Observational Stimulus Control on Establishing Conditioned Reinforcement for
Looking at Books for Preschoolers
Hung Chang
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
2021
© 2021
Hung Chang
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Observational Stimulus Control on Establishing Conditioned Reinforcement for
Looking at Books for Preschoolers
Hung Chang
In Experiment I, I tested the effects of a vicarious reinforcement procedure on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing books (CR+ for observing books) using a pre- and post-intervention embedded with a multiple probe design across two dyads. All four participants could textually respond to kindergarten or first-grade level high-frequency words but choosing and prolonged looking at books (observing books) did not function as a preferred activity for them. The independent variable was the establishment of CR+ for observing books using a vicarious reinforcement intervention. During the intervention, the participants observed a peer confederate reading books while the confederate received frequent social approvals from the experimenter; the participants did not receive social attention (social praise from the experimenter) and were denied access to books during the intervention. The dependent variables were the rate of acquisition of textual responses and the duration participants spent observing printed words. Results in the first experiment showed three of four participants had an accelerated rate of acquisition of textual responses after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Two participants spent a longer time observing printed words after the establishment of CR+ for observing books. However, since denial and observation are components of vicarious reinforcement it is unclear whether vicarious reinforcement effects rather than observation by denial are responsible for the putative vicarious reinforcement effect. In the second experiment, I analyzed the necessity of social attention within the procedure and also investigated the sufficiency of the denial component. More specifically, I removed the vicarious reinforcement
and isolated the effects of the observational conditioning-by-denial intervention (OCDI) on establishing CR+ for observing books in Experiment II. I selected six beginning readers who were in the process of learning to textually respond to high-frequency preschool words. The dependent variables were the rate of acquisition of textual responses, discriminative remembering (i.e., conditioned seeing), and measures of an observational learning repertoire.
During the OCDI, two participants and a peer confederate were asked to perform the same task.
Contingent upon correct responses, the confederate received books for emitting correct responses while the participants did not. Following the OCDI, all participants acquired CR+ for observing books and five of the participants demonstrated an increase in their degree of observational learning repertoires. Results from the second experiment showed all six participants had a faster rate of acquisition on learning new sight words, and they also demonstrated more accurate discriminative remembering responses after the establishment of CR+ for observing books.
These findings are discussed with regard to the educational significance of CR+ for observing books as an empirical definition of reading readiness for young children. In addition, the findings call in to question whether prior literature on vicarious learning is in fact not necessarily a function of seeing response-consequence relations since the effect may be a result of observation under denial conditions.
Keywords: conditioned reinforcement, discriminative remembering, observational conditioning-by-denial, reading readiness, vicarious reinforcement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………… iii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………... vi
DEDICATION ……………………………………..……………………………………………x
CHAPTER I: Introduction and Review of the Literature
Introduction ………………………….……………………………………………………1
Review of the Literature ……………….………………………………………………… 2
Reading Readiness ……………….………………………………………………. 2
Interests and Reading ……………………………………………………………. 4
Conditioned Reinforcement ……….……………………………………………... 7
Conditioned Reinforcement and Early Observing Responses ……………………8
Foundational Verbal Behavior Developmental Cusps for Reading …………..…..9
Conditioned Reinforcement and Educationally Significant Stimuli ………….....10
Conditioned Reinforcement through Observation ……………………………... 16
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………….. 22
CHAPTER II: Experiment I
Method …………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Participants ……………………………………………………………………... 23
Setting ……………………………………………………………...…………... 25
Materials ……………………………………………………………………….. 26
Dependent Variables …………………………………………………………….27
Independent Variable ……………………………………………………………30
i
Experimental Design …………………………………………………………… 34
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity ……………………………… 37
Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 45
Limitations and Future Implications…………………………………….……………… 48
Rationale for Experiment II ……………………………………………………………. 50
CHAPTER III: Experiment II
Method …………………………………………………………………………………. 52
Participants ……………………………………………………………………... 52
Setting ………………………………………………………………………..… 54
Materials ……………………………………………………………………….. 55
Experimental Design ……………………………………………………….…... 58
Dependent Variables ………………………………………...…………………. 60
Independent Variable ……………………………………………………………62
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity ……………………………….64
Results …………………………………………………………………………...66
Discussion …………………………………………………………………….....78
CHAPTER IV: General Discussion
Major Findings …………………………………………………………………………. 81
Vicarious Reinforcement Versus Observation by denial ……………………….. 82
Remembering Behavior ……………………………………………………..…. 84
Observation by-denial and Observational Stimulus Control ………………..…. 85
Limitations and Future Implications ……………………………………………………. 86
Conclusion ……………………………………...……………………………………. 89 ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Description of participants for Experiment I …………………….……...………… 24
Table 2. Sight words used for each participant in Experiment I ………….……...………. 27
Table 3. Description of participants for Experiment II ……………………….……………53
Table 4. Sight words used for each participant in Experiment II ………………….……….56
Table 5. Novel stimuli used in the observational learning probes in Experiment II……… 57
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The experimental setting in Experiment I ……………………………………… 26
Figure 2. The datasheet used to access the presence of CR+ for observing book probes…. 33
Figure 3. The design sequence of the Experiment I ………………………………...……. 36
Figure 4. The number of learn units required to master sight words and the cumulative
correct responses emitted and trend lines before and after books functioned as
conditioned reinforcers across two dyads ……………...... ………...……...... 37
Figure 5. The cumulative duration the participants observed printed pictures and words
before and after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers for the
participants……….……….………...... …………41
Figure 6. The intervention data for the first dyad in Experiment I ……………………….. 42
Figure 7. The intervention data for the second dyad in Experiment I ………………….. 43
Figure 8. The number of whole five-second intervals participants looked at books across
pre- and post-observational conditioning procedure in Experiment I …………. 44
Figure 9. The experimental setting in Experiment II …………………………………...... 55
Figure 10. The design sequence of the Experiment II …………………………..……...... 59
Figure 11. The number of learn units required to master sight words and the cumulative
correct responses emitted and trend lines before and after books functioned as
conditioned reinforcers across three dyads ………….....……………..…...... 68
Figure 12. The number of correct discriminative remembering responses the participants
emitted during pre- and post- CR+ for observing books conditions...... 71
Figure 13. Participants’ degree of observational learning repertoires during pre-and post-
CR+ for observing books through the OCD……………………………….…… 72
iv
Figure 14. The number of target responses participants in the first dyad emitted during the
OCDI ……………………………………………………………...…………….74
Figure 15. The number of target responses participants in the second dyad emitted during
the OCDI ………………………….…………………………………….…...…. 75
Figure 16. The number of target responses participants in the third dyad emitted during the
OCDI ……………………………………………………………...... ……...…. 76
Figure 17. The number of whole five-second intervals participants looked at books during
five-minute observations across pre- and post-OCDI in Experiment II ..…....…. 77
v
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
Thank you would just be an understatement given how much supports I received throughout the whole process from my mentors, students, friends, and family.
To the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Greer, Dr. Dudek, Dr. Fienup, Dr.
Gautreaux, and Dr. DeQuinzio, thank you for sharing your knowledge and feedback that enriched the content of my dissertation. I was truly inspired to be discussing my research with you all!
Dr. Greer, thank you for a million chunks of learn units you gave me throughout the past five years. You show us what a lifetime researcher, educator, and mentor one can be. Your intelligence and insight have been truly exceptional. Having the opportunity to learn from you and continue to do so in the future is truly an honor. Dr. Dudek, thank you for teaching me the wonder of observational learning since I was a first-year master student. It was always so fun to show you the new data. This dissertation would not be possible without your support, guidance, and encouragement. Dr. Fienup, thank you for all the well-organized lectures and feedback you gave us. Because of you, I could spend hours on graphing data and still won’t feel tired of it.
Thank you also for the cheering up messages before the “big day.”
To my wonderful professors, Dr. Delgado, Dr. Jahromi, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Weber, thank you so much for the countless learn units you have given me. Dr. Delgado, I’ve always enjoyed taking your classes (including proctoring) so much! Having the opportunity to learn from you has been integral in my growth as a teacher and a mentor.
To my fabulous Keller family, Kate, Lin, Kim, Robin, and Jeanne, I would not survive this program without each and every one of you. Kate, thank you for being the best supervisor anyone can ask for. Thank you also for letting me sit in your office all the time with no particular
vi reason. Lin, you are the kindest and brightest person who supported me on so many different things in life. Thank you for raising the most amazing daughter (Lulu), who helped me to
"graduate every day." Robin and Jeanne, you are the most genuine, intelligent, and supportive bosses. Thank you for believing in me and always have my back. I consider the opportunity to learn directly from you as the most valuable experience of my professional career. Mrs. Kim
Johannes, there are no words to describe how lucky and grateful I am to work alongside with you for the past four years. Thank you for taking good care of the students when I was busy running data collection. Thank you also for making class 6, not just the cleanest but also the happiest classroom to work in.
To my extraordinary mentors, Lynn, Katherine, Bianca, Brittany, and Jessica, thank you for your inestimable guidance. To my first CABAS mentor, Lynn, thank you for introducing this amazing program and group of people to me. Looking back on my five years of CABAS journey, writing an academic paper has never been easy for me. However, I was so lucky to have you,
Katherine Garcia, as my first mentor, who taught me how to write technically. I cannot find the words to express how much it has meant to have you by my side throughout the Keller journey!
Jessica (Dr. Yoon), even though you never directly mentored me, I still consider you one of my mentors who trained Yifei so well, which also benefited me. Thank you also for sharing all your yummy recipes!
To my amazing mentees, Song, Patricia, Andi, Ellis, Hayley, Danielle, Cassandra, and
Rachel, thank you for teaching me how to be a better mentor and showing me how much love you have for those kiddos in class 6. I don't want to sound tacky, but it is my pleasure to mentor you-all brilliant ladies.
vii
To all of my beautiful and intelligent CABAS peeps, Aparna, Francis, Joanna, Lauren, and Yifei, this is a nerve-wracking yet surprisingly reinforcing journey we have all been through over the past five years. Thank you for making this journey full of laughter and precious memories. Dr. Lauren Baldonado, my long-lost twin sister, you are such a smart, sassy, and inspiring cat mom. I’m thankful that I get to be so close with you when I first came to the States.
Celebrating the birthday with you has been, and always will be, one of the highlights of the year!
Dr. Yifei Sun, there are no words to describe how grateful I am to be yoked with you for the past few years. Your genuineness and intelligence will be the goal I'm striving for in life. Thank you also for brainstorming with me, feeding me research idea, and being the best peer model. If you open your own school, I will co-run the school with you, I promise.
To the CABAS spouses, all these dissertations will not be possible without you trimming off the stress every day. James, you are one of the kindest people I know. I can always vicariously feel the love you have toward your cats and the cat mom. Nathan, even though I don't want to admit it, but you are definitely one of the smartest (almost as smart as Yifei) and rule- govern people in the group. Thank you for taking all the gentle punches from me to help me destress. Yichuan (Rob), having you in my life makes me feel like the luckiest guy in the world.
Although we are thousands of miles apart right now, I can still feel your love every day. I love you and I cannot wait for the day you come back to my arms.
The warmest thank you to my family who shows me what unconditional love really looks like. To my aunt, uncle, cousin Momo, sister, and brother, I know I don’t text or go home often, but my heart never part from you. Finally, Mom and Dad, thank you for all the trust and love you gave me that supports me to follow my dreams without any worries; for that, I am forever grateful.
viii
Lastly, to my preschoolers, who show me the purest joy, are playing with you, teaching you, and hugging you every day. You made my years of teaching full of never-ending laughter and joys. We are all heading toward the next chapter of our lives, and I know you are, and always will be, extraordinary.
ix
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Mei-Li Wang and Bao-An Chang.
Thank you-infinity much.
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCATION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Studies have shown there are vast individual differences in reading achievement starting in third grade, which have considerable implications for future academic and socioeconomic success (Hernandez, 2011; Ritchie & Bates, 2013). Reports from the Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) showed a decline or no measurable change in the U.S. overall average fourth-graders' reading score between 2011 and 2016 (Warner et al., 2016). Current data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) showed that 26% of America's fourth- graders and 22% of eighth-graders in 2019 did not demonstrate basic reading proficiency
(NCES, 2019). As such, the development of reading proficiency across different age groups has been a critical issue among educators. Young children who struggle in reading spend significantly less time in reading activities than their more proficient peers. As a result, children who find reading less interesting demonstrate significantly lower reading achievement and overall academic performance (Vaknin-Nusbaum et al., 2018).
Over the past decade, educators and researchers have focused on developing and enhancing children's reading-related skills as early as preschool. In terms of early reading skills,
Lonigan et al. (2011) outlined three major skills that children can develop during preschool, which include oral language, print knowledge, and phonemic awareness. These prerequisite skills are usually considered strong predictors of students’ later reading achievement (Snow et al., 2007). Furthermore, the ability to accurately decode words and to comprehend spoken language are highly associated with developing content knowledge, vocabulary, and reading fluency (Kamhi & Catts, 2012). In the Applied Behavior Analysis field, numerous studies have
1 examined the effects of various interventions, such as peer tutoring and Direct Instruction, to enhance individuals’ reading prerequisite skills (Kamps et al., 1994; Slocum, 2004). These interventions target one or more of the components of reading, including textual responding, reading fluency, and phonemic awareness.
Despite extensive research on teaching these reading prerequisite skills, the role of motivation or interest in reading has not received the attention it deserves. Early longitudinal studies have shown children who spend their leisure time reading have more print exposure; consequently, have significantly better performance on measures of reading achievement
(Anderson et al., 1988; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992). Recently, a positive correlation has been observed between positive attitudes toward reading and reading achievement (PIRLS,
2016). As Skinner stated, "We shouldn't teach great books; we should teach a love of reading.
Knowing the contents of a few words of literature is a trivial achievement. Being inclined to go on reading is a great achievement” (Evans, 1968, p. 73 quoted in Greer, 2020, p. 555). Educators should further develop effective strategies to teach the enjoyment of reading and investigate the relationship between the love of reading and reading achievement.
Review of Literature
Reading Readiness
Early reading skills have been closely related to future reading performance, social, and civic life. Children with poor academic performance in early grades have been found to be more likely to drop out of high school, have increased criminal activity and other negative outcomes
(Brown, 2013; Herman-Smith, 2013). Due to the foundational role reading skills play in children’s academic future, reading readiness and performance has been an ongoing national concern (Davoudzadeh et al., 2015). The National Educational Goals Panel (NEGP) set its first
2 goal of having all children in America ready for school by the year 2000. Recently, the results from NEGP reports showed that the goal was far from being met (Child Trends Data Bank,
2015). As such, educators sought to identify and analyze the primary issues that cause this school readiness gap (Drihas et al., 2017). In Hustedt and colleagues' (2017) study, school readiness
(i.e., when children are ready for kindergarten) can be described as a combination of the following skills: social skills, language skills, reading skills, and ability to follow directions and engage in given tasks. Additionally, reading readiness (i.e., ready to learn to read) plays a particularly critical role in school readiness when children transition to kindergarten (Hustedt et al., 2017). Thus, using effective and efficient methodologies to teach reading readiness skills has become a preeminent goal of the American education system.
The National Reading Panel (2000) was established for the purpose of evaluating existing research and evidence to navigate the best of teaching children to read. The Panel identified the following key components of effective reading instruction: 1) explicit phonics instruction, 2) systematic phonics instruction, 3) reading fluency, 4) expanding reading vocabulary, 5) accurate decoding, and 6) reading comprehension. However, the Panel failed to acknowledge the importance of reading motivation and engagement in developing reading readiness skills
(McGeown et al., 2015; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). McGeown et al. (2015) showed that participants who engaged in reading tasks gained a deeper understanding of the text, which indicates the motivation (or reinforcement value) aspect might be missing from poor readers. For young children who start to contact reading instruction, observing books should be an important component in increasing reading readiness (Buttigieg & Greer, 2021).
In early literacy research, reading readiness is associated with choosing to look at books at an early age (Hansen, 1969; Morrow, 1983). Baker and Wigfield (1999) further stated children
3 with more positive reading attitudes are more motivated to spend more time on reading activities; thus, they become better readers. Clearly, there is more to discover regarding the association between interest in reading and reading achievement. There is a growing body of research that shows that motivation or interest in reading accounts for significant variance in predicting reading outcomes beyond what has been explained by academic and cognitive skills (Retelsdorf et al., 2011; Toste et al., 2020).
Interests and Reading
The level of an individual’s interest has repeatedly been found to be associated with learning outcomes. Specifically, various educational research studies identified the effect of interest on maintaining students’ attention (Renninger & Wozniak, 1985), mathematics and science learning (Renninger et al., Hidi, 2015), and reading readiness (DeNaeghel et al., 2012).
However, even though interest has been recognized as a powerful predictor in learning, psychology does not have a universal construct of “motivation,” “preference,” or “interest.”
Building upon cognitive psychological constructs, Renninger (2000) proposed a four-phase model of interest development.
