Research summary Number (highlight one)
Teachers college Columbia university
DR Kate Cameroon
| Article 1 – Before 1990 | Section 2 – After 2010 | |
| Citation as per APA 6 | Russo, D. C., & Koegel, R. L. (1977). A method for integrating an autistic child into a normal public-school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(4), 579-590. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-579
| Thompson, M. J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2017). The use of differential reinforcement to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of a nine-year-Old girl with autism. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 9(23). doi:10.25115/ejrep.v9i23.1433 |
| Three sentence abstracts (for example, the experiment studied the effects of x on y Experiments found that z Questions raised by findings and or implications for future research | The experiment delved into how behavioral techniques influenced the participant’s social behavior and verbal responses in class. The experiments showed that the introduction of the therapist to discourage the participant from engaging in unusual social behavior was helpful. The impact of future research was evident, as seen in the second experiment conducted on the same participant. | The experiment focused on the effects of using differential reinforcement with the token economy to influence negative behavior (talk-outs) displayed by a third-grade pupil with autism. The experiments found that the use of this method positively impacted the behavior of the student. One of the few questions that arose was if there was a way to differentiate the effect of different components used and their direct impact on the study. |
| Behaviors targeted for change. Please provide complete (operational, if provide) definition. | Herein, the negative behavior of the child in kindergarten was unfavorable social behavior, including loitering in class. There was constant throwing of tantrums when reprimanded or when demands remained unmet. The study also targeted self-stimulation behavior that included stereotyped finger movements. | In this case, the negative behavior targeted was a talk-out (speaking when not spoken to) habit “Molly” had that caused disruptions during class. |
| Where these behaviors were socially significant for participants, the people in their lives, or both? How do you know? Provide rationale. | The participant. For the participant, it reflected well for improved behavior, meaning they would not have to go back to special classes among other students diagnosed with the same. For the student to remain in the public school, the condition on the onset was they had to improve on their behavior to stay at the school, which feels more like a win for the participant. | Both. For the participants, the new positive behavior adapted would help them integrate well with the rest of the class. For the staff, it meant less commotion in the class and assisting a student in fulfilling their potential. |
| How did the authors refer to learner participants in the article (i.e., participants, subject’s students, etc.)? | In every instance, “the child” applies to describe the participant. | In most cases, the student’s name n replaced by a false name: “Molly.” |
| What diagnosis, if any, did participants have, and how did the authors describe it to the reader (i.e., a child with autism, autistic child, etc.)? | The study focused on a child diagnosed with autism and trying to assimilate them into a typical public-school system. The author refers to the participant as an autistic child. | The study focused on children diagnosed with autism and trying to get them to behave like the rest of their classmates by reducing bad behavior. In multiple instances, the author refers to the participants as a child with autism. |
| What was the dependent variable? Please include the definition in quotes. This may be the same as the behaviors targeted for change. | The dependent variable was the frequency of the social behavior considered inappropriate, the occasions the child engaged in self-stimulation, and the times when she actively gave appropriate responses. | The dependent variable was the number of talk-outs. Any vocalizations made during class time without the teacher giving permission or any comments that did not include a medical emergency counted. |
| What was the independent variable | The independent variable was the number of tokens the student got for earning points on good behavior. | |
| How were the data collected | The recording system involved the therapist sitting in the class for observations. That way, a baseline developed allowed the accurate dispatching of token for good behavior to make the experiment a success. Eventually, the teacher took on the role of proper training from the therapist. | There was a recording system in each session the student engaged in. Observers carried a sheet of paper to record data during the twenty-minute sessions on their respective days. Eventually, the interobserver calculated the mean to come up with data for the graphs. |
| Did the experiments target performance, learning or both | Learning. It ensured improved social behavior in the child so that they remained in that school to experience a normal upbringing with encouraging tokens for good behavior displayed. | Learning. The greatest motivation seemed to get the participant to remain within the bounds of the school rules and regulations and thrive in-class sessions by using the token economy for good behavior. |
| What were the major findings? Summarize briefly. | There was reduced social behavior during the time of experimentation. Any immediate withdrawal of tokens resulted in a high frequency of different social cues. While the token differential reinforcement was in effect, ethical behavior was observed all across the board. | By applying differential reinforcement, the student’s negative talk-out behavior reduced in frequency with the token economy appearing very encouraging. A gradual reduction in tokens went on until the achievement of a new baseline. |
| What did the experiments do well? What was/were the limitations of this study? | One advantage was the child with autism was in a typical class setting rather than a special class and thus exposed them to inclusion. Another was that there was another observation that followed-up to see if the improved kindergarten behavior could happen again. Also, there was a focus on ensuring the teacher got proper training by the therapist on how to manage the child’s behavior. One limitation was that the teacher trained in coping with the child’s condition had to maintain proximity. The lack of training in personnel, as seen in progression to first-grade, showed a return to previous undesired behavior. | One advantage was the easy acquisition of materials used for the experiment. Another was that the participant’s regular schedule never got interrupted, and they carried on generally with their learning. One limitation was that the involvement of one participant meant no comparisons with other results to see how productive the token economy was. Secondly, the frequency of the talk-outs never reduced to zero. |
| How was this study educationally significant? | In initial reactions towards the new system, there was an apparent change in behavior. Significant improvement was consistent with the therapist’s presence, and an ultimate persistence in the result of the differential improvement was evident even when the therapist was not physically present. | It showed negative behavior reduced by applying the token economy in the differential reinforcement environment. Thus, other negative behaviors among other participants could also change with the right tokens in place. |
| Name 2 things you would do differently if conducting this study today. | First would be to notify the child on the observation and explaining the need to improve on behavior. Then, the therapist would have to train more than one school personnel on how to cope with the child, as opposed to having only one teacher responsible for the child. That way, it is possible to have more than one child at a time in the school. | One would be to try using two participants simultaneously, allowing necessary comparisons. Another would be to balance out the sessions without encouraging more tokens for some classes over others. |