Controlling the behaviors of young children who spend long hours in the preschool setting may be a disheartening task for the typically uncertified and minimally educated teacher. Prior research has shown that the use of an individual contingency token system proves to be an effective method for increasing positive student behaviors (Shapiro & Goldberg, 1986). The results of their study also suggested the students themselves favored the use of an independent contingency method. Additionally, the use of a whole-class system has shown to aid the effectiveness of strategies the teacher may already have in place (Filcheck, McNeil, Greco & Bernard, 2004). Rules alone have been known to exert little effect on classroom behavior (Madsen, Jr., Becker, & Thomas, 1968).
Although there is much research indicating that unfavorable behaviors in early childhood exist, research on the token economy system as an intervention at this age is limited. The effectiveness of reward in elementary through high school aged students has been acknowledged through ample research, however, more research on using the system for typically developed preschool students is needed. Findings have shown that children’s behavioral competence can be crucial for optimal functioning in the preschool setting (Winsler, 2002). In addition, since research has shown that behavioral problems in early childhood will persist into the school age setting (Campbell, 1995), one might conclude logically that effective treatment of behaviors at a young age may also decrease later childhood behavioral problems.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of the token economy based on an individual contingency reward system within a typical, full-time preschool setting. The use of behavioral observation data was based on the number of times the children broke familiar classroom rules and included baseline and post data. Will the use of a scheduled token reward system enhance the effectiveness of the classroom rule structure while simultaneously decreasing the disruptive behaviors? Method
Participants and Setting
The classroom used to conduct this study consisted of 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) aged three to four years old in a suburban preschool. All of the students were considered full-time meaning they were present at the school for 5-7 hours five days a week. The class was 99% Caucasian with only one child of partial Korean decent. None of the children involved in the program received any subsidy or financial help to attend the program. There was one Lead Teacher and one Co-Teacher responsible for creating and implementing lesson plans based on curriculum including cognitive skills, language arts, computer lab, science, art history, sign language, Spanish, creative art and motor skills. Activities of daily living were also addressed. The overall participation of the children was based on their freedom of choice; that is, they were not made to engage in any activity they did not want to.
Procedure
The classroom had a standard set of rules that all children were made aware of when they first enrolled in the class. The rules were displayed and reviewed on a daily basis by both the Lead and Co Teachers. The rules consisted of the following five expectations: 1) Follow directions and make good choices, 2) Keep your hands on your own body, including no hitting, kicking, etc., 3) Use your manners and speak nicely to everyone, 4) No running or rough play indoors, and 5) Use your words – no shouting or crying unless hurt.
A token economy system was employed for all students in the classroom. Students were rewarded stickers every 15 minutes for each incidence of following the classroom rules. A timer was used to indicate it was time for delivery of the tokens. A standard chart displaying the names of the children on the left and spaces for each day of the week was hung at eye level to the children to keep the amount of earned tokens in clear view. When the timer went off, each child who followed the rules was verbally acknowledged and a sticker was awarded. Each child who broke one of the rules was reminded that he or she did not earn a sticker for breaking a rule.
At the end of each week, students counted their stickers and were awarded either no prize or a choice of prices based on three levels dependent upon how many stickers they earned. The prizes were kept in a three drawer plastic cart with the top drawer being the lowest prizes and the bottom drawer being the highest prizes. The drawers on the prize cart were clear and kept at the front of the classroom at all times as a visual reminder for the children. A reinforcer inventory was taken weekly to assess each child’s particular motivating reinforcer.
Design
At the start of the study baseline data was taken for 10 full school days. Each time a student was observed breaking a rule, the teacher would place a mark next to the child’s name during the appropriate time interval. No mention of prizes or behavior corrections was made during the baseline study. The same spreadsheet was used to collect behavioral observation data based on the children’s performance during the token economy phase. The sheet included each child’s name with the hours of the day broken down into 15-minute increment boxes. At the end of each day during the 5-week phase this list was compared to the sticker chart to ensure proper distribution of tokens.
Each drawer was assigned a specific number indicating the amount of necessary tokens to obtain what was inside. This amount was based on a five hour day broken down into twenty opportunities for receiving tokens, therefore, one token every fifteen minutes for five hours. Each child was allowed up to five incidences per week to receive the best prizes, an average of one negative behavior per day. If the