Four-phase model of interest development.
Renninger et al. (2015) defined interest as a motivational variable, referring to the psychological state of engaging with particular classes of objects, activities, or ideas over time.
The four-phase model of interest development builds on and extends empirical studies of interest and learning (Krapp, 2002). Krapp (2002) stated two types of interest had been the primary focus of cognitive psychological research to date: situational and maintained interest. Both situational and individual interest consists of two phases (i.e., four-phase model). The model describes four phases in the development and deepening of learner interest, which includes triggered situational
4 interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest. The four-phase model describes early phases of interest development as primarily consisting of focused attention and positive feelings. In contrast, individual interest consists of positive feelings as well as stored value and repeated engagement (Renninger, 2000).
Triggered situational interest refers to a psychological state of interest that results from short-term changes in affective and cognitive processing (Hidi & Baird, 1986). In this stage, an individual may attend to stimuli for a short period of time due to environmental features (e.g., personal relevance). Maintained situational interest refers to a psychological state of interest that is subsequent to a triggered state, involves extensive focused attention, and “persistence over an extended episode in time, and/or reoccurs and again persists.” (Renninger et al., 2015, p. 114).
Interest occurs when the individual reengages with the stimuli with additional prompting at this stage. For example, individuals engage with looking at books without additional prompting; they enter the emerging individual interest phase.
Emerging individual interest refers to a psychological state in which the individual seeks repeated reengagement with particular stimuli. Individuals begin to generate their own
"curiosity” questions about the stimuli regularly. Once the individual can "persevere through frustration and challenge order to meet goals" (p. 115), the individual enters the final phase of interest development- well-developed interest. In other words, a student with well-developed individual interest will persevere in working, or address a question, even in the face of frustration
(Hidi, 2006). Building upon the four-phase model of interest development framework, there is growing evidence that shows interests in reading and reading achievement are highly associated
(Conlon et al., 2006; Kaniuka, 2010; Retelsdorf et al., 2011; Taboada et al., 2009).
5
Despite extensive research on interests in reading and reading achievement, there is no empirical measure in cognitive psychology of how to determine whether the enjoyment of reading is established nor how to establish it. For example, researchers commonly used the
Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) to assess students’ reading motivation, which found there is “a lack of support for the proposed structure of it.”
(Watkins & Coffey, 2004, p. 116). Other assessment tools researchers used to measure reading attitude included Motivations to Read Profile (Gambrell et al., 1996) and Reading Motivation
Questionnaire for Elementary Students (Stutz et al., 2017). However, these assessments are mainly based on self-determination theory, which lacks a consistent theoretical construct
(DeNaeghel et al., 2012). Evidently, a more scientific perspective is necessary for measuring and establishing interest in reading.
In order to rectify this situation, researchers in the science of behavior built on and extended the applicability of the principles of behavior that provide a means to directly measure and establish the motivation to read as a sequence of learned reinforcers for (a) learning to read
(Tsai & Greer, 2006) and (b) reinforcement for reading content (Gentilini & Greer, 2020, 2021)
For example, when reading books selects out children’s attention among other activities and becomes a preferred activity during a period of free-play time, behavioral scientists consider observing books as a conditioned reinforcer. In other words, this moment-to-moment selection is controlled by the reinforcement value of the stimuli (Greer, 2020). Recent empirical research on reading readiness also found the association between the conditioned reinforcement value for looking at print and other book stimuli and faster learning of phonemic competency (Bly &
Greer, 2019; Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Gentilini & Greer, 2020).
6
Conditioned Reinforcement
The principle of conditioned reinforcement, as an area of research worthy of investigation, received much attention between 1940 to 1960 from psychologists and behavioral scientists (Williams, 1994). Since the 1960s, however, there was a significant decline in the research in conditioned reinforcement. Williams (1994) proposed three reasons why conditioned reinforcement fell out of favor. The first possible explanation for the decline is that researchers had conducted extensive research on the concept such that conditioned reinforcement was seen as fully understood. Second, there was a rising interest in cognitive rather than behavioral interpretations of animal learning. Third, there has been disagreement and debate within the behavioral sciences about the validity of the conditioned reinforcement concept as an explanatory tool (Williams, 1994). New interest surfaced after 1960, when conditioned reinforcement was tested in applied settings with token economies (Kazdin & Bootzin, 1972).
Most of the studies reviewed the effects of conditioned tokens as reinforcers on increasing performance-based responses, such as rate of studying, improving on-task behavior, and class participation (Birnbrauer et al., 1965; Staats et al., 1962; Wolf et al., 1968). Starting in the 1980s, researchers who study conditioned reinforcement have shifted their focus to other socially and educationally significant application, such as conditioned music, toys, and vocal-verbal behavior
(Greer et al., 1991; Greer et al., 1980; Sundberg et al., 1996; Nuzzolo-Gomez et al., 2002). In recent years, research leveraging Verbal Behavior Developmental Theory (VBDT) has demonstrated that conditioned reinforcement is the foundational basis for humans to develop more complex behavior (Greer & Du, 2015; Greer, 2020).
7
Conditioned Reinforcement and Early Observing Responses
Greer and colleagues extended Skinner’s work in Verbal Behavior (1957) to the verbal behavior development trajectory, including studies on the environmental controls and conditioned reinforcement that lead to the establishment of verbal behavior repertoires (Greer &
Keohane, 2005; Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009). For example, several studies have identified that a number of early observing responses emerge as a function of conditioned reinforcement, and these early observing responses are the foundations of other verbal behavior development milestones (Pohl et al., 2018). Skinner (1957) characterized an observing response as "an operant behavior selected out by the consequences of that which is observed" (p. 199).
Keohane et al. (2009) argued that the foundations for early verbal behavior development consisted of various observing responses, which include looking, listening, tasting, smelling, and touching.
Children who lack these conditioned reinforcers for observing responses will have difficulties in learning more complex skills (e.g., language acquisition). As such, they suggest those early observing responses should be considered verbal behavior developmental cusps, which have been identified through various basic and applied research (Greer et al., 2009;
Keohane et al., 2008; Maffei et al., 2014). Specifically, researchers have found associations between children's instructional histories and developmental milestones (e.g., walking, looking, or talking), and the children could contact new reinforcement or learn faster with the onset of these milestones.
Rosales-Ruiz and Baer (1997) introduced the notion that behavioral developmental cusps allow children to contact new reinforcers and contingencies in their environment; thus, the children can learn new operants that they could not learn before (Greer & Keohane, 2005).
8
According to VBDT, there are several pre-verbal foundational cusps. Conditioned reinforcement for observing adults’ voices is considered to be the first and earliest developmental millstones that allows individuals to contact reinforcement by listening at his or her mother’s voice (Maffei et al., 2014). Research have also shown that observing other human faces improves speech production and functional communication skills (Massaro & Bosseler, 2006).
However, many individuals who are classified with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or communicative disorders usually lack the observing responses for human faces and voices. Thus, these individuals cannot contact reinforcement from the presence of other individuals in the environment; consequently, opportunities for learning new operant are limited. Maffei et al.
(2014) used a conjugate stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure to establish conditioned reinforcement for observing human faces and voices for participants with ASD. Results showed all participants demonstrated a faster rate of learning on acquiring listener and speaker responses
(e.g., following vocal direction) once the cusp was present. Results from other studies also showed establishing reinforcement for observing responses are essential prerequisites for learning higher-order operant skills, such reading and writing.
Foundational Verbal Behavior Developmental Cusps for Reading
In a typical early education setting, visual stimuli (i.e., two and three-dimensional materials) have been widely used in teaching, including children with disabilities. For some children with disabilities, conditioned reinforcement for observing specific types of environmental or instructional stimuli has been identified as missing (Keohane et al., 2009).
When children do not attend to specific visual stimuli, it is difficult to assess their current repertoires reliably and to provide an appropriate individualized education plan. Subsequently, the rate of progress toward achieving academic and social goals can be slow and impeding. In
9 short, in order for learning to occur, an individual must attend to the specific characteristics of visual stimuli (Longano & Greer, 2015). Du et al. (2014) conducted an experiment in which they used a three-dimensional tracking protocol to condition one type of observing response (i.e., visual tracking) for four preschoolers with disabilities. The stimuli they used included letters, numbers, and common shapes, and the results demonstrated all four participants had increased skills for matching non-identical objects and pictures, as well as pictures to objects. Speckman et al. (2017) applied the same visual tracking on increasing generalized matching responses (i.e., non-identical stimuli), and the results showed a significant increase in the number of correct matching responses (i.e., 3D matching).
Studies on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing new stimuli (i.e., toys, 3D, and 2D stimuli) showed once the stimuli were conditioned as reinforcers, they became a part of children's environment. Subsequently, individuals could contact new contingencies when their community of reinforcers was expanded. These findings described above suggest that establishing reinforcement for observing various instructional stimuli has a positive effect on children’s learning outcomes. As such, researchers continued to investigate the effects of conditioned reinforcement for educationally significant stimuli (e.g., books, reading, math, and writing) on children’s rate of acquisition on related skills.
Conditioned Reinforcement and Educationally Significant Stimuli
When children's “interest” in an academic task increases, there are collateral effects on corresponding learning outcomes (Greer, 2020). For example, children’s reading interest is a strong indicator of their reading achievement in the future. Gentilini and Greer (2020) posited that when teaching a child to read, educators must consider the reinforcing value of reading.
However, looking at books or reading their content is not an automatic reinforcer to children;
10 instead, they become conditioned as reinforcers when observing book stimuli is reinforced by appropriate consequences or simultaneous pairings. Several research studies on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for academic content have shown some positive effects on children’s academic performance across different domains, such as writing, mathematics, and reading.
Conditioned reinforcement for writing tasks.
In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lee (2016) investigated if writing activities could be conditioned as reinforcers for second-grade students with a low preference for writing and/or a long instructional history of aversion to writing. In two experiments, the experimenter tested the effects of a social condition on indirect reinforcement for performance and learning tasks.
The experimenter also investigated if the social condition could be identified as a socially appropriate intervention for conditioning new reinforcers. It is both evolutionarily and socially advantageous to modify one's behavior through observation. The social condition consisted of observational and denial procedures utilized in previous research (Greer et al., 2009; Singer-
Dudek et al., 2008; O'Rourke, 2006; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011). Throughout the intervention, both participants and peer confederates were given a performance (e.g., previously mastered) task that involved 20 trial opportunities of following simple vocal directions using books (e.g., find me a book with a boy on the cover). The confederates' correct responses were reinforced with access to various writing prompts while the experimenter denied participants access to writing and required them to observe peer confederates engage in turn-taking writing activities.
The experimenter non-systematically interspersed five tasks within the 20-trial sessions. During the reinforcement period, confederates alternated writing a sentence for two turns each while the target participants observed; access to writing for the participants was denied throughout the
11 entire social condition, and no other form of reinforcement was provided to the target participants.
Following the social condition, all participants demonstrated increases across measures of direct reinforcement for writing and indirect reinforcement for writing. Lee (2016) defined direct reinforcement for writing as writing automatically and intrinsically reinforcing the participant’s writing behavior without extra contingencies; whereas, the indirect reinforcement for writing changed participants’ performance or learning behaviors when opportunities to write were delivered as consequences for responding. For measures of indirect reinforcement for performance tasks, two participants demonstrated increases following the intervention.
Furthermore, results demonstrated an increase in the number of words and characters emitted by all four participants following the social intervention condition.
Conditioned reinforcement for math activities.
In a recent unpublished dissertation, Maurilus (2018) conducted two experiments to test the effects of the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for math activities on the rate of learning math objectives. In the first experiment, the experimenter wanted to investigate whether the reinforcing value of math activities would increase following the implementation of empirically-tested procedures. The experimenter used three conditioning procedures, depending on the participant, to increase the reinforcing value of math activities. The conditioning procedures included operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938), stimulus-stimulus pairing (Sundberg et al., 1996), and observational conditioning-by-denial (Greer & Singer-Dudek, 2008). In the first experiment, two participants acquired the reinforcement value of math after operant conditioning while two participants acquired the reinforcement value following the stimulus- stimulus pairing procedure using the pair/test procedure. None of the participants needed the
12 observational conditioning-by-denial intervention. The results of the first experiment demonstrated that conditioned reinforcement for math could be established in young children
(Maurilus, 2018). In the second experiment, the experimenter tested the effects of conditioned reinforcement for math on the rate of learning. The rate of learning was measured by the number of learn units to meet the objective across four units of a math curriculum. Then identical intervention sessions were delivered. Once the participant acquired conditioned reinforcement for math, a post intervention probe was conducted. The results demonstrated a significant increase in participants’ rate of learning on math objective after they acquired math as a conditioned reinforcer across all participants (Maurilus, 2018).
Conditioned reinforcement for reading content.
Greer and colleagues conducted a series of studies aimed to examine the association between reading engagement and reading achievement (Bly & Greer, 2021; Gentilini & Greer,
2020; Moore, 2017). Moore (2017) used a peer-collaborative reading intervention to increase the reinforcement value of reading for fifth graders who demonstrated below grade-level performance in reading and comprehension skills. The experimenter embedded the following four components within the peer-collaborative intervention: 1) reciprocal or shared reading, 2) selection of a reinforcing textual stimuli task and sharing, 3) independent reading to test increases in reinforcement value and 4) a comprehension drawing task where each participant drew the content they read. Following the intervention, the experimenter reported an increase in participants’ reading comprehension scores within a short period of time. Bly and Greer (2019) applied the same peer-collaborative reading procedure with fourth graders who were slightly below grade-level in reading, and the results showed all participants demonstrated higher reading comprehension scores after the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for reading. Gentilini
13 and Greer (2020) tested the same peer-collaborative reading procedure with second grade students. Following a maximum of nine intervention sessions (412 min), the results showed a functional relation between the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing reading content and increases in grade-level reading skills (i.e., reading comprehension and vocabulary).
Bly and Greer (2021) extended previous findings on conditioned reinforcement for reading studies by comparing the effects of collaborative independent reading (CIR) and collaborative shared reading (CSR) on establishing conditioned reinforcement for reading.
Results demonstrated that all participants who went through CIR acquired conditioned reinforcement for reading, and those participants also made greater increases in reading achievement assessments. Taken together, these findings described above demonstrated that
“interest in reading” is a primary predictor of increases in reading achievement. Results from these studies also suggest that it is not enough to learn the structure of reading; a child must learn to enjoy reading in order to derive more advanced reading comprehension and vocabulary skills.
However, none of the strategies will be applicable if the children are not observing printed stimuli, especially for younger children who are just starting to learn to read. Changing their preference toward book stimuli should be the first step (Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Tsai & Greer,
2006).
Conditioned reinforcement for observing books.
Early literacy theories and research suggested that developing independent book observation is a strong indicator of children’s subsequent reading repertoire (Holdaway, 1990).
Neuman (1999) found developing positive literacy experiences for preschoolers could enhance children’s concept of print and letter name knowledge significantly when the children had free access to books and received encouragement from adults. Early correlational studies indicate that
14 children's preference toward books is highly associated with their vocabulary skill (Connor,
1954; Fractor et al., 1993; Morrow & Weinstein, 1986). In a more recent meta-analysis on voluntary reading and reading achievement across infancy to early adulthood, Mol and Bus
(2011) found children who read in their leisure time are more proficient in reading comprehension and technical reading skills because they receive more exposure of print stimuli
(e.g., words). Additionally, these voluntary readers’ reading and spelling skills improved significantly with each year of education. The results of the meta-analysis also showed a moderate association of print exposure with academic achievement, suggesting that children who read books frequently during independent free-time are more successful in academic performance.
Research from a verbal behavior perspective had also demonstrated students with and without developmental delays learned textual responding faster when books functioned as conditioned reinforcers (Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Tsai & Greer, 2006). Tsai and Greer (2006) used a behavioral approach to empirically measure four preschool children’s preference for looking at books in free-play settings. The children had access to various toys, games, and books in the free-play settings, but none of them chose to observe book stimuli during the observation.
Subsequently, the experimenters used a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure to condition observing books as a preferred activity for the four participants. The experimenters also measured the participants’ rate of learning on new textual responses before and after the establishment of preference for books. Results showed that when observing books was conditioned as a preferred activity for the participants, the number of instructional sessions needed for the student to acquire textual responses to printed words decreased.
15
Buttigieg and Greer (2021) tested the effects of the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing books (CR+ for observing books) on the rate of learning of sight words for 16 preschoolers. Three conditioning procedures were used to establish books as reinforcers, which included operant positive reinforcers, stimulus-stimulus pairing, and a peer observation conditioning procedure. The experimenters first used operant conditioning procedure to condition observing books as reinforcement. If the participants did not acquire CR+ for observing books following the operant conditioning, the experimenters then applied stimulus- stimulus pairing procedure to condition book stimuli. Finally, the participants underwent the peer observation procedure if they did not meet the predetermined criterion for having books as conditioned reinforcers after the implementation of operant conditioning and stimulus-stimulus pairing procedures.
