that a classroom with special students is not well-managed, there is a possibility that a lot of time can be wasted on attaining the control of the class (Charlop-Christy & Haymes, 1998). Teachers are likely to be faced with increased demand for evidence based-instruction, data-based decision making, high stakes testing as well as response to intervention models that put a great deal of demands to learners in a typical learning environment. There exists arguments and counter-arguments pertaining the aspect of self-monitoring can be applied as a technique that help learners, by themselves, to understand their sources of classroom disruption to help themselves work their way out of it.

Charlop-Christy and Haymes (1998) have a conviction that children with autism are special interest population groups that can apply the concept of token economy to enhance their classroom participation. Educators can improve the classroom participation of children with autism by associating them with objects of obsession to act as token reinforcers (Soares et al, 2016). For educators to effectively make use of token reinforcers to enhance the concentration and participation of children with autism in classes, it calls upon their understanding of the individual personalities of the learners for the purpose of unraveling their obsessions (Soares et al, 2016). In a classroom setting, the availability of tokens as a means to deal with special children is a desirable behavior that is geared towards placing the interests of the learners ahead. Teachers have a responsibility of having an understanding of different reinforcers so that they may understand how to invoke them to motivate learners at any instance in the classroom setting (Hirst, Dozier & Payne, 2016). It is worth noting that the application of token economy has little to do with the ability of learners to complete their assignments outside the classroom setting.

The achievement of off-task as well as disruptive behavior among learners, there is a need for the invocation of token economy in come measured way while at the same time remembering to invoke external motivation (Hirst, Dozier & Payne, 2016). It is believed that token economy procedures can be simple and effective especially if they are directed towards breaking silence in large classes (Boniecki & Moore, 2003). In a nutshell, studies have demonstrated that tokens can be conditioned in a manner that make them act as reinforcers; an initially neutral stimulus that has reached the point of acquiring value in relation to the available primary reinforcers while at the same time serving as independent reinforcers (Hirst, Dozier & Payne, 2016). According to researchers, human behavior can be established, diminished, as well as maintained by the aid of token economy systems. Various researchers come to an agreement with Carnet et al (2014) regarding the application of token economy to change a classroom environment. The purpose of the study is to extend the work of Carnett et al. (2014) and compare the effects of token economies with the preservative interests of children versus token economies without the preservative interests on on-task behavior. It is hypothesized that the token economy reflecting the child’s preservative interest has the capability of affecting on-task behavior.

References

Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the Silence: Using a Token Economy to Reinforce Classroom Participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 224.

Carnett Amarie, Raulston Tracy, Lang Russell, Tostanoski Amy, Lee Allyson, Sigafoos Jeff, & Machalicek Wendy. (2014). Effects of a Perseverative Interest-Based Token Economy on Challenging and On-Task Behavior in a Child with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377.

Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1998). Using objects of obsession as token reinforcers for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(3), 189-198.

Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Barretto, A. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and evaluation. International Journal of basic and applied science, 2(1), 131-149.

Hine, J. F., Ardoin, S. P., & Call, N. A. (2018). Token economies: Using basic experimental research to guide practical applications. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 48(3), 145-154.

Hirst, E. S. J., Dozier, C. L., & Payne, S. W. (2016). Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(2), 329.

Soares, D. A., Harrison, J. R., Vannest, K. J., & McClelland, S. S. (2016). Effect Size for Token Economy Use in Contemporary Classroom Settings: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research. School Psychology Review, 45(4), 379–399.

Williamson, R. L., & McFadzen, C. (2020). Evaluating the Impact of Token Economy Methods on Student On-task Behaviour within an Inclusive Canadian Classroom. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), 9(1), 1531-1541.