Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance

Journal of Applied School Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 29-45

  Sharp, Shannon R ^a   Skinner, Christopher H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Empirical case study; Interdependent group contingencies; Pair readings; Randomly selected criteria; Reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951443258     PISSN: 15377903     EISSN: 15377911     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J370v20n02_03     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Axelrod, S. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes. Behavior Therapy, 4, 83-90.
2. Billington, E. J., & Ditommaso, N. M. (2003). Demonstrations and applications of matching theory in education. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 91-104.
3. Billington, E. J., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Getting students to choose to do more work: Evidence of the effectiveness of the interspersal procedure. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 105-116.
4. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., Hutchins, H., & Malone, J. C. (2004). Varying problem effort and choice: Using the interspersal technique to influence choice towards more effortful assignments. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 193-207.
5. Busk, P.L., & Serlin, R.C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single case research design and analysis: Applications in psychology and education (pp. 187-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
6. Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M., & Lewis, J. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 47-53.
7. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watkins, C. E., Rhymer, K. N., McNeill, B. S., & McCurdy, M. (2001). Effects of interspersing additional brief math problems on student performance and perception of math assignments: Getting students to prefer to do more work. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 177-193.
8. Cooke, N. L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J. S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 213-234.
9. Cupolillo, M., Silva, R., Socorro, S., & Topping, K. (1997). Paired reading and Brazilian first-year school failures. Educational Psychology in Practice, 13, 96-100.
10. Daly, E. J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Interventions for Reading Problems: Designing and Evaluating Effective Strategies. Guilford Publications. Practical Intervention in the Schools.
11. Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daly, E. J., & Martens, B. K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271-281.
12. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. J. (1997). Together we can! Classwide peer tutoring to improve basic academic skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
13. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
14. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
15. Hargis, C. H. (1999). Teaching and testing in reading: A practical guide for teachers and parents. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
16. Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavior control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628-648.
17. Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 523-534.
18. Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-19.
19. Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Uncovering critical research agendas for school psychology: Conceptual dimensions and future directions. School Psychology Review, 29, 591-603.
20. Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
21. Maheady, L., Sainato, D. M., & Maitland, G. (1983). Motivated assessment: The effects of extrinsic rewards on the individually-administered reading test performance of low, average, and high IQ students. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 37-46.
22. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M. C., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extension of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 691-699.
24. Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing the influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 575-583.
25. Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282-295.
26. Renaissance Learning. (2002). Accelerated reader: Learning information system for reading and literacy systems. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
27. Roberts, M. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73-91.
28. Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
29. Skinner, C. H. (1998). Preventing academic skills deficits. In T. S. Watson & F. Gresham (Eds.). Handbook of child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 61-83). New York: Plenum.
30. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347-368.
31. Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C. S., & Dunn, M. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools, 12, 61-78.
32. Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Armstrong, K. (2000). Shaping leisure reading persistence in a client with chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24, 52-57.
33. Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2002). Best practices in contingency management: Application of individual and group contingencies in educational settings. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (4th ed., pp. 817-830). Washington, DC: The National Association of School Psychologists.
34. Skinner, C. H., Wallace, M. A., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2002). Academic remediation: Educational application of research on assignment preference and choice. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 51-65.
35. Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (in press). Using Interdependent Group-Oriented Reinforcement to Enhance Academic Performance in General Education Classrooms. School Psychology Review.
36. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom management meet. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 29-37.
37. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal ofBehav-ioral Education, 1, 105-116.
38. Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333-368.
40. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
41. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 267-277.
42. Topping, K.J. (1987). Peer tutored paired reading: Outcome data from ten projects. Educational Psychology, 7, 133-145.
43. Topping, K.J. (1988). Peer tutoring of reading using paired reading. Educational and Child Psychology, 5, 24-28.
44. Topping, K. J., & Lindsay, G. A. (1992). The structure and development of the paired reading technique. Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 120-136.
45. Trovato, J., & Bucher, B. (1980). Peer tutoring with or without home-based reinforcement for reading remediation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 129-141.
46. Turco, T. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Acceptability and effectiveness of group contingencies for improving spelling achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 27-37.