Results showed the establishment of preference for books functioned to accelerate participants’ rate of learning of textual responses (i.e., sight words). Specifically, after looking at books functioned as conditioned reinforcement for the participants, they learned to textually respond to sight words three times faster on average. As such, Buttigieg and Greer (2021) argued that conditioned reinforcement for observing books is an empirical definition of reading readiness for young children who are learning to read their first words.
Conditioned Reinforcement through Observation
Among the three conditioning procedures used in the past behavior analytic studies on conditioning new stimuli, operant conditioning and stimulus-stimulus pairing procedures were widely implemented (Greer & Han, 2015; Keohane, Pereira-Delgado, & Greer, 2009; Williams,
1994), but the observational conditioning procedure did not receive much attention until the 21st century. Greer et al. (2006) described how Godin and Dugatkin (1996) identified that female
16 guppies alter their behavior upon observation of others. In their study, female guppies mated with male guppies that had bold coloring prior to the observation. However, more female guppies tended to mate with male guppies with dull coloring after observing other female guppies mate with dull-colored male guppies. These findings were first viewed as copying behavior by epigenetic researchers, while later Greer argues that what changed is in the reinforcement value, not the behavior (Greer et al., 2006). Greer et al. (2006) described three different types of observational learning, which include 1) observational performance or the emission of previously learned operants, 2) observational learning or the acquisition of new operants, and 3) conditioning neutral stimuli as reinforcers through denial (i.e., observation).
A majority of studies have examined the effects of observational learning on various performance and learning behaviors; however, few studies have focused on how observational learning changes the reinforcement value of neutral stimuli. Greer et al. (1991) used an observing procedure (i.e., at the time was described as vicarious reinforcement) to establish swallowing food for a boy who could imitate and emulate the behavior of his sister in the first study. During the intervention, the participant observed his sister consume food, and adults provided praise and a generalized reinforcer (i.e., tokens) to his sister. Following a series of intervention sessions, the target participant started to swallow food without the presence of his sister. In the second study, a male participant who was reported to eat very little food underwent a similar intervention but the experimenter removed the generalized reinforcer from the intervention. The result showed the participant continued to eat without further intervention. The initial interpretation of the effect was thought to be an establishing operation, while the researcher made a different conclusion after years of research on observation. Specifically, Greer (2020) attributed this procedure to an observational conditioning-by-denial combined with vicarious reinforcement.
17
In an attempt to isolate the controlling variables for Greer et al. (1991) study, Greer and
Singer-Dudek (2008) tested the effects of an observational conditioning procedure (i.e., observational conditioning-by-denial) on conditioning neutral stimuli as reinforcers under three different conditions across performance tasks and learning tasks for six preschoolers with disabilities. During the intervention, the participants were asked to complete a task where the participant could not get access to any form of reinforcement while observing the peer confederate receive the neutral stimuli (string or disc) consistently. Unlike the Greer et al. (1991) study, the peer confederate did not receive reinforcement from the experimenter because the experimenters sought to isolate the denial component within the intervention. The post- intervention sessions were conducted after the participant met one of the pre-determined criteria for the observational conditioning procedure. The results showed the neutral stimuli functioned as conditioned reinforcers for both performance and acquisition tasks across all participants.
Singer-Dudek et al. (2008) conducted a follow-up study and examined the role of the experimenter who did not have any instructional history with the participants. The results demonstrated that the correct responses during the observational conditioning procedure did not decrease even though the experimenter was an unfamiliar adult; that is, the observational conditioning procedure was still effective in conditioning neutral stimuli as reinforcers despite the person who delivered the stimuli. Zrinzo and Greer (2013) further eliminated the role of experimenter by testing the absence of the adult experimenter during the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure. During the procedure, a mechanical device delivered neutral stimuli to a peer confederate while the participants were denied access to the neutral stimuli; thus, the researchers isolated the potential reinforcing effects of the adults. The results demonstrated that the stimuli became conditioned reinforcers in the absence of the experimenter,
18 which highlighted that the denial component has a critical role in establishing neutral stimuli as conditioned reinforcers. In addition to the role of adults, Singer-Dudek and Oblak (2013) conducted two interventions to isolate the effects of the peers during the observational conditioning-by-denial intervention (OCDI). In the first intervention, the participants sat next to an empty chair, and the experimenters delivered the neutral stimuli into a cup in front of the empty chair while the participants were denied access to those stimuli. Following the first intervention, the neutral stimuli did not function as conditioned reinforcers for the participants.
In the second intervention, the OCDI was identical to the first intervention, except that the participants were sitting next to unfamiliar peers. The results showed the neutral stimuli functioned as conditioned reinforcers for the participants following the second intervention, suggesting that the presence of a peer affects the effectiveness of OCDI on conditioning neutral stimuli.
Katz (2017) tested the effects of an observational conditioning procedure on conditioning neutral stimuli as reinforcers for nine elementary-aged (10 to 12 years of age) students. The experimenter used token economies to measure the reinforcement value of the neutral stimuli prior to and following the intervention. During the intervention, three participants (two peers and one recipient) were asked to perform an academic task, while only the recipient received the neutral stimuli as consequences. Results showed the reinforcing value of the neutral stimuli increased across all three recipients and five peers, even though the recipients did not directly experience the deprivation operation. The results highlighted the fact that the reinforcement value of neutral stimuli still increased for the recipients because they observed the peers were denied access to the neutral stimuli.
19
The studies reported above examined the effects of the observational conditioning-by- denial procedure on basic science, while other researchers in the verbal behavior development field applied the same conditioning procedure to establish educationally significant stimuli, such as adults’ attention (Greer et al., 2008; Schmelzkopf et al., 2017), writing tasks (Lee, 2016), and math activities (Maurilus, 2018) as reinforcers. Thus, they provided an additional way to expand the community of reinforcers for students and enhanced students’ related academic gains.
However, studies on the effects of the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure on conditioning books as reinforcers showed some limitations.
Singer-Dudek et al. (2011) applied the same procedure to establish books as conditioned reinforcers for preschool children. During the intervention, the participants and a peer confederate were asked to perform the same task and the participants observed the peer confederate receive books contingent on correct responses but they received nothing for either correct or incorrect responses. Following the intervention, the books functioned as generalized reinforcers (e.g., tokens) that could reinforce both maintenance and acquisition tasks across all participants. It is noted that the experimenters also demonstrated books were conditioned as reinforcers when the participants selected books during the free-play area probes, which shows the direct reinforcement value of observing books. However, the experimenters did not test whether the participants demonstrated would lead to faster acquisition of textual responding, as shown by Tsai and Greer (2006).
In terms of the procedures used to condition observing books as a preferred activity,
Buttigieg and Greer (2021) noted that it is unclear which of the three procedures (i.e., operant conditioning, stimulus-stimulus pairing, and observational conditioning-by-denial) was most effective. In detail, four participants acquired CR+ for observing books following the operant
20 conditioning procedure, 11 participants demonstrated CR+ for observing books after the stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure, and only one participant required the observational conditioning to establish CR+ for observing books. The results indicate that the efficacy of the procedures could depend on each individual’s repertoires and reinforcement history.
Rationale for Experiment I
Conditioned reinforcement for observing books has been repeatedly shown to have positive effects on children’s learning outcomes. However, most of the conditioning procedures in the past studies were implemented to one participant at a time, even for students in integrated classroom settings. In the Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling
(CABAS○R https://www.cabasschools.org) model schools, providing the most cost-beneficial and effective techniques to teach has been one of the top priorities in holding schools accountable for their spending (Greenberg & Martinez, 2008; Greer, 2002). For students who have an observational performance repertoire, one of the frequently used tactics to redirect their behavior in the regular CABAS classroom is vicarious reinforcement (Greer, 2002).
Vicarious reinforcement occurs when individuals observe another person responds in a certain way and experience a consequence (e.g., reinforcement or punishment), the individuals emit the same response as a result of the observation. The tactic had been used to increase attentive behavior in the classroom (Kazdin, 1973), decrease non-compliance behavior (Kazdin,
1981), and condition neutral stimuli as generalized reinforcers (Arenson, 1976). Therefore, in the case of providing a more efficient treatment and simulating the classroom environment, the experimenter implemented a vicarious reinforcement procedure and tested the effects on establishing conditioned reinforcement for observing books for preschoolers with and without disabilities.
21
Results from past literature on CR+ for observing books showed the participants demonstrated a faster rate of acquisition for learning new words (Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Tsai
& Greer; 2006); thus, the experimenter sought to examine whether the participants in the present study could demonstrate the same outcome. Finally, the experimenter sought to investigate whether the participant would spend a longer duration observing the textual stimuli (e.g., pictures and words) related to books after the presence of CR+ for observing books.
Research Questions for Experiment I
The purpose of the first experiment addressed the following research questions: 1) Can we establish books as preferred items for two participants at the same time using a vicarious reinforcement procedure? 2) Is there a difference in participants’ rate of acquisition of textual responses after book stimuli functioned as reinforcers? 3) Is there a difference in duration of participants observing printed words after books are conditioned as reinforcers?
22
CHAPTER II
EXPERIMENT I
Method
Participants
The experimenter selected four participants from a Comprehensive Application of
Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS®) model school that used a behavior analytic approach to all pedagogical practices (https://www.cabasschools.org). All students’ skills and repertoires were assessed using the Early Learner Curriculum and Achievement Record: A CABAS®
Developmental Inventory (ELCAR; Greer et al., 2019). Table 1 provides details of each participant.
The participants were selected because books did not function as conditioned reinforcers for them based on the ELCAR results. That is, reading books was not a preferred activity for all the participants. The results of the ELCAR also showed that all of the participants had the following essential verbal behavior developmental cusps prior to the study, which included all preverbal foundational cups (i.e., conditioned reinforcement for observing adults faces/voices,
2D and 3D stimuli, generalized imitation), listener and speaker cusps (i.e., listener literacy and independent mand/tacts), and observational performance repertoires. That is, the participants could attend to adults’ faces when given vocal directions and they could express their needs and wants using simple sentences (e.g., I want ___ too). They could also attend to two-dimensional and three-dimensional stimuli independently.
The experimenter matched all the participants into dyads based on the number of verbal behavior cusps they had, their reading level, and their rate of learning textual responses. In detail,
Max and Nick were paired as the first dyad while Emma and Scott were paired into the second
23
dyad. In addition, a peer confederate who had demonstrated conditioned reinforcement for
observing books and could textually respond to beginning first-grade level (i.e., level D in
Reading A through Z) books participated in the first experiment.
Table 1
Description of Participants of Experiment I
Educational Relevant Cusps and Dyad Participant Age Reading Level Classification Capabilities
- All pre-verbal foundational Reading A-Z: Preschooler with cusps First Max 4.2 - Listener literacy level C a disability - Independent mand and tact - Observational performance DRA: 4 - Audience control - All pre-verbal foundational Reading A-Z: Preschooler with cusps First Nick 4.5 - Listener literacy level C a disability - Independent mand and tact - Observational performance DRA: 3 - Audience control - All pre-verbal foundational Reading A-Z: cusps Second Emma 4.0 N/A - Listener literacy level A - Independent mand and tact - Observational performance DRA: A-1 - Audience control
- All pre-verbal foundational Reading A-Z: Preschooler with cusps Second Scott 4.7 - Listener literacy level A a disability - Independent mand and tact - Observational performance DRA: A-1 - Audience control
Note. The cusps and capabilities listed above are derived from the Early Learner Curriculum and Achievement Record, which indicates the prerequisites required for the first experiment. The reading level is the result of a direct assessment from the Reading A-Z curriculum in which a
24 correlation chart also showed participants’ corresponding DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) levels.
Setting
All probe and intervention sessions took place in a CABAS® preschool integrated classroom. The classroom included 15 child-sized tables and plastic child-sized chairs used for instruction. During all probe sessions, the participant sat facing the experimenter at one of the child-sized tables, while other students were receiving instruction from other adults in the same classroom. This arrangement was a typical set-up in the classroom.
During the sight word instruction, all participants were taught in a one-to-one setting, but the probe sessions for conditioned reinforcement for observing books (CR+ for observing books) and duration of observing printed words and pictures were collected in an isolated classroom with the doors shut so that the rest of the students could not interfere with the participants’ responding. During the vicarious reinforcement procedure (i.e., intervention), two participants in the same dyad sat next to each other while a peer confederate sat at the opposite side of the table and the experimenter sat in between the peer confederate and the participants. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of the intervention sessions.
25
Figure 1
The experimental setting where the intervention took place in Experiment I.
Materials
The stimuli used in the probe sessions included Reading A through Z- level E books, mini
Legos®, wooden blocks, and puzzles. The experimenter selected the books from the Reading A through Z curriculum because it was one of the commonly used reading materials in the participants’ classroom; additionally, the curriculum provides books across various topics and reading levels. The sight words used in the experiment were selected from the kindergarten and first graded Dolch sight words list. The experimenter used Microsoft Office PowerPoint on a
MacBook Pro computer with 33.0 cm display to present the sight words during the instruction.
Table 2 lists each word used for each participant in Experiment I.
For one of the dependent variables (i.e., observing printed words), the experimenter also used five 20cm x 28cm laminated sheets of paper with 15 pictures of two-dimensional stimuli and five 20cm x 28cm laminated sheets of paper with 15 novel printed words and pseudo-words.
26
The experimenter also required the following materials in the first experiment: clipboards, pens, datasheets, timers, and 20-learn unit graphs.
Table 2
Sight Words used for each participant in Experiment I
Participant Pre-CR+ for observing books Post-CR+ for observing books Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 Set 7 Set 8 After Put Again Give Ask Let May Her Could Buy Going Has Him From Fly Some Max Had Every His Round Open How Just Walk Old Know Once Thank Stop Live Some Talk Were Over Them When Then Think Walk Have
Ask Let May Her After Put Again Give Him From Fly Some Could Buy Going Has Nick Open How Just Walk Had Every His Round Stop Live Some Talk Old Know Once Thank Then Think Walk Have Were Over Them When
All Am Be Brown But Are Did Ate Black Came Into Have Eat Four Ride Good Emma Get Must Soon Not Now New She Please Out Pretty White Our Saw There Want So They Well Ran Too Will With Yes What
But Are Did Ate All Am Be Brown Eat Four Ride Good Black Came Into Have Scott Now New She Please Get Must Soon Not Saw There Want So Out Pretty White Our Will With Yes What They Well Ran Too Note. All the sight words used in the first experiment were selected from the Dolch Sight Words list consists of 96 frequently occurring words in children’s books across grade level, ranging from kindergarten to first grade.
Dependent Variables
The experimenter measured participants’ rate of learning of sight words and duration that the participants observed printed pictures and words before and after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers.
27
Rate of learning on new textual responses
The experimenter measured the numbers of learn units to criterion (LUC; Albers &
Greer, 1991; Greer & McDonough, 1999) the participants required to master 20 new sight words before and after books were established as conditioned reinforcers. In detail, the experimenter divided 20 sight words into four short-term objectives (i.e., 5 words per objective), and the experimenter taught each objective to mastery (i.e., criterion level). The criterion for each objective was set at 90% accuracy (18/20) or above in one session. The experimenter totaled the cumulative number of learn units the participants received to master each set, and the total number of learn units signified each participant’s rate of learning textual responses. It is noted that the experimenter used sight words as the target textual responses because most of these words cannot be decoded so that we could eliminate possible interference in experimental control.
During the sight word instruction, the correct response was defined as the participants textually responding to each corresponding word correctly, while the incorrect response was defined as textually responding to each corresponding word incorrectly or no response within 3s.
The correct responses were followed by the delivery of social praise. Incorrect responses were followed by a correction procedure, during which experimenters presented the antecedent again, modeled the correct response, and participants were required to repeat the correct response accordingly. Then the experimenter re-presented the antecedent and provided another independent opportunity for participants to respond. The corrected responses were not reinforced.
28
Observing printed words and pictures
The experimenter measured the cumulative duration the participants observed five different 20cm x 28cm pages of 15 novel printed words and five different 20cm x 28cm pages of
15 two-dimensional pictures of known stimuli in pre- and post-CR+ for observing books sessions. It should be noted that the words printed on the pages were not taught during the sight word instruction. The probes were conducted in the same fashion as the probes for observing two-dimensional printed stimuli specified in Keohane et al. (2009). The experimenter presented the ten pages one at a time, alternating between pages of words and pages with pictures. The target behavior during the observing printed words and pictures probe sessions was defined as looking at the pictures or words with eyes moving or finger pointing for more than 1 s. The experimenter timed the duration that the participants looked at each page, and the experimenter stopped the timer when the participants looked away from the page for 3s. At the end of each probe session, the experimenter totaled the cumulative duration the participants observed the pages with words and the cumulative duration the participants observed the pictures.
