Teaching Stimulus Control Via Class-Wide Multiple Schedules Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PBIXXX10.1177/1098300716632878Journal of Positive Behavior InterventionsTorelli et al. 632878research-article2016 Empirical Research Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2017, Vol. 19(1) 14 –25 Teaching Stimulus Control © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav via Class-Wide Multiple Schedules DOI: 10.1177/1098300716632878 of Reinforcement in Public jpbi.sagepub.com Elementary School Classrooms Jessica N. Torelli, MEd1, Blair P. Lloyd, PhD1, Claire A. Diekman, BA1, and Joseph H. Wehby, PhD1 Abstract In elementary school classrooms, students commonly recruit teacher attention at inappropriately high rates or at inappropriate times. Multiple schedule interventions have been used to teach stimulus control by signaling to students when reinforcement is and is not available contingent on an appropriate response. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a class-wide multiple schedule on differentiated rates of student recruitment of teacher attention in two public elementary classrooms. General education teachers implemented the multiple schedule intervention in the context of a common instructional routine (i.e., small group rotations among reading centers). Results indicated that the multiple schedule intervention was effective at decreasing disruptive bids for attention when teacher attention was not available. Additional research on teacher implementation of class-wide multiple schedules is needed to evaluate whether this intervention may be identified as an effective supplement to Tier 1 classroom management strategies within multi- tiered systems of support. Keywords stimulus control, multiple schedule, class-wide, Tier 1 intervention Teaching students appropriate ways to recruit teacher atten- (SΔ) signal the unavailability of reinforcement contingent tion has been shown to increase levels of teacher praise and on a response. Multiple schedules have been used to thin instructional assistance, as well as positively impact student dense schedules of reinforcement following the acquisition performance in the classroom (Alber & Heward, 2000). of a target behavior. Such arrangements typically involve However, once students learn how to appropriately recruit preserving a dense response–reinforcer contingency in one teacher attention, these behaviors can occur at inappropriately schedule component while introducing and systematically high rates or at inappropriate times (Cammilleri, Tiger, & extending extinction in another schedule component. Hanley, 2008; Sidener, Shabani, Carr, & Roland, 2006; Relative to other methods of schedule thinning, multiple Stokes, Fowler, & Baer, 1978). Because teacher attention is schedules have been found to be more effective at facilitat- rarely continuously available to all students, it is critical not ing stimulus control while maintaining low levels of inap- only to teach students how to recruit attention but when to propriate behavior (Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001). recruit attention, particularly in classrooms with high student– To address inappropriately high rates of attention recruit- teacher ratios. ment, multiple schedule interventions have been applied in In the applied behavior analytic literature, multiple simulated classroom settings with preschool-age students schedules have been used to teach children to discriminate (e.g., Tiger & Hanley, 2004, 2005; Tiger, Hanley, & Heal, when adult attention is available contingent on appropriate 2006). Tiger and colleagues alternated between an extinc- attention-seeking behaviors. A multiple schedule is a com- tion component during one stimulus (SΔ) and a dense pound schedule of reinforcement in which two or more component schedules alternate (usually according to time), 1Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA and each component schedule is correlated with a different Corresponding Author: stimulus (Catania, 2013; Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Blair P. Lloyd, Department of Special Education, Peabody College, D Discriminative stimuli (S ) signal the availability of rein- Vanderbilt University, Box 228, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. forcement contingent on a response, whereas delta stimuli Email: [email protected] Torelli et al. 15 schedule of reinforcement (e.g., fixed ratio 1 [FR1]) during class-wide by teachers, this intervention may be identified a different stimulus (SD). Each stimulus signaled whether as an effective supplement to other Tier 1 classroom man- reinforcement (i.e., teacher attention) was available contin- agement strategies. gent on appropriate bids for attention (e.g., hand-raising or To our knowledge, only two studies have trained class- calling the teacher’s name) and verbal reminders of each room teachers to implement multiple schedules on a class- contingency were provided to students prior to sessions. wide basis. Cammilleri et al. (2008) trained private school Such multiple schedule arrangements have effectively pro- teachers to implement a class-wide multiple schedule and duced discriminated responding when applied by experi- evaluated intervention effects on student social approaches menters individually and with pairs of students in small via a multiple baseline design across three private elemen- instructional rooms intended to simulate classroom settings tary school classrooms. Each classroom was comprised of (Tiger & Hanley, 2004, 2005; Tiger et al., 2006). 10 to 12 students ranging in age and skill level (kindergar- Fewer studies, however, have evaluated teacher imple- ten to sixth grade), with each student engaged in self-paced mentation of multiple schedule interventions on a class- individualized curricula. Teachers conducted 5-min ses- wide level in typical classrooms. Teaching students to sions alternating between SD (green lei signaling teacher discriminate when teacher attention is and is not available attention was available) and SΔ (red lei signaling teacher may be especially relevant in general education classrooms attention was unavailable). Teachers implemented two to because attention is seldom continuously available for any four sessions per day and described the contingency to the single student. In addition, implementation of multiple class before beginning each session. Results revealed that schedules (i.e., pairing visual stimuli with the availability of the class-wide multiple schedule produced discriminated reinforcement) requires relatively low response effort for responding such that bids for attention decreased during SΔ, teachers. As general education teachers are increasingly and maintained during SD. expected to assume greater responsibility in the implemen- Vargo, Heal, Epperley, and Kooistra (2014) evaluated tation of academic and behavioral interventions (Franklin, the effects of a class-wide multiple schedule intervention Kim, Ryan, Kelly, & Montgomery, 2012; Horner et al., (with verbal descriptions of contingencies) on hand-raising 2009; Simonsen et al., 2010), the identification of behavior via a multiple baseline design across three preschool class- support strategies that can be implemented class-wide with rooms. Each classroom included 18 to 19 students and the relative ease and efficiency is critical. Thus, multiple sched- multiple schedule intervention was implemented in the con- ules may offer an efficient strategy to address a common text of circle time routines. Teachers alternated between problem in general education classrooms. signaling the availability of reinforcement for hand raises in The identification of effective class-wide behavior sup- the presence of a blue card (SD) and the unavailability of port strategies is also critical for schools adopting multi- reinforcement in the presence of a yellow card (SΔ). Results tiered systems of support (e.g., Positive Behavioral demonstrated that hand-raising decreased in the presence of Interventions and Supports [PBIS]; Horner et al., 2009; SΔ relative to SD across all three classrooms. In addition, Sugai & Horner, 2006). Class-wide strategies are designed responding in the SΔ condition decreased overall during the to impact the greatest proportion of students and prevent multiple schedules plus rules component relative to base- more serious behavior problems from emerging (Horner & line across all classrooms. Sugai, 2015; Sugai et al., 2000). Multiple schedule inter- Because the classrooms in the study by Cammilleri and ventions may provide an avenue to strengthen critical com- colleagues (2008) had relatively low student-to-teacher ponents of a universal classroom management plan, ratios, were comprised of students who ranged in age and including maximizing structure and predictability, acknowl- skill level, and involved a unique instructional format (i.e., edging appropriate behavior, and responding consistently to self-paced individualized instruction), it is unknown inappropriate behavior (e.g., systematically withholding whether similar class-wide applications of multiple sched- attention; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, ules would be effective in the context of typical public ele- 2008). Specifically, the presentation of visual stimuli to sig- mentary classrooms. Results of the study by Vargo and nal the availability of teacher attention may help clarify colleagues (2014) suggest that multiple schedule interven- expectations and maximize structure and predictability dur- tions can be effectively implemented in the context of com- ing instructional routines. In addition, reinforcing student mon instructional