Data Collection Procedure for Dependent Variables
During the sight word instruction, the experimenter measured the number of learn units
(i.e., instructional trials) the participant required to master all 20 sight words (i.e., divided in to four short-term objectives) before and after books were conditioned as reinforcers. The experimenter presented one word at a time to the participants without any vocal antecedent. Each short-term objective consisted of five words, and the experimenter presented each word four times in one session. The correct responses were followed by the delivery of social praise (e.g.,
“Good job!”). Incorrect responses were followed by a correction procedure, during which experimenters presented the antecedent again, modeled the correct response, and participants
29 were required to repeat the correct response accordingly. The experimenter recorded a plus (+) for correct responses and a minus (-) if the participant emitted any incorrect responses during the instructional trails. When the participant met mastery criterion (i.e., 90% or above accuracy for one session) on each short-term objective, the experimenter introduced the next short-term objective until the participants met criterion on all four objectives.
During the observing printed words and picture probes, the experimenter measured the cumulative duration the participants observed five pages of 15 novel printed words, and five pages of 15 two-dimensional pictures. In the beginning of each session, the experimenter presented one page at a time, and the experimenter alternated between pages with words and pages with pictures until the experimenter presented all 10 pages to the participants. The experimenter timed the duration that the participants looked at each page, and the experimenter stopped the timer when the participants looked away from the page for 3s. The experimenter totaled the cumulative duration the participants observed the pages with words, and the cumulative duration the participants observed the pictures. The experimenter reported the total duration in seconds for each probe session.
Independent Variable
The independent variable in the first experiment was the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing books. To determine the presence of CR+ for observing books, the experimenter conducted 5-min probe sessions on a table-top setting. Specifically, the experimenter used 5-s whole interval recording to determine if books functioned as reinforcers in a table-top activity setting. During the CR+ for observing books probes, three different stimuli were placed on the table (i.e., puzzles, Legos®, and Reading A through Z Level E books), and the participants had free access to every item on the table. Additionally, the experimenter rotated
30 position of the stimuli on the table across the probe sessions. For example, the position of the book stimuli was not always at the closest reach for the participant in each probe session. The target response was defined as the participant observing the book stimuli (e.g., looking at the picture or words in the book) for the entire 5-s interval without emitting any stereotypy or other behaviors. The passivity was defined as not looking at, touching, or searching for any item on the table, and the stereotypy was defined as any non-functional behavior (e.g., hand-flapping, making nonsensical vocal noise) that was maintained by automatic reinforcement. If the participants emitted any stereotypy or they played with other toys on the table within the 5-s interval, the experimenter counted the response as a non-target response. The criterion for the establishment of CR+ for observing books was set at 80% of 5-s intervals across two consecutive sessions (i.e., 48 out of 60 intervals).
Vicarious reinforcement procedure
The experimenter used a vicarious reinforcement procedure to establish books as conditioned reinforcers for the participants. In detail, the experimenter used a fixed-ratio reinforcement schedule (each sentence) to deliver social praise to the peer confederate while the confederate was reading the books. Meanwhile, the participants did not receive any form of social attention (i.e., social praise) from the experimenter but they observed the peer confederate receive social praise contingent upon reading books. In addition, the participants were denied access to the books the whole time.
Data Collection Procedure for Independent variable
During the probe sessions for CR+ for observing books, the experimenter placed three different stimuli on the table (i.e., puzzles, Legos®, and Reading A through Z Level-E books).
The participants were asked to sit at the table, and the experimenter provided the antecedent "you
31 can play with anything you want on the table, you have five minutes." The experimenter used 5-s whole interval recording for a 5 min observation to determine whether books functioned as conditioned reinforcers for each participant. There were 60 columns which represented each interval on the datasheet so that the experimenter could accurately record the target responses.
Specifically, the experimenter circled a "B" in the correspondent column if the participants observed books, a "P" if the participants played the puzzle, and an "L" if the participants played with Legos®. If the participants emitted any passivity or stereotypy behavior, the experimenter circled the “Pa/St.” The experimenter totaled the number of B recorded at the end of each probe session. The criterion for CR+ for observing books was set at 80% of 5-s intervals across two consecutive sessions (i.e., 48 out of 60 intervals). Figure 2 shows the datasheet used during the
CR+ for observing book probes.
32
Figure 2
The datasheet used to assess the presence of CR+ for observing book probes.
Vicarious reinforcement procedure
Each intervention session consisted of 20 ten-second trials (i.e., 200 secs in one session) during which the participants were given a table-top toy (i.e., wooden blocks), and the peer
33 confederate was given Reading A through Z books (level B). During the intervention, the experimenter delivered social praise to the peer confederate when the confederate read a sentence in the book. Meanwhile, both participants in the same dyad received nothing but the table-top toy. The experimenter used 10-s partial interval recording to record the following responses participants emitted in each session: 1) Number of vocal mands (e.g., "I want books too" or "I can read too"), 2) Number of looks to the peer confederate, and 3) Number of attention-seeking behaviors directed toward the experimenter. For example, if the participant emitted any of the target response within the 10-s interval, the experimenter recorded one instance of the target response on the data sheet.
The number of vocal mands was defined as the instances in which the participants vocally requested to read the books or get access to the books. The number of looks was defined as the instances in which the participants oriented towards the peer confederate who was reading the books. The number of attention-seeking behaviors toward the experimenter was defined as the instances in which the participants emitted vocal verbal operants to obtain the experimenter's attention. The criterion to terminate the intervention was based on the findings from previous research on implementing OCDI to condition various neutral stimuli (Greer & Singer-Dudek,
2008; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011; Singer-Dudek & Oblak, 2013). More specifically, we made moment-to-moment decisions by analyzing participants’ responses, such as the number of vocal mands and looks they emitted throughout the intervention sessions.
Experimental Design
The experimenter used a pre- and post-CR+ for observing books design embedded with a multiple probe logic across dyads to simulate a concurrent design. In detail, the study consisted of pre- and post-CR+ for observing book conditions that measured the difference in participants’
34
(1) rate of learning new textual responses and (2) duration for observing printed words and picture before and after the establishment of CR+ for observing books. Figure 3 shows the sequence of Experiment I.
The specific sequences was as follows: The experimenter (a) Conducted a pre- intervention probe on CR+ for observing books for all participants, (b) Conducted a pre- intervention probe on duration of observing printed words for all participants, (c) Collected the rate of acquisition of the first word set for the first dyad, (d) Collected the rate of acquisition of the remaining word sets for the first dyad and the first three word sets for the second dyad, (e)
Conducted additional probes on CR+ for observing books and observing printed words for the first dyad, (f) Implemented the intervention for the first dyad, (g) Conducted post-intervention probes on CR+ for observing books for the first dyad, (h) Conducted post-intervention probes on the rate of acquisition of textual response and observing printed words if the first dyad met the criterion for CR+ for observing books, and (i) Collected the rate of acquisition of the fourth word set for the second dyad. The experimenter applied the same sequence for the second dyad when the intervention has demonstrated an effect on the first dyad.
35
Figure 3
The design sequence of the Experiment I.
36
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity
The interobserver agreement (IOA) was collected using the Teacher Performance Rate
Accuracy (TPRA; Ingham & Greer, 1992), which was a method of direct teacher observation used in the teacher evaluation and training component of CABAS® model schools. During the
TPRA observations, the observer recorded both the student’s behavior (attention to the stimuli, the correct or incorrect responses) and the teacher's behavior (the antecedent provided, the consequences delivered). In addition, the TPRA also served as a measure of treatment fidelity in this study. An independent observer conducted TPRA observations on 10% of total sight word instruction and 15% of the total intervention sessions and the data showed 100% accuracy on treatment fidelity.
The experimenter also used trial-by-trial agreement to collect IOA data on sight word instruction, during which an independent observer sat beside the instructor and recorded the correct and incorrect responses emitted by participants. The IOA scores were calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying that number by 100%. During the sight word instruction sessions, IOA was conducted for 20% of total instruction sessions with a mean rate of 100% agreement across all participants. The experimenter used interval observation to collect IOA data during CR+ for observing books and observing printed words and picture probe sessions. During the CR+ for observing books probe sessions, IOA was conducted for 61% of total sessions with 100% agreement across all participants. During the observing printed words probe session, IOA was conducted for 45% of total sessions with a mean rate of 97% agreement (ranging from 95% to
100%) across all participants. During the intervention sessions, IOA was conducted for 34% of total sessions with 100% agreement across all participants.
37
Results
The left side of Figure 4 demonstrates the rate of learning of textual responses across four participants before and after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Max and Nick (first dyad) both required, on average, 80 to 100 learn units to achieve criterion level across 4 sight word sets before books were conditioned as reinforcers. Following the presence of CR+ for observing books, the number of learn units required to achieve criterion level across another four sight word sets decreased to 50 (ranging from 40 to 60) for both Max and Nick. Prior to the establishment of CR+ for observing books, Emma required around 100 learn units to achieve criterion level on each word sets. The number of learn units-to-criterion (LUC) for each word set decreased to 60 after Emma acquired CR+ for observing books. Scott required, on average, 110 learn units (ranging from 100 to 120) to master novel sight words across four sets before the establishment of CR+ for observing books. After observing books functioned as a preferred activity for Scott, there was no change in his number of LUC across word sets.
The right side of Figure 4 shows the cumulative number of correct textual responses before (closed circle) and after books (open circle) were conditioned as reinforcers for the participants. The visual representation (slope) shows the rate of learning, including future learning predictions. The data for Max, Nick, and Lucy show a steeper slope, which represents a faster rate of learning after books were conditioned as reinforcers for them. The data for Scott demonstrate a slower rate of acquisition after books were conditioned as reinforcers for him.
38
Figure 4
The number of LUC required to master a block of 5 novel sight words before and after CR+ for observing books (left) and the cumulative correct responses emitted and trend lines before and
CR+ for observing books (right).
Pre-CR+ for observing Books Post-CR+ for observing books 140 500 y = 17.097x - 4.9333 450 120 400 y = 13.36x - 1.2426 100 350
80 300 250 60 Books are not CR+ 200 Books are CR+ 40 150 Linear (Books are not CR+) 100 20 Linear (Books are CR+) 50 Max 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 140 500 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 y = 16.755x - 0.4364 450 y = 14.762x - 0.5074 120 400 100 350
80 300 250 60 Responses 200 Crtierion Crtierion - 40 150 to - Textual 100 20 50 Unit
- Nick 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 of Correct of 500 Learn 140 450 y = 15.839x + 0.0455 120 y = 13.95x - 10.067 400 Sessions Number 100 350
Number of Number 300 80 250 60 Cumulative 200
40 150 100 20 50 Emma 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 140 500 y = 15.114x - 18.442 450 120 400 y = 13.495x - 10.633 100 350 300 80 250 60 200
40 150 100 20 50 Scott 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Word Sets Cumulative Sessions
Note. The figure represents two different dimensions of the rate of learning. The cumulative responses also show participants’ rate of learning across a period of future time scopes.
39
Figure 5 represents the cumulative duration the participants observed pictures and printed words prior to and following the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for books. Three pre-intervention probes were conducted for four participants to establish steady-state responding.
During his pre-CR+ for observing books probe sessions, Max observed pictures with a mean duration of 117 s (ranging from 117 to 121) and he observed printed words with a mean duration of 39 s (ranging from 31 to 45). Following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, Max observed pictures with a mean duration of 104 s (ranging from 98 to 112), while the mean duration he observed printed words increased to 49 s (ranging from 42 to 56). Nick observed pictures with a mean duration of 156 s (ranging from 131 to 192) and he observed printed words with a mean duration of 74 s (ranging from 45 to 110) during pre-CR+ for observing books probe sessions. During his post-CR+ for observing books probe sessions, Nick observed pictures with a mean duration of 124 s (ranging from 97 to 166) and he observed printed words with a mean duration of 89 s (ranging from 82 to 97).
During her pre-CR+ for observing books probe sessions, Emma observed pictures with a mean duration of 163 s (ranging from 158 to 171), and she observed printed words with a mean duration of 39 s (ranging from 32 to 47). Following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, Emma observed pictures with a mean duration of 111 s (ranging from 103 to 120), while the mean duration he observed printed words increased to 83 s (ranging from 77 to 88). Scott observed pictures with a mean duration of 219 s (ranging from 179 to 252), and he observed printed words with a mean duration of 123 s (ranging from 99 to 160) during pre-CR+ for observing books probe sessions. During his post-CR+ for observing books probe sessions, Scott observed pictures with a mean duration of 193 s (ranging from 178 to 202), and he observed printed words with a mean duration of 137 s (ranging from 132 to 142).
40
Figure 5
Cumulative duration (in second) that participants observed five pages of 15 two-dimensional pictures and five pages of novel printed words before and after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers for the first two dyads.
Pre-CR+ Books Post-CR+ Books 250
200
150 Picture 100 Words
50 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 250
200
150
100
50 Nick 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 250
200 Cumulative Cumulative (seconds) duration 150
100
50 Emma 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 250
200
150
100
50 Scott 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sessions
41
Figure 6 shows the intervention data for the first dyad. Max emitted some vocal mands in the first and eighth sessions, and he also emitted a varying number of looks and attention-seeking behaviors throughout the intervention sessions. Nick emitted a varying number of vocal mands, looks, and attention-seeking behaviors throughout the intervention sessions. Max and Nick met the termination criterion when the number of looks they emitted gradually increased toward the last five sessions and they both emitted some vocal mands initially.
Figure 6
The number of vocal mands, number of looks toward the peer confederate, and the number of attention seeking toward the experimenter during the vicarious reinforcement intervention for the first dyad.
20 Number of Mand 18 Number of Looks 16 Attention Seeking 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Max -2
of Target of Target Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 18 16 Number 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Nick -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sessions
42
Figure 7 shows the intervention data for the second dyad. Both participants did not emit any vocal mands in the first seven sessions, while they emitted more vocal mands toward the end of the intervention. The number of looks and attention-seeking behaviors was also varied across sessions for both participants. Emma and Scott met the termination criterion when they both emitted more vocal mands toward the last five sessions. They also emitted relatively more looks initially and the number decreased, but there was a resurgence of looks in the last five sessions for both participants.
Figure 7
The number of vocal mands etc., number of looks toward the peer confederate, and the number of attention seeking toward the experimenter during the vicarious reinforcement intervention for the second dyad.
20 Number of Mand 18 Number of Looks 16 Attention Seeking 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Emma -2
of Target of Target Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 18 16 Number 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Scott -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sessions 43
Figure 8 displays the number of whole intervals of observing book stimuli for all participants in the pre- and post-vicarious reinforcement procedure probes sessions. Three participants did not emit any target responses in the pre-intervention sessions, while Emma looked at book stimuli for 12 intervals in the second probe sessions. Following the vicarious reinforcement procedure, the number of whole intervals participants observed book stimuli increased to criterion level (ranging from 55 to 60) across four participants.
Figure 8
The number of whole five-second intervals participants looked at books during multiple five- minute observations across pre- and post-vicarious reinforcement procedure in Experiment I.
Pre-Vicarious Reinforcement Post-Vicarious procedure Reinforcement procedure 60 50 40 30 20 10 Max 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 50 40 30 20 10 Nick 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 Second Whole Whole Intervals Second
- 50
of 5 40 30
Number 20 10 Emma 0 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
50
40
30
20
10 Scott 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sessions
44
Discussion
The first experiment was a pilot study testing a vicarious reinforcement procedure on conditioning books as reinforcers in a group setting for preschoolers who had more advanced reading skills and verbal behavior developmental cusps. The results showed books functioned as reinforcers for all four participants following the intervention. In particular, observing books was not automatically reinforcing to the participants initially, but it became a conditioned reinforcer when the participants observed a peer confederate receive positive social interaction while they were also denied access to the books. Several studies have demonstrated the use of positive praise and attention from the teachers (Vargas, 2013) and observational conditioning-by-denial to increase the reinforcement value in academic stimuli that were not initially preferred
(Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Lee, 2016; O'Rourke, 2006; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011). Through pairing with the form of social contact, the reinforcement value of book stimuli increased in the first experiment. In addition, the results showed an increased rate of acquisition of related skills
(i.e., learning new sight words) across three participants after the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing books, which is consistent with the findings from previous research
(Buttigieg and Greer, 2021; Tsai & Greer, 2006). The first experiment sought to address three research questions, and the following paragraphs provide several empirical explanations to analyze the findings.
The first research question addressed in the first experiment considered if the vicarious reinforcement with denial procedure could condition books as reinforcers for two participants at the same time. The results show the procedure successfully conditioned books as reinforcers for four participants. However, it is noted that the number of 5-s intervals during which Nick observed book stimuli decreased in the second post-intervention probe due to the stimuli the
45 experimenter selected. In particular, the books used in the experiment were above the participants' reading level, which means Nick could not textually respond to most of the words in the books; consequently, the reinforcement value of the books slightly decreased.
The second research question aimed to examine the relationship between the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for books and participants' rate of acquisition of new textual responses. The results showed the learn units-to-criterion decreased for three participants for whom books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Max showed the most significant decrease as a function of acquiring books as conditioned reinforcers. The post-CR+ for observing books results from Nick and Emma also make a strong case that establishing reinforcement for book stimuli is an efficacious way to increase students’ rate of learning on textual responses, which is consistent with the findings from previous research (Buttigieg, 2015; Tsai & Greer,
2006). However, Scott did not demonstrate a faster rate of acquisition after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers for him. It is noted that Scott made consistent error patterns on the word
“brown” in the post-CR+ for observing books session, which explained why he required more learn units to master 20 novel sight words even when books were conditioned reinforcers for him. Greer and Keohane (2005) stated that conditioned reinforcement for observing various stimuli should be considered behavioral developmental cusps, which allow children to contact new reinforcement and contingencies in their environment; thus, the children can learn new operants at a faster rate. The results of the first experiment reconfirmed that conditioned reinforcement for observing books is a verbal behavior developmental cusp.
The final research question sought to test whether the reinforcement value of observing printed words would change after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. The results showed only Max and Emma had a longer duration of observing printed words after books were
46 conditioned reinforcers, while the durations were inconsistent for Nick and Scott. However, the experimenter noticed that two participants were simply scanning or passively observing the page during pre-intervention sessions while they textually responded to the words during the post- intervention probes, which was similar to Cameron's (2017) findings. Cameron (2017) found four participants observed printed words for longer duration than they observed pictures following her behavioral momentum blending intervention because the participants could textually respond more accurately to words following the intervention. However, conditioning textual stimuli or conditioning textual responding was not the main focus of the present study; thus, the experimenter revisited the necessity of including this dependent variable for future studies on establishment of CR+ for observing books.
Greer et al. (2008) and Singer-Dudek et al. (2008) showed the effects of the observational-by-denial intervention on conditioning stimuli as reinforcers. During the intervention, the participants were denied access to the stimuli, which functioned as an establishing operation (i.e., deprivation) that increased the reinforcing value or effectiveness of the stimuli and its' effects on relevant behaviors (performance and learning tasks). Additionally,
Singer-Dudek et al. (2011) and Buttigieg and Greer (2021) also demonstrated maintenance of the stimuli as reinforcers months after the intervention, which showed the durable effects of the intervention. In the first experiment, we implemented a vicarious reinforcement procedure during which the participants were not only denied access to book stimuli, the peer confederate also received constant social praise for reading books. Therefore, there are two possible hypotheses in explaining the effect of the intervention: vicarious reinforcement, or the combination between denial and vicarious reinforcement. The experimenter also anecdotally noted that all participants emitted vocal mands such as "What about me? I can read the book too" during the intervention,
47 which indicated that the participants wanted to contact the social attention (i.e., the experimenter’s social praise) the peer confederate received by reading books. Thus, the reinforcement value of social attention switched to book stimuli during the intervention. This hypothesis is in line with Greer et al.’s (2006) notion that individuals who have observational learning in their repertoire can demonstrate previously mastered behaviors as a result of observed contingencies.
In terms of rate of learning new textual responses, all four participants in the first experiment had more advanced textual responding skills than other peers in the same setting, but books did not function as conditioned reinforcers for them. Following the intervention, three out of four participants demonstrated a faster rate of acquisition as these participants may be more likely to attend to the text in the books; consequently, the increased print exposure further increased their reading skills (Kush et al., 2005). The results of three participants are in line with previous research findings demonstrating that building reinforcers is the most efficacious way to teach new skills (Du, Broto, & Greer, 2015; Greer & Du, 2014; Greer & Han, 2015). In this case, teaching children to love and seek out books is a strong indicator of reading readiness prior to teaching prerequisites for specific reading skills (e.g., decoding or blending).
Limitations and Future Implications
There are several limitations in the first experiment. First of all, the criteria for the intervention were based on the experimenter’s moment-to-moment decision and the previous findings on OCDI, which limits the external validity of the findings. Previous research studying
OCDI had three pre-determined criteria to terminate the intervention. The first criterion was when the participant’s behavior went into extinction. That is, the participant emitted a relatively high number of correct responses initially, then their target responses decreased to zero. The
48 second criterion was reached when the data demonstrated variable or no trend after eleven data points. The third criterion was reached when the participant manded more than twice for the neutral stimuli in two consecutive sessions (Greer et al., 2008; Singer-Dudek et al., 2008). Based on the data we collected throughout the intervention sessions, the number of mands seems to be the strongest indicator for determining when the reinforcing value of book stimuli changed. For example, all four participants emitted several vocal mands but they stopped manding for the books and the number of looks decreased toward the latter half of the intervention sessions (i.e., their mands and observing responses went into extinction). Therefore, the first criterion for this procedure can be a specified number of mands across three or more consecutive sessions. The experimenter can also terminate the intervention when the second criterion is reached: the participants emitted some vocal mands initially but stopped manding for books while their observing responses went into extinction in the following sessions.
The second limitation is the measurement of observing printed words versus two- dimensional pictures. The experimenter sought to measure which type of stimuli the participants were actually observing. The measurement for this dependent variable was conducted in a similar manner to the measurement for observing two-dimensional printed stimuli (CR+ for observing 2D stimuli) outlined in the Keohane et al. (2009) study. However, the experimenter noticed that all participants had already acquired CR+ for observing 2D stimuli prior to the study; additionally, conditioning textual stimuli was not a focus on the first experiment. Another limitation in the study was shown with Nick, for whom books did function as reinforcers but the reinforcing value decreased during the second post-intervention probe. In detail, the level of books used was above Nick’s reading level such that he could not receive any corresponding reinforcement from reading. To address this issue, the experimenter will select the books that
49 match future participants' reading level in the pre- and post-intervention sessions. Finally, Scott emitted frequent instances of bidirectional self-talk (e.g., fantasy play) when given the table-top toy through the experimenter’s anecdotal observation. Therefore, the experimenter will remove the toy from the experimental setting to eliminate this potential interference.
Rationale for Experiment II
Experiment I raised a question about the intervention used to establish books as conditioned reinforcers because the vicarious reinforcement procedure used in the first experiment also incorporated conditioning-by-denial components. Therefore, it is unclear which component had a stronger effect on conditioning books as reinforcers. In the second experiment, the experimenter investigated the active component of the intervention that was responsible for the establishment of CR+ for observing books. The experimenter revised the necessity of social attention (e.g., adults’ praise to the peer confederate) within the group procedure and also investigated the sufficiency of the denial component because past researchers already tested the effects of the observational conditioning-by-denial intervention (OCDI) on establishing books as conditioned reinforcers (Singer-Dudek et al., 2011). Consequently, the experimenter isolated the observational conditioning-by-denial procedures from the intervention and implemented the procedure in a similar setting as Experiment I (i.e., triads).
In the second experiment, the experimenter also considered measuring additional responses following the establishment of CR+ for observing books. The book stimuli (i.e.,
Reading A through Z books) used in the experiment included picture-word correspondence on every page. Thus, the experimenter investigated whether the participants would remember any textual stimuli (e.g., pictures and words) presented to them at an earlier time before and after the book stimuli functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Remembering is a covert behavior that
50 cannot be directly observed, but was defined by three components: 1) the initial learning or observing of an item, 2) the period of time, and 3) an opportunity to recall. The initial observation of a stimulus functioned to “storage the stimulus in individuals’ minds.” At the same time, the period of time determines whether the stimulus is retained over time, and individuals require an opportunity (e.g., vocal prompt) to retrieve the stimulus from storage (Catania, 2013).
Therefore, the experimenter wanted to know whether the participants could retain more textual stimuli when the reinforcement value of the books increased. In Experiment II, the experimenter used the term “discriminative remembering” to describe whether the participants could retain and identify the textual stimuli they observed in the books. More specifically, when the experimenter presented the target stimuli with other non-exemplars, the participants had to discriminate the difference between each stimulus and select the one they saw at an earlier time.
Finally, the experimenter also examined whether participants would acquire observational learning repertoires following the observational conditioning procedure as shown in Lanter and Singer-Dudek (2020) study.
Research Questions for Experiment II
Experiment II addressed the following research questions: 1) Can we establish conditioned reinforcement for observing books when isolating the denial component? 2) Is there a difference in participants’ rate of acquisition of textual responses after the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing book stimuli? 3) Can the participants remember more stimuli (i.e., pictures and words) in the book after the presence of CR+ for observing book? 4)
Will the participants acquire observational learning repertoires following the observational conditioning-by-denial intervention?
51
CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENT II
Method
Participants
The experimenter recruited six participants, who ranged in age from 4 to 5 years old. The participants were selected from a Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling
(CABAS®) model school that used a behavior analytic approach to all pedagogical practices. All six participants were classified as a preschooler with a disability (PD), and the diagnoses were based on participants’ Individualized Education Plans (IEP). The participants were randomly assigned into two dyads (i.e., Luke and Sandy in the first dyad; Mike and Noah in the second dyad; Gavin and Lucy in the third dyad). Table 3 provides details of each participant’s demographic.
The experimenter selected the participants because books did not function as conditioned reinforcers based on their ELCAR results (Greer, 2008). That is, reading books did not function as a preferred activity for all the participants. It was also noted that the experimenter recruited the participants who did not demonstrate observational learning repertoires prior to the experiment. That is, the participants could not learn new operants through observing other peers received consequences contingencies. The experimenter also applied the same inclusion criteria as Experiment I, including the following essential verbal behavior developmental cusps: (1) preverbal foundational cups (i.e., conditioned reinforcement for observing adults faces/voices,
2D and 3D stimuli, generalized imitation), (2) listener and speaker cusps (i.e., listener literacy and independent mand/tacts), and (3) observational performance repertoires. The experimenter
52
measured participants’ reading level based on Reading A through Z assessment. Table 3 lists
each participant’s reading level.
Table 3
Description of Participants of Experiment II
Educational Relevant Cusps and Dyad Participant Age Reading Level Classification Capabilities
- All pre-verbal foundational cusps Reading A-Z: Preschooler with a - Listener literacy First Luke 3.5 - Independent mand and level B disability tact - Observational DRA: 2 performance - Audience control - All pre-verbal foundational cusps Reading A-Z: Preschooler with a - Listener literacy First Sandy 4.6 - Independent mand and level aa disability tact - Observational DRA: A-1 performance - Audience control - All pre-verbal foundational cusps Reading A-Z: Preschooler with a - Listener literacy Second Mike 4.8 - Independent mand and level B disability tact - Observational DRA: 2 performance - Audience control - All pre-verbal Reading A-Z: foundational cusps Preschooler with a - Listener literacy Second Noah 4.5 level aa Independent mand and disability - tact DRA: A-1 - Observational performance
53
- Audience control
- All pre-verbal foundational cusps Reading A-Z: Preschooler with a - Listener literacy Third Gavin 4.8 - Independent mand and level aa disability tact - Observational DRA: A-1 performance - Audience control - All pre-verbal foundational cusps Reading A-Z: - Listener literacy Third Lucy 5.0 N/A - Independent mand and level B tact - Observational DRA: 2 performance - Audience control Note. The cusps and capabilities listed above are derived from the Verbal Behavior Developmental Assessment, which indicates the prerequisites required for the current study. The reading level is the result of a direct assessment from the Reading A-Z curriculum in which a correlation chart also showed participants’ corresponding DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) levels.
Setting
The second experiment took place in the same classroom setting where Experiment I was conducted. Sight word instruction and discriminative remembering probes took place at the child’s desk, while other students in the classroom received individual or group instruction.
During the observational conditioning-by-denial and observational learning probe sessions, the experimenter conducted the sessions in an isolated classroom with the doors shut so that the rest of the students in the classroom could not interfere with the participants’ responding.
During the observational learning probe sessions, the participant sat next to a peer confederate while the experimenter presented direct learn unit instruction to the peer confederate.
54
During the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure, two participants sat on the opposite side of the table. The peer confederate and the experimenter were seated on the remaining sides separately. Figure 9 shows a visual representation of the conditioning sessions.
Figure 9
The experimental setting where the conditioning procedure took place in Experiment II.
Materials
The experimenter used the same materials (i.e., Reading A through Z books, Legos®, and puzzles) as Experiment I during the CR+ for observing books probe sessions. The sight words in the second experiment were selected from the preschool and kindergarten Dolch sight words list.
Table 4 lists each word set used for each participant in Experiment II. Luke, Mike, and Lucy were taught to textually respond to kindergarten level words, while Sandy, Noah and Gavin were taught to textually respond to pre-kindergarten level words.
The experimenter used Microsoft Office PowerPoint on a MacBook Pro computer with
33.0 cm display to conduct discriminative remembering probes. The experimenter also used the
Microsoft Office PowerPoint on a MacBook Pro computer with 33.0 cm display to present
55 pictures of novel stimuli in the observational learning probe sessions. Table 5 lists the stimuli used for each participant during pre-OCD and post-OCD sessions.
Table 4
Sight Words used for each participant in Experiment II
Participant Pre-CR+ for observing books Post-CR+ for observing books Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 Set 7 Set 8 Under Snow Well Ate White Did Like All Went Saw Must Good Ran Ride Fly Black Luke Just Four Pretty Please Brown She Who Out Does There Into What Have Want Give Came This With Soon That Now Yes Are Must Jump Find Look Yellow And Big Blue Down Can Help My Has Here To Go Three Sandy Funny Make His Get Not Where Little Come It One Two Them The In Red Is See Run Up When We For Away Play All Well White Snow Did Ate Under Like Black Must Ran Saw Ride Good Went Fly Mike Out Pretty Brown Four She Please Just Who Came Into Have There Want What Does Give Must Soon Now With Yes That This Are
And Big Blue Down Jump Find Look Yellow Here To Go Three Can Help My Has Noah Not Where Little Come Funny Make His Get The In Red Is It One Two Them We For Away Play See Run Up When
Jump Find Look Yellow And Big Blue Down Can Help My Has Here To Go Three Gavin Funny Make His Get Not Where Little Come It One Two Them The In Red Is See Run Up When We For Away Play
Did Ate Under Like All Well White Snow Ride Good Went Fly Black Must Ran Saw Lucy She Please Just Who Out Pretty Brown Four Want What Does Give Came Into Have There Yes That This Are Must Soon Now With
56
Note. All the sight words used in the second experiment were selected from the Dolch Sight Words list consists of 84 frequently occurring words in children’s books across grade level, ranging from pre-kindergarten to kindergarten.
Table 5
Novel stimuli used in the observational learning probes across pre-and post-OCD sessions.
Pre-OCD sessions Post-OCD Sessions Participants Category Set names Category Set names Jessie Shiro Sonic Bo-chan Luke Pokemon Snorlax Crayon shinchan Nene Hermie Midor Takshi Georgie Shiro Jessie Bo-chan Sonic Sandy Crayon shinchan Nene Pokemon Snorlax Midor Hermie Georgie Takshi Grumble Rocko Oblina Filburt Ahh! Real Rocko’s Modern Mike Krumm Heffer Monsters Life Zimbo Spumky Ickis Ed Nobi Bam Zuka Betty Noah Doraemon Suneo Flinstones Fred Dorami Wilma Goda Slate Rocko Grumble Filburt Oblina Rocko’s Modern Gavin Heffer Krumm Life Ahh! Real Monsters Spumky Zimbo Ed Ickis Bam Nobi Betty Zuka Lucy Flinstones Fred Doraemon Suneo Wilma Dorami Slate Goda Note. All stimuli used for the observational learning probes were unfamiliar cartoon characters from various cartoons. OCD = Observational conditioning-by-denial procedure.
57
Experimental Design
The experimental design was identical to Experiment I. The experimenter used a pre- and post-CR+ for observing books design embedded with a multiple probe logic across dyads to simulate a concurrent design, with an initial probe session conducted simultaneously at the beginning of the study on discriminative remembering and degree of observational learning repertoire probes across all participants. The experimenter collected data on the participants’ rate of acquisition for new words in a delayed multiple probe fashion. That is, the experimenter collected the rate of acquisition for the first set of words for the participants in the first dyad. The experimenter then measured the rate of learning new words for the participants in the second dyad on the first set of words. See Figure 10 for a visual display of the research design sequence for Experiment II.
The specific sequences were as follows: The experimenter (a) Conducted a pre- intervention probe on CR+ for observing books for all participants, (b) Conducted a pre- intervention probe on discriminative remembering responses and observational learning repertoires for all participants, (c) Collected the rate of acquisition of the first word set for the first dyad, (d) Collected the rate of acquisition of the remaining word sets for the first dyad and the first three word sets for the second dyad, (e) Collected the rate of acquisition for the third dyad on the first two sets, (f) Conducted additional probes on CR+ for observing books and discriminative remembering responses for the first dyad, (g) Implemented the intervention for the first dyad, (h) Conducted post-intervention probes on CR+ for observing books for the first dyad, (i) Conducted post-intervention probes on the rate of acquisition of textual response and observing printed words if the first dyad met the criterion for CR+ for observing books, and (j)
Collected the rate of acquisition of the fourth word set for the second dyad and the third word set
58 for the third dyad. The experimenter applied the same sequence for the remaining dyads when the intervention has demonstrated an effect on the first dyad.
Figure 10
The design sequence of the Experiment II.
59
Dependent Variables
One of the dependent variables (i.e., rate of learning new words) was identical to
Experiment I. The experimenter also collected data on the number of correct discriminative remembering responses before and after the presence of CR+ for observing books, and the degree of observational learning repertoire before and after the establishment of CR+ for observing books using the OCDI.
Rate of learning on sight word instruction
The experimenter collected data on the total number of learn units the participants required to master 20 novel words before and after books are conditioned as preferred items. The experimenter divided 20 words into 4 short-term objectives (i.e., 5 words per objective), and the experimenter taught each objective to mastery (i.e., criterion level). The criterion for each objective was set at 90% accuracy (18/20) or above in one session. The experimenter totaled the cumulative number of learn units the participants required to master each set, and the total number of learn units signified each participant’s rate of learning textual responses. The definition of each textual response and the data collection procedure were the same as
Experiment I.
Discriminative remembering
The experimenter measured the number of correct discriminative remembering responses the participants emitted before and after observing books functioned as a conditioned reinforcer.
The experimenter defined discriminative remembering as the selection by the participants of stimuli that were presented to them at an earlier time. For example, a participant who demonstrates discriminative remembering will select words or pictures that are identical to what they observed earlier in a book. The correct discriminative remembering response was defined as
60 the participants pointing to the words or pictures they observed in the book at an earlier time, while the incorrect response was defined as pointing to the words or pictures that were not in the book or no response within 5 s of the vocal antecedent (i.e., “Point to the words/pictures you saw in the book).
Degree of observational learning repertoire
The experimenter measured the degree of participants’ observational learning repertoire before and after the presence of CR+ for observing books through the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure. It is noted that the observational learning repertoire here refers to the acquisition of new operants, as a result of observation (Greer et al., 2006). The experimenter provided direct learn unit instruction on a set of novel stimuli to a peer confederate, while the participant observed the learn units (i.e., reinforcement for correct tact response or learn unit correction procedure for incorrect tact response). Following the observation, the experimenter presented the same stimuli to the participant to determine if the participant acquired new operants through observing the peer confederate’s consequence contingencies.
Data Collection Procedure for Dependent Variables
During the discriminative remembering probes, the participants were first given a
Reading A through Z book, depending on each participant’s individual reading level. The participants were given 2-min to observe the whole book. The experimenter conducted an unconsequated probe after the 2-min initial observation. During the probe session, the experimenter presented three picture (i.e., one from the book with two non-exemplars) or three sentences (i.e., one from the book with two non-exemplars) through Microsoft Office
PowerPoint on a computer. Then, the experimenter provided a vocal antecedent “Point to the words/pictures you saw in the book,” and the participants were asked to select the stimuli by
61 pointing to the corresponding words or pictures. Each probe session consisted of 10 trials, including five picture probes and five word probes. The experimenter randomized the probe trials so that there was no word-picture correspondence between the target stimuli in two adjacent trials. The experimenter recorded a plus (+) if the participant pointed to the correct stimulus, and a minus (-) was recorded if the participant emitted any non-target response. The experimenter used different books to conduct the discriminative remembering probes in each session.
During the observational learning of new operants probe, the non-target peer and target peer sat next to each other at a child-sized table, and the experimenter sat across from both peers.
The experimenter presented direct tact learn units for five novel stimuli and then presented the target participant five unconsequated direct probe trials on the same stimuli. For example, the experimenter taught a peer confederate the name of 5 stimuli while the participant was sitting next to the confederate. Following the five instructional trials, the experimenter presented the same stimuli to the participant and recorded the number of correct tact responses (i.e., label the names of each stimulus) the participant emitted. The experimenter continued the sequence until
20 unconsequated direct probe trials were conducted. The criterion that demonstrates the presence of the observational learning repertoire was set at 80% (16/20) of the probe trails.
Independent Variables
The independent variable in Experiment II was the same as Experiment I, which was the establishment of CR+ for observing books. The conditioning procedure used in the second experiment was the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure in triads (i.e., two target participants and a peer confederate).
62
Observational conditioning-by-denial procedure
The experimenter implemented a modified observational conditioning-by-denial procedure (Greer & Singer-Dudek, 2008). The conditioning procedure consisted of 10 trials in one session. During the intervention, the target participants sat apart from each other (i.e., in opposite direction), and a peer confederate sat in the middle of them. The experimenter presented a performance task for the participants and the confederate to perform simultaneously. The performance task chosen for all participants was matching the same-colored objects when the target stimulus and two non-exemplars were presented. The correct matching response was defined as placing the toy bear on the corresponding color plate when given the visual and vocal antecedent, while the incorrect response was defined as placing the toy bear on a plate that was not the same color, or if no responses were emitted after 3s. During the intervention, the participants did not receive any form of reinforcement for correct or incorrect responses, while they observed the peer confederate receive a book for each trial. The peer confederate was given
2 min to observe the book stimuli she received by the end of each intervention session. The participants were denied access to book stimuli during the intervention, which functioned as an establishing operation that increased the reinforcement value, or effectiveness, of the book stimuli and their effects on relevant behaviors.
Second performance tasks were selected for Sandy and Noah who required additional conditioning sessions. The experimenter selected a dictation task for Sandy, during which Sandy was required to write different alphabet letters through dictation. We defined a correct response as writing the letter in correct sequence and form when given the antecedent “Write letter ____.”
The incorrect written response was defined as writing the letter in wrong sequence, omissions or additions of lines, or no responses within 3s. The second performance task for Noah was a hear-
63 draw task during which Noah was asked to draw a number of shapes based on the instructor’s vocal antecedents. We defined a correct response as drawing a number of shapes specified in a vocal antecedent (e.g., “Draw 5 circles). We defined an incorrect response as drawing a number of shapes that did not match the vocal antecedent or no response after 3 s of the vocal antecedent.
The experimenter recorded the following responses during each intervention session: (1) the number of correct and incorrect responses on the performance task emitted by the participants, (2) the number of vocal mands participants emitted, (3) the number of non-vocal attempts participants emitted to get the book stimuli, and (4) the number of looks participants emitted when the experimenter delivered book stimuli to the peer confederate. One of the three pre-determined criteria was used to terminate the intervention. The first criterion was reached when the participant emitted more than two vocal mands or attempts across three consecutive sessions. The second criterion was reached when the participant’s correct responses to the performance task went into extinction. For example, the participant emitted a relatively high number of correct responses initially; then the correct responses decreased to zero. The third criterion was reached when the participants emitted some vocal mands and looks initially but stopped manding for books for four consecutive sessions. The conditioning procedure was conducted for a minimum for eight sessions and a maximum of 15 sessions. These numbers were based on the results in the first experiment, as well as the number of sessions from prior studies that used a similar observational intervention (Greer & Singer-Dudek, 2008; Singer-Dudek &
Oblak, 2013; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011).
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity
Interobserver agreements and treatment fidelity were collected and calculated in the same manner as Experiment I. During the sight word instruction sessions, IOA was conducted for 32%
64 of total instruction sessions with a mean of 100% agreement across all participants. Additionally, an independent observer conducted TPRAs on 16% of total sight word instruction, 14% of total discriminative remembering probe, and 17% of total observational learning probe sessions with
100% accuracy on treatment fidelity. During the discriminative remembering probe sessions,
IOA was conducted for 46% of the total sessions with a mean of 100% agreement across all participants. During the degree of observational learning probe sessions, IOA was conducted for
38% of total instruction sessions with a mean of 100% agreement across all participants. During the observational conditioning-by-denial sessions, IOA was conducted for 47% of the total sessions with a mean of 96% agreement (ranging from 85% to 100%) across all participants.
65
Results
The left side of Figure 11 shows the rate of learning of textual responses across six participants before and after observing books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. All six participants showed a faster rate of acquisition for learning new sight words after the presence of
CR+ for observing books. The right side of Figure 11 demonstrates the cumulative number of correct textual responses before (closed circle) and after books (open circle) books were conditioned as reinforcers for the participants. The visual representation (slope) shows the rate of learning, including future learning predictions. The projected data under CR+ for observing books conditions show steeper slopes across all participants, which suggests a faster rate of acquisition on sight words after books were conditioned as reinforcers for them.
In the first dyad, Luke needed a mean number of 115 learn units (ranging from 100 to
140) to master each set of sight word before observing books was conditioned as a reinforcer.
The mean number of learn units Luke required to master each set of sight words decreased to 80
(ranging from 60 to 100) after the presence of CR+ for observing books. Sandy required a mean number of 140 learn units (ranging from 120 to 160) to master each set of sight words prior to the establishment of CR+ for observing books, and the mean number decreased to 85 learn units
(ranging from 80 to 100) after books functioned as conditioned reinforcers. In terms of the future rate of learning predictions, both Luke and Sandy demonstrated a faster rate of learning for a period of future time scopes.
In the second dyad, Mike required, on average, 125 learn units to master a set of sight words before observing books was conditioned as a reinforcer. Following the presence of CR+ for observing books, the number of learn units required to master each set of sight words decreased to 90 (ranging from 80 to 100) for Mike. Noah required a mean number of 160 learn
66 units to learn a set of sight words before the establishment of CR+ for observing books, and the mean number decreased to 100 learn units (ranging from 80 to 120) after the acquisition of CR+ for observing books. In terms of the future rate of learning predictions, both Mike and Noah demonstrated a faster rate of acquisition for new words across a period of future time scopes.
In the third dyad, Gavin required, on average, 140 learn units to master a set of sight word before observing books was conditioned as a reinforcer. Following the presence of CR+ for observing books, the number of learn units required to master each set of sight words decreased to 110 (ranging from 100 to 120) for him. Lucy required a mean number of 100 learn units to learn a set of sight words before the establishment of CR+ for observing books, and the mean number decreased to 73 learn units (ranging from 60 to 80) after the acquisition of CR+ for observing books. In terms of the future rate of learning predictions, both Gavin and Lucy showed a faster rate of acquisition for new words across a period of future time scopes.
67
Figure 11
The number of LUC required to master a block of 5 novel sight words before and after CR+ for observing books (left) and the cumulative correct responses emitted and trend lines before and
CR+ for observing books (right).
Pre-CR+ for observing Post-CR+ for observing Books 180 Books 500 450 160 y = 14.096x - 5.875 140 400 y = 12.667x - 8.8841 120 350 300 100 250 80 Books are not CR+ 200 Books are CR+ 60 150 40 100 Linear (Books are not CR+) 20 50 Linear (Books are CR+) Luke 0 0 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 500 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 160 450 140 400 y = 13.103x - 3.9853 120 350 300 100 y = 10.842x - 11.317 250 80 200 60 150 40 100 20 50 Sandy 0 0 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 500 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 160 450 Sessions 140 400 y = 13.204x - 2.4967 120 350 300 y = 11.781x - 15.59 100 250 80 200 Crtierion Crtierion - 60 150 to
- 40 100 20 50 Mike Unit
- 0 0 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 500 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 of Correct Correct Textual Responses of 160 450 Learn y = 11.216x - 6.5548 140 400 120 350 300 100 y = 13.192x - 0.7211 250 80
Number of Number 200 60 150 40 100
20 Cumulative Number 50 Noah 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 180 500 160 450 140 400 y = 13.078x - 9.8571 120 350 y = 11.679x - 15.31 100 300 250 80 200 60 150 40 100 20 50 Gavin 0 0 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 500 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 160 450 y = 13.499x - 6.3846 140 400 350 120 y = 12.49x - 10.747 300 100 250 80 200 60 150 40 100 20 50 Lucy 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
Words Sets Cumulative Sessions
68
Another research question addressed if the participants could remember more content
(i.e., pictures and words) in a book after the presence of CR+ for observing book. Figure 12 represents the number of correct discriminative remembering responses the participants emitted across words and pictures. In the first dyad, Luke emitted low number of correct discriminative remembering responses (ranging from 0 to 2 for pictures and 1 for words) across pictures and words before observing books functioned as a conditioned reinforcer. Following the presence of
CR+ for observing book, the number of discriminative remembering responses increased to
100% accuracy (5/5) and 80% (4/5) accuracy on pictures and words, respectively. Sandy emitted some correct discriminative remembering responses (ranging from 1 to 2 for pictures and words) before the establishment of CR+ for observing books. After the presence of CR+ for observing books, the number of discriminative remembering responses to pictures increased to 100% accuracy (5/5), while the discriminative remembering responses to words increased to a mean of
55% accuracy (ranging from 40% to 60%).
In the second dyad, Mike emitted some correct discriminative remembering responses
(ranging from 1 to 3 for pictures and 1 for words) before observing books functioned as a conditioned reinforcer. The number of discriminative remembering responses increased dramatically after the presence of CR+ for observing book for Mike (i.e., a mean percentage of
100% and 93% on pictures and words, respectively). Noah emitted a low number of discriminative remembering responses (ranging from 0 to 1) on both pictures and words before observing books functioned as a conditioned reinforcer. Following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, the number of discriminative remembering responses to pictures Noah emitted increased (ranging from 4 to 5), while no measurable change was shown discriminative remembering responses to words.
69
In the third dyad, Gavin showed a similar pattern of discriminative remembering responses as Noah. Gavin also demonstrated a bigger increase in the number of discriminative remembering responses (ranging from 4 to 5) to pictures than words (ranging from 2 to 3). Lucy demonstrated a high number of correct discriminative remembering responses to pictures before the presence of CR+ for observing book. Following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, the number of discriminative remembering responses to words increased for Lucy.
The experimenter also investigated whether there would be a difference in participants’ observational learning repertoire before and after the presence of CR+ for observing books through the OCDI. Figure 13 displays each participant’s degree of observational learning repertoires before and after the presence of CR+ for observing books using the OCDI. During the pre-intervention sessions, Luke, Sandy, Mike, Noah, Gavin, and Lucy demonstrated an average of 13%, 28%, 40%, 5%, 25%, and 50% correct observational learning responses, respectively.
During the post-intervention sessions, Luke, Sandy, Mike, Gavin, and Lucy demonstrated an average of 65%, 60%, 70%, 60%, and 75% correct observational learning responses, respectively. Noah, on the other hand, did not demonstrate a measurable change in his degree of observational learning repertoires during the post-intervention sessions.
70
Figure 12
The number of correct discriminative remembering responses the participants emitted during pre- and post-CR+ for observing books conditions.
Pre-CR+ for observing books Post-CR+ for observing books 5 4 3 2 Pictures 1 Words Luke 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 3 2 1 Sandy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 4 3 2 1 Mike 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 3
Responses pictures and Responses words to 2 1 Noah
Correct 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 3 2 1 Gavin 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4
3
2
1 Lucy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Books
71
Figure 13
The degree of observational learning repertoires each participant demonstrated during pre-and post-CR+ for observing books through the OCDI.
Pre-CR+ for observing books Post-CR+ for observing 100 through the OCD books through the OCD 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Luke 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Sandy 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Mike 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 80 70 60 50 40 of Observational Learning of Repertoire Observational 30 20 10 Noah 0 Degree 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Gavin 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Lucy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sessions Sessions
72
One of the research questions addressed in Experiment II considered if the observational conditioning-by-denial procedure in triads (i.e., two participants with one peer confederate) would establish CR+ for observing books for both participants at the same time. Figure 14 shows the number of responses Luke and Sandy emitted during the intervention sessions. During the match-to-sample task, Luke emitted some vocal mands at the beginning of the intervention sessions and some numbers of attempts toward the end of the intervention. He met the termination criterion when the number of correct responses to the performance task went to 0.
During the first performance task (i.e., match-to-sample task), Sandy emitted a varying number of looks and a high number of correct responses to the performance throughout the intervention sessions. Sandy did not acquire CR+ for observing books following the first round of intervention. Therefore, the experimenter reintroduced the intervention with a different performance task for her. During the second performance task (i.e., dictation task), Sandy emitted a varying number of looks but she did not demonstrate any vocal mand or attempts throughout the intervention. She met the termination criterion when the number of correct responses to the performance she emitted went to extinction.
73
Figure 14
The number of target responses Luke and Sandy (first dyad) emitted during the OCDI.
Match-to-Sample Task Dictation Task
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sandy -1 of Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 10 9
Number 8 7 6 Correct Responses to the Performance 5 Task 4 Looks 3 Mands 2 Attempts 1 0 Luke -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 Sessions
Figure 15 shows the number of responses Mike and Noah emitted during the intervention sessions. During the match-to-sample task, Mike emitted some vocal mands and a high number of looks throughout the intervention sessions. Noah emitted a varying number of vocal mands and looks, and the number of correct responses to the performance gradually decreased toward the end of the intervention. Both participants met the termination criterion when they emitted more than two vocal mands across three consecutive sessions. Noah required a second round of the intervention during which he was asked to perform a drawing task. He emitted some vocal
74 mands initially, and he met intervention after 10 sessions when the number of correct responses to the performance task went to 0.
Figure 15
The number of target responses Mike and Noah (second dyad) emitted during the OCDI.
Match-to-Sample Task Drawing Task
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 Correct Responses to the Performance Task 3 Looks 2 Mands 1 Attempts 0 Mike -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 of Responses 9 8 Number 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Noah -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Sessions
Figure 16 shows the number of responses Gavin and Lucy emitted during the intervention sessions. During the match-to-sample task, Gavin emitted a varying number of vocal mands and looks throughout the intervention sessions. Lucy emitted some vocal mands initially but stopped manding for books toward the end of intervention sessions. Additionally, the number of looks
Lucy emitted also gradually decreased toward the end of the intervention. They met the
75 termination criterion when they both emitted some vocal mands initially but stopped manding for the books for four consecutive sessions.
Figure 16
The number of target responses Gavin and Lucy (third dyad) emitted during the OCDI.
Match-to-Sample Task
10 9 Correct Responses to the 8 Performance Task 7 Looks Mands 6 Attempts 5 4 3 2 1 0 Gavin -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 of Responses 9 8 Number 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lucy -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sessions
Figure 17 displays the number of whole intervals of observing book stimuli for all participants in the pre- and post-OCDI conditions. None of the six participants looked at book stimuli across all probe sessions. Following the OCDI, the number of whole intervals participants observed book stimuli increased to criterion level (ranging from 55 to 60) for Luke,
Mike, Gavin, and Lucy. Sandy and Noah, on the other hand, required a second round of OCDI
76 with a different task. Following the OCDI with a different task, the number of whole intervals
Sandy and Noah observed book stimuli increased to criterion level (ranging from 52 to 60).
Figure 17
The number of whole five-second intervals participants looked at books during five-minute observations across pre- and post-OCDI in Experiment II.
Post-Observational Post-Observational Pre-Observational procedure procedure (MTS) procedure (Writing Task) 60 50 40 30 20 10 Luke 0 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 50 40 30 20 10 Sandy 0 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 50 40 30 20 10 Mike 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 Second Whole Whole Second Intervals - 50 of of 5 40 30 20 Number 10 Noah 0 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 50 40 30 20 10 Gavin 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 50 40 30 20 10 Lucy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sessions
77
Discussion
The results for four of the six participants showed the OCDI in triads was effective in establishing CR+ for observing books. Sandy and Noah both required additional OCD sessions to condition observing books as a preferred activity. Additionally, Noah demonstrated some increase in his observing responses toward books after the first round of OCD with a match-to- sample task; however, the observing response was not at the criterion level. We hypothesize the match-to-sample (MTS) task was a less effortful response for Sandy and Noah; in other words, they did not require frequent reinforcement during the MTS task. Therefore, we selected another task (i.e., a dictation task for Sandy and a drawing task for Noah) that required more reinforcement based on their instructional history. According to both of their intervention data, the correct response to the second performance task went to extinction (i.e., zero correct response) after 10 to 12 intervention sessions. Following the second round of intervention, Sandy and Noah both acquired CR+ for observing books. Thus, we can conclude that they were truly under denial conditions because their responses to the second performance task were not reinforced.
In terms of the rate of acquisition for learning new sight words, all participants demonstrated a faster rate after observing books functioned as a conditioned reinforcer, which is consistent with the findings from Experiment I and previous research (Buttigieg and Greer, 2021;
Tsai & Greer, 2006). More specifically, Luke and Sandy learned 1.4 and 1.6 times faster following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, respectively. For the participants in the second dyad, Mike learned 1.4 times faster and Noah learned 1.6 times faster as a function of the establishment of CR+ for observing books. For the participants in the third dyad, Gavin learned
78
1.3 times faster and Lucy learned 1.4 times faster following the presence of CR+ for observing books.
In the second experiment, we added discriminative remembering as an additional measure. Catania (2013) defined remembering as an organism’s present behavior being triggered by past events, and there is a delay between a stimulus and an opportunity to respond. We sought to investigate whether the participants could recall any content from the books they observed, which provided a way to empirically measure what was being observed when they were looking at books. The results of the second experiment showed a dramatic increase in the number of discriminative remembering responses the participants emitted during post-CR+ for observing books sessions. Noah and Gavin could only recall a limited number of words and pictures prior to the establishment of CR+ for observing books; however, both of them selected most of the pictures and some words from the books after observing books functioned as a preferred activity.
Luke, Mike and Lucy both emitted some correct discriminative remembering responses to pictures during the pre-CR+ for observing books sessions, while the accuracy of selecting words was relatively low. Following the establishment of CR+ for observing books, all three of them could successfully remember the words shown in the books.
The results of discriminative remembering responses also show participants who demonstrated a higher reading level could recall more textual stimuli (i.e., words) from the
Reading A through Z books. In detail, Noah and Gavin who were at a preschool reading level emitted a low number of correct discriminative remembering responses to words. Meanwhile, the other three participants (i.e., Luke, Mike, and Lucy), who showed a more advanced reading level could successfully identify more words after observing the books. It is noteworthy that the
Reading A through Z books used during the probe sessions included a picture and a written
79 sentence on each page. Even though all participants acquired CR+ for observing books, only the participants with a higher reading level could demonstrably select out pictures and textual stimuli embedded in the books.
The results from the second experiment also suggest that at least four of the six participants showed an increase in their degree of observational learning repertoires. During the
OCDI, the participants continuously observed the peer confederate receive books for each response, while they did not receive any sort of reinforcement. Through these repeated observations and denial conditions, the participants’ responses were now under observational stimulus control. In other words, the participants in the second experiment were denied access to the books but also observed the peer confederate receive books simultaneously; therefore, the reinforcement value of the peers may have increased through this process. Thus, the OCDI creates a motivating operation for the participants to observe the peer confederate’s responses more frequently during the probe sessions. The results of the second experiment were consistent with Lanter and Singer-Dudek’s (2020) study in which they found, for four of the six participants, the establishment of observational learning as a function of the observational conditioning-by-denial intervention.
80
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In two experiments, we tested for the effects of (a) vicarious reinforcement and (b) observational conditioning-by-denial (OCD) procedures in triads on the establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing books (CR+ for observing books). We also examined the effects of CR+ for observing books on the rate of learning, observing responses (i.e., duration of observing printed pictures and words), and remembering responses. The present study also added to the literature by utilizing OCDI, a type of procedure that has not been tested in the literature and that could be more efficient procedure to condition observing books as a reinforcer in a classroom setting since it is more analogous to the conditions of a classroom.
Expanding individuals’ community of reinforcers through the acquisition of conditioned reinforcement for educationally significant stimuli has been a vital educational objective (Greer,
2020; Gentilini & Greer, 2021; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011). The findings from both experiments also showed increases in students’ rate of learning of new words and in accuracy of identifying the textual stimuli from the books as a result of the acquisition of CR+ for observing books. The results of this study also provided evidence that CR+ for observing books can be established in a small group setting (i.e., triads).
Major Findings
The findings from Experiments I and II show the majority of the participants (9 out of 10) demonstrated a faster rate of acquisition for learning new sight words after observing books function as a preferred activity for them. These findings support previous studies (Buttigieg &
Greer, 202; Tsai & Greer, 2006) in which the participants also demonstrated accelerated learning
81 of new textual responses. One exception of the study is Scott, who did not demonstrate a faster rate of learning after observing books functioned as a preferred activity for him.
Anecdotally, we observed Scott emitted some competitive behavior when he was observing book stimuli. For example, he told the peer confederate “look, now I have books, not you.” after he observed the book stimuli. We hypothesized that the books functioned as socially mediated reinforcers for him following the vicarious reinforcement procedure. In other words, the book stimuli functioned to obtain social attention and audience confirmation from the peer confederate instead of observing the relevant textual stimuli. Thus, his rate of acquisition for learning new words did not increase.
Reading readiness had never been precisely defined or directly observed in the past literature (Hansen, 1969; Morrow, 1983). Therefore, along with Buttigieg and Greer (2021), we propose that CR+ for observing books should be the operational definition of reading readiness.
For example, some researchers might consider that the participants in the first experiment already had reading readiness for kindergarten based on the cognitive psychological construct, because the participants could textually respond to at least 40 preschool-level sight words prior to the study. However, the participants required additional prosthetic reinforcement, such as frequent social praise, to learn new words prior to the establishment of CR+ for observing books.
Eventually, when books and related stimuli (i.e., textual stimuli) selected their attention and they were spending longer durations observing books, they required fewer prosthetic reinforcers to learn new words, as the correspondence between the printed word and spoken word was the reinforcer for them (Greer, 2020).
82
Vicarious Reinforcement Versus Observation by denial
The findings of the present study raised the question of whether prior literature on vicarious learning is in fact not necessarily a function of observing someone receive consequence contingencies (e.g., reinforcement or punishment) since the effect might be a result of observation under denial conditions. In the first experiment, four participants acquired CR+ for observing books as a result of vicarious reinforcement; however, we could not conclude the acquisition of CR+ for observing books was solely by vicarious reinforcement since the denial component was also embedded in the procedure. In the second experiment, we removed the social reinforcement and isolated the effects of the OCDI. The results of the second experiment provided evidence for the successful development of CR+ for observing books across participants, which showed this change in participants’ observing responses was not due to the delivery of social praise to the peer confederate. Instead, the participants being denied access to the book stimuli was sufficient to establish CR+ for observing books for the participants.
Bandura (1971) defined vicarious reinforcement as a change in the behavior of observers as a function of observing others receive consequence contingencies. He also noted that the effectiveness of vicarious reinforcement was affected by other variables, such as intermittence and magnitude of the reinforcers. However, he did not look into the process between observing the contingency and emission of the behavior, because he speculated the process was a cognitive mediational process that could not be directly observed (Bandura, 1977).
Previous studies, such one by Arenson (1976), reported the effects of vicarious reinforcement on establishing conditioned reinforcers for preschoolers. In his study, the participants were separated into two groups (i.e., observation group and alone group).
Participants in the alone group received direct reinforcement when a green light was paired with
83 the correct responses. For the participants in the observation group, they observed a peer confederate receive reinforcement (e.g., candies) for putting a pointer into the correct hole. A green light was shown at the same time when the confederate received a reward. Following the observation, both group of participants were asked to perform the same task. The results showed the participants in the observation group consistently putting the pointer into the hole that produced the green light without the presentation of candies, while the participants in the alone group did not. Arenson (1976) concluded that the green light functioned as a conditioned reinforcer through the vicarious reinforcement procedure for the observation group. However, he stated that the acquisition of conditioned reinforcers through vicarious learning was inconclusive because other events associated with the vicarious reinforcement had not yet been identified. The results from the present study suggest that the event was attributed to the denial component.
Remembering Behavior
The present study also extended the findings of current literature on CR+ for observing books by testing the stimulus control for the print components of the books (i.e., the text and pictures). We investigated what the participants saw and retained when they observed book stimuli. More specifically, we sought to measure the retrieval of the participants’ mental imagery after they observed the books that contained both pictures and words. From behaviorists’ perspective, this “mental imagery” could be described as a covert behavior that occurred within one’s own skin, meaning the behavior could not be directly observed. This concept is closely related to Skinner’s accounts of conditioned seeing, which was defined as the behavior of seeing an image in the absence of a visual stimulus (Skinner, 1957). In a past study on measuring conditioned seeing responses, third and fourth-grade students were asked to draw the stimuli presented at an early time (Mercorella, 2017). However, the participants in the present study
84 were preschool children who could not adequately produce the visual stimuli via drawing; consequently, two alternative measurements were used in the study.
In the first experiment, we measured the duration participants spent observing printed pictures and words before and after the establishment of CR+ for observing books. The results from Experiment I were inconclusive because the duration of observing printed words/pictures was a direct measure of conditioned reinforcement for observing printed stimuli (Keohane et al.,
2009) instead of participants' remembering behavior. In the second experiment, we measured the number of stimuli the participants could remember before and after the presence of CR+ for observing books. The findings from Experiment II showed that the number of discriminative remembering responses the participants emitted increased dramatically after the establishment of
CR+ for observing books, suggesting a change in the stimulus control for observing stimuli. In detail, the strength of the stimulus control for observing books increased as the reinforcement value of the book stimuli was enhanced; thus, the participants could remember more details from the books after the establishment of CR+ for observing books.
Observation by-denial and Observational Stimulus control
Considering that individuals with observational performance would emit behavior that was already in their repertoires as a result of observation (Greer et al., 2006), we hypothesized there would be collateral effects when one participant observed another peer and was also denied access to the book stimuli. This hypothesis was further supported by the findings of the present study. The intervention data from both experiments demonstrated nine participants, except for
Scott, emitted vocal mands or attempts in order to get access to the books during the same sessions. Anecdotally, when the participants observed another peer in the dyad emitted vocal mands for the book stimuli but was denied access, this created the motivating operation for the
85 participant to attempt to gain access to the books. In other words, the participant did not try to obtain the books initially until the other participant in the same dyad attempted to get access to the books during the intervention.
In addition to the methodological changes made to isolate the denial component, we also considered the acquisition of the observational learning repertoire following the establishment of
CR+ for observing books using the OCDI in the second experiment. During the OCDI, the participants observed the peer confederate continuously received consequences for emitting a response in the intervention sessions, which strengthened the participants’ observational stimulus control. The observational stimulus control herein refers to the phenomena in which an individual’s responses come under the control of observing others responding to particular stimuli and contacting contingencies. For example, the participants in the second experiment repeatedly observed the experimenter provide a vocal antecedent (A), and the peer confederate emitted a response (B); subsequently, the confederate received a book as the consequence (C).
In the present study, the experimenter conducted the observational learning probe sessions in a similar manner as the OCDI, during which peer confederate also received three- term-contingencies for a learning task (i.e., tact cartoon characters) while the participants observed the instruction. Thus, the findings from the second experiment showed that five of the six participants emitted more correct responses during observational learning probe sessions, which indicated a stronger observational stimulus control. This is consistent with support previous studies (Byer, 2016; Lanter & Singer-Dudek, 2020) studies in which the participants also demonstrated similar increases in their observational learning repertories following the
OCDI.
86
Limitations and Future Implications
A major limitation of the present study was that we conducted CR+ for observing books probe sessions at a free play tabletop setting during which the participants only had access to
Lego, puzzles, and target book stimuli. Past studies that tested for the reinforcement value of observing books conducted the probe sessions in free-play areas where the participants had access to more than three toys or activities (Buttigieg & Greer, 2021; Singer-Dudek et al., 2011;
Tsai & Greer, 2006). Thus, the measure we used in the present study only tested the competing reinforcement value among the three options. Future research should consider conducting the
CR+ for observing books probe sessions in the environment where participants would have access to various toys, games, books, and other educational activities (e.g., coloring materials).
Another limitation of the current study was the termination criteria for the OCDI.
Although the criteria were based on existing research (Greer & Singer-Dudek, 2008; Singer-
Dudek et al., 2008, 2011), there remained the possibility that one criterion might be a stronger indicator that showed the effect of the OCDI on establishing conditioned reinforcers. Future experimenters should consider conducting a parametric analysis to evaluate which criterion in the OCDI may be the prime indicator of the establishment of conditioned reinforcers (Fuller &
Fienup, 2017).
The observation-by-denial component was embedded in the vicarious reinforcement procedure used in the first experiment, but the reinforcement value of observing books also increased when we isolated the component in the second experiment, suggesting that the denial component could be a key factor on establishing conditioned reinforcers. However, the findings from the present study did not provide enough evidence to support this claim. Future experimenters should conduct a more robust component analysis to identify the necessary
87 components for conditioning neutral stimuli through observation (Ward-Horner & Sturmey,
2010).
Sandy and Noah in Experiment II acquired CR+ for observing books after we presented a different performance task during additional conditioning sessions (i.e., a dictation task for
Sandy, a drawing task for Noah) that required constant reinforcement based on their instructional history. Towards the end of the intervention, both of their correct responses to the performance task went to extinction, which suggested that their responses were truly under denial conditions.
Thus, the reinforcement value of books increased throughout the process. This finding suggested that future research should consider the level of difficulty of the performance task based on individuals’ differences and their instructional histories.
An additional suggestion for future research was to conduct the discriminative remembering probe sessions at a later time (e.g., 2 hr after the initiation observation) to determine whether the stimulus control for the textual stimuli maintained over time. Moreover, future studies could also replicate the procedure with participants who have more production responses (e.g., drawing), and test alternate methods on measuring the “remembering” behavior based on the concept of conditioning seeing (Skinner, 1957).
Finally, the question remained as to whether the group OCDI is the most cost-beneficial and effective technique to condition neutral stimuli. The findings from the second experiment showed the participants, on average, required 20 sessions to acquire CR+ for observing books. In comparison to the Buttigieg and Greer (2021) study in which they first implemented a stimulus- stimulus pairing procedure to establish observing books as a conditioned reinforcer, their results showed the participants required a mean number of 50 sessions across three different interventions to acquire CR+ for observing books. Moreover, the stimulus-stimulus pairing
88 procedure does not promote generalization to different types of reinforcers and also required additional training to implement the procedure correctly; thus, the implementation of the stimulus-stimulus pairing can be time consuming as a result (Singer-Dudek et al., 2011).
Considering our findings, the effectiveness of any given procedure may be based on the existing controlling variables (e.g., the presence of verbal-behavior developmental cusps) of different individuals; thus, we cannot conclude one procedure is necessarily the best procedure for all. Future research should add more participants in the same group and test whether there would be a different effect on the establishment of neutral stimuli as reinforcers through OCDI.
Experimenters should also recruit more participants with similar characteristics (e.g., the presence of their verbal behavior developmental cusps and capabilities) and conduct a comparison study between the match-paired groups (i.e., one group undergo OCDI and the other one receives stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure) on conditioning neutral stimuli to determine which procedures promote stronger and more efficient outcomes.
Conclusion
Whereas previous research tested the impact of the interest in looking at books on one’s learning, few studies from the field of applied behavior analysis are devoted to testing other interventions to establish conditioned reinforcers for individuals based on their present skills
(e.g., observational performance). The present study filled this gap in the current literature by examining the effects of OCDI on the establishment of educationally significant stimuli for two participants at a time. In addition, we examined how the group OCDI could strengthen the observational stimulus control of individuals; thus, allowing the individuals to acquire new operants through observation. The results of the present study also demonstrated that when the
89 reinforcement value of observing books increased, it could have a subsequent impact on covert behavior (e.g., remembering responses).
Individuals’ interest in reading and its’ effect on reading achievement has not been widely examined among educators and researchers. Recent research based on the theory of verbal behavior development suggested that there is educational significance in establishing a high level of interest in observing books (Buttigieg &Greer, 2021; Tsai & Greer, 2006) and interest in reading (Bly & Greer, 2019; Gentilini & Greer, 2020, 2021). Building upon the love of reading, teaching “read to learn” should be the ultimate goal for every educator. The verbal- behavior development theorists operationally defined and measured interest in reading (or conditioned reinforcement for reading content) as the moment-to-moment selection of reading books by children (Greer, 2020). However, the reinforcement value of reading content will not increase if the children do not observe the book stimuli voluntarily. As such, the establishment of preference in observing books for young children is a critical prerequisite for the development of reading proficiency.
It is also important for educators to implement efficient and effective procedures to increase students’ observing responses in looking books at an early age. The findings of the present study suggested a potentially more efficient procedure that changes the reinforcement value of observing books for children, which also had a considerable impact on their learning outcomes. As B.F. Skinner proposed: “Knowing the contents of a few words of literature is a trivial achievement. Being inclined to go on reading is a great achievement.” (Evans, 1968, p.
73) When children learn to love reading books, they subsequently acquire new words and content; ultimately, they are motivated to learn more about the world around them.
90
References
Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the three-term contingency trial a predictor of effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947188
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading research quarterly, 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2
Arenson, S. J. (1976). Vicarious conditioned reinforcement in children. The Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1976.9921397
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading research quarterly, 34, 452-477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. The nature of reinforcement, 228278. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Baowaidan, L. M. A. (2016). The effects of an observational intervention on audience control by peers in preschool children with developmental and language delays (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Birnbrauer, J. S., Wolf, M. M., Kidder, J. D., & Tague, C. E. (1965). Classroom behavior of retarded pupils with token reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(65)90045-7
Bly, B. D., & Greer, R. D. (in preparation). Relations between and the result of establishing conditioned reinforcement for reading on reading achievement in fourth graders. [Manuscript in preparation].
Bly, B. D., & Greer, R. D. (2021). A comparison of the effect of collaborative shared reading vs. collaborative independent reading on the reading achievement of fourth grade students [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Columbia University.
Brown, C. P. (2013). Reforming preschool to ready children for academic achievement: A case study of the impact of pre-k reform on the issue of school readiness. Early Education & Development, 24, 554-5 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.694352
91
Buttigieg, S. F., & Greer, R. D. (2021). Establishment of preference for books in free-play settings accelerates preschoolers’ rate of learning to read their first words [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Columbia University.
Byers, E. M. (2016). An analysis of the relation between preschool children’s attention to peers and the presence of the behavioral developmental cusp for learning by observation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Catania, A. C. (2013). A natural science of behavior. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 133- 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033026
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning. Sloan Publishing.
Cameron, K. L. (2018). The Effects of a Behavioral Momentum Blending Intervention on the Accuracy of Textual and Spelling Responses Emitted by Preschool Students with Blending Difficulties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Child Trends Data Bank. (2015). Early school readiness: Indicators on children and youth.
Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children's exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(1), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(92)90018-2
Cleveland, A., Kobiella, A., & Striano, T. (2006). Intention or expression? Four-month-olds’ reactions to a sudden still-face. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 299-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.12.004
Conlon, E. G., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Creed, P. A., & Tucker, M. (2006). Family history, self- perceptions, attitudes and cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. Journal of research in reading, 29, 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9817.2006.00290.x
Connor, D. V. (1954). The relationship between reading achievement and voluntary reading of children. Educational Review, 6, 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191540060308
Davoudzadeh, P., McTernan, M. L., & Grimm, K. J. (2015). Early school readiness predictors of grade retention from kindergarten through eighth grade: A multilevel discrete-time survival analysis approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.005
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students' recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of educational psychology, 104, 1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027800
92
Drigas, A., Kokkalia, G., Economou, A., & Roussos, P. (2017). Intervention and Diagnostic Tools in Preschool Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12, 185-197.
Du, L., Broto, J., & Greer, R. D. (2015). The effects of establishment of conditioned reinforcement for observing responses for 3D stimuli on generalized visual match-to- sample in children with autism spectrum disorders. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 16, 82-98. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i11.7155
Evans, R. I. (1968). B. F. Skinner: The man and his ideas. New York, NY: 1313 Dutton.
Fuller, J. L., & Fienup, D. M. (2018). A preliminary analysis of mastery criterion level: Effects on response maintenance. Behavior analysis in practice, 11(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0201-0
Fractor, J. S., Woodruff, M. C., Martinez, M. G., & Teale, W. H. (1993). Let's not miss opportunities to promote voluntary reading: Classroom libraries in the elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 46, 476-484.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The reading teacher, 49(7), 518-533. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.49.7.2
Gentilini, L. M., & Greer, R. D. (2020). Establishment of conditioned reinforcement for reading content and effects on reading achievement for early-elementary students. The Psychological Record, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00382-6
Gentilini, L. M., & Greer, R. D. (2021). The Effect of the Establishment of Conditioned Reinforcement for Reading Content on Second-Graders' Reading Achievement. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(1), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00511-1
Greenberg, J. H., & Martinez, R. C. (2008). Starting off on the right foot: One year of behavior analysis in practice and relative cost. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 212. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100844
Greer, R.D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis systems approach. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Greer, R. D. (2020). The selector in behavior selection. The Psychological Record, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00385-3
Greer, R. D., & Du, L. (2015). Experience and the onset of the capability to learn names incidentally by exclusion. The Psychological Record, 65, 355-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0111-2
93
Greer, R. D., & Du, L. (2015). Identification and establishment of reinforcers that make the development of complex social language possible. International Journal of Behavior Analysis & Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 13-34.
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L., Williams, G., McCorkle, N., & Asnes, R. (1991). Peer-mediated procedures to induce swallowing and food acceptance in young children. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 24(4), 783-790. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-783
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L., & Wolpert, R. (1980). The effects of conditioning reinforcement for music stimuli on rate of learning match-to-sample discrimination. Unpublished paper Teachers College Columbia University.
Greer, R. D., & Han, H. S. A. (2015). Establishment of conditioned reinforcement for visual observing and the emergence of generalized visual-identity matching. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101316
Greer, R. D., & Keohane, D. (2005). The evolution of verbal behavior in children. Behavioral Development Bulletin.1, 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100559
Greer, R. D., & McDonough, S. H. (1999). Is the learn unit a fundamental measure of pedagogy? The behavior analyst, 22(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391973
Greer, R. D., Pistoljevic, N., Cahill, C., & Du, L. (2011). Conditioning voices as reinforcers for listening responses in preschoolers with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393095
Greer, R. D., Pohl, P., Du, L., & Moschella, J. L. (2017). The separate development of children’s listener and speaker behavior and the intercept as behavioral metamorphosis. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 7(13), 674-704. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2017.713045
Greer, R. D. & Ross, D.E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding complex communication in children with language delays. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greer, R. D., & Singer-Dudek, J. (2008). The emergence of conditioned reinforcement from observation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008.89-15
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., Delgado, J. P., & Oblak, M. (2007). Books as a conditioned reinforcer for performance and acquisition tasks as a function of observation. In Presented as part of a symposium entitled, Observational conditioning.
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Gautreaux, G (2006). Observational learning. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 486-499.
94
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., Longano, J., & Zrinzo, M. (2009). The emergence of praise as conditioned reinforcement as a function of observation in preschool and school age children. Revista Mexicana de Psicologia, 25(1), 5-26.
Greer, R. D., Speckman, J., Dudek, J., Cahill, C., Weber, J., Du, L., & Longano, J. (2019). Early learner curriculum and achievement record (ELCAR): A CABAS® developmental inventory.
Godin, J. G., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1996). Female mating preference for bold males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(19), 10262- 10267. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.19.10262
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of the home literary environment on reading attitude. Elementary English, 46, 17-24.
Hernandez, D. (2012). How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Herman-Smith, R. (2013). Do preschool programs affect social disadvantage? What social workers should know. Social work, 58, 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws049
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational research review, 1, 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001
Holdaway, D. (1990). Independence in reading (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Hustedt, J. T., Buell, M. J., Hallam, R. A., & Pinder, W. M. (2018). While kindergarten has changed, some beliefs stay the same: Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about readiness. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32, 52-66.
Ingham, P., & Greer, R. D. (1992). Changes in student and teacher responses in observed and generalized settings as a function of supervisor observations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-153
Kamhi, A.G. & Catts, H.W. (Eds.) (2012). Language and reading disabilities (3rd ed.). Boston. MA: Pearson.
Kamps, D. M., Barbetta, P. M., Leonard, B. R., & Delquadri, J. (1994). Classwide peer tutoring: An integration strategy to improve reading skills and promote peer interactions among students with autism and general education peers. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 27(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-49
95
Kaniuka, T. S. (2010). Reading Achievement, Attitude Toward Reading, and Reading Self- Esteem of Historically Low Achieving Students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37.
Katz, E. (2017). The effects of social conditions on learning new reinforcers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Kazdin, A. E. (1973). The Effect of Vicarious Reinforcement on Attentive Behavior In the Classroom 1. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 6(1), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-71
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Vicarious reinforcement and punishment processes in the classroom. In The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents (pp. 129-153). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2180-2_5
Kazdin, A. E., & Bootzin, R. R. (1972). The token economy: An evaluative review 1. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 5(3), 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1972.5-343
Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology: A systematic text in the science of behavior. East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11293-000
Keohane, D. D., Luke, N., & Greer, R. D. (2008). The things we care to see: The effects of rotated protocol immersion on the emergence of early observing responses. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5, 23. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100408
Keohane, D., Pereira-Delgado, J. & Greer, R. D. (2009). Observing responses: Foundations of higher order verbal operants, pp. 41-62. In R. A. Rehfeldt and Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.).
Krapp, A. (2002a). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to self- determination theory. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self- determination research (pp. 405–427). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kush, J. C., Watkins, M. W., & Brookhart, S. M. (2005). The temporal-interactive influence of reading achievement and reading attitude. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 29- 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110141
Lanter, A., & Singer-Dudek, J. (2020). The effects of an observational conditioning-by-denial intervention on the establishment of three observational learning cusps. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 21(2), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2020.1724001
Lee, J. (2016). The Effect of a Social Condition on the Establishment of Direct and Indirect Conditioned Reinforcement for Writing by Second Graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
96
Lonigan, C. J., Allan, N. P., & Lerner, M. D. (2011). Assessment of preschool literacy skills: Linking children’s educational needs with empirically supported instructional activities. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 488-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20569
Longano, J. M., & Greer, R. D. (2015). Is the source of reinforcement for naming multiple conditioned reinforcers for observing responses? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31, 96-117
Maffei, J., Singer-Dudek, J., & Dolleen-Day, K. (2014). The effects of the establishment of adult faces and/or voices as conditioned reinforcers for children with ASD and related disorders. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 4, 1621-1641.
Mandel Morrow, L. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221-230.
Maurilus, E. (2018). The Effect of the Establishment of Reinforcement Value for Math on Rate of Learning for Pre-Kindergarten Students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Massaro, D. W., & Bosseler, A. (2006). Read my lips: The importance of the face in a computer- animated tutor for vocabulary learning by children with autism. Autism, 10, 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361306066599
McGeown, S.P, Duncan, L.G, Griffiths, Y. N., & Stothard, S.E. (2015) Exploring the relationship between adolescent’s reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits, Reading and Writing, 28, 545-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9
Mercorella, K. A. (2017). The effects of sequencing and producing narrative components of a story on reading comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological bulletin, 137(2), 267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890
Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact of a literature program on children's use of library centers. Reading Research Quarterly, 330- 346. https://doi.org/10.2307/747713
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). NAEP report card: 2019 NAEP reading assessment. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/
Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286-311. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.3.3
97
Nuzzolo-Gomez, R., Leonard, M. A., Ortiz, E., Rivera, C. M., & Greer, R. D. (2002). Teaching children with autism to prefer books or toys over stereotypy or passivity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070200400203
O’Rourke, C. A. (2006). Conditioning math as a reinforcer for performance and learning as a function of observation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
Pavlov I (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 373-404). Academic Press.
Renninger, K. A., & Wozniak, R. H. (1985). Effect of interest on attention shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 624–632.
Renninger, A., Nieswandt, M., & Hidi, S. (2015). Interest in mathematics and science learning. American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.21.4.624
Retelsdorf, J., K.ller, O., & M.ller, J. (2011). On the effects of motivation on reading performance growth in secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 550–559.
Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological science, 24, 1301-1308.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 30, 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-533
Schmelzkopf, J., Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Du, L. (2017). Experiences that establish preschoolers’ interest in speaking and listening to others. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 22(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000026
Singer-Dudek, J., Greer, R. D., & Schmelzkopf, J. (2008). The effects of an observational intervention on the acquisition of reinforcing properties of a previously neutral stimulus. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5, 57. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100410
Singer-Dudek, J., & Oblak, M. (2013). Peer presence and the emergence of conditioned reinforcement from observation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 592-602. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.72
Singer-Dudek, J., Oblak, M., & Greer, R. D. (2011). Establishing books as reinforcers for preschool children as a function of an observational intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-421
98
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Slocum, T. A. (2004). Direct instruction: The big ideas. In Evidence-based educational methods (pp. 81-94). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012506041-7/50007-3
Snow, C. E., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Speckman, J., Longano, J. M., & Syed, N. (2017). The effects of conditioning three-dimensional stimuli on identity matching and imitative responses in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 22, 111. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000025
Staats, A. W., Staats, C. K., Schutz, R. E., & Wolf, M. (1962). The Conditioning of Textual Responses using “Extrinsic” Reinforcers 1. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1962.5-33
Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2017). Measurement invariance and validity of a brief questionnaire on reading motivation in elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 439-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12085
Sundberg, M. L., Michael, J., Partington, J. W., & Sundberg, C. A. (1996). The role of automatic reinforcement in early language acquisition. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392904
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A Meta- Analytic Review of the Relations Between Motivation and Reading Achievement for K– 12 Students. Review of Educational Research, 90, 420-456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
Tsai, H., & Greer, R. D. (2006). Conditioned preference for books and faster acquisition of textual responses by preschool children. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Interventions, 3, 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100322
Vargas, J. S. (2013). Behavior analysis for effective teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203119303
99
Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Nevo, E., Brande, S., & Gambrell, L. (2018). Developmental aspects of reading motivation and reading achievement among second grade low achievers and typical readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 438-454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12117
Ward-Horner, J., & Sturmey, P. (2010). Component analyses using single-subject experimental designs: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-685
Warner-Griffin, C., Liu, H., Tadler, C., Herget, D., & Dalton, B. (2017). Reading Achievement of US Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context: First Look at the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016 and ePIRLS 2016. NCES 2018- 017. National Center for Education Statistics.
Watkins, M. W., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading Motivation: Multidimensional and Indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.96.1.110
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.
Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392675
Wolf, M. M., Giles, D. K., & Hall, R. V. (1968). Experiments with token reinforcement in a remedial classroom. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6, 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(68)90042-9
Zrinzo, M., & Greer, R. D. (2013). Establishment and maintenance of socially learned conditioned reinforcement in young children: Elimination of the role of adults and view of peers’ faces. The Psychological Record, 63(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.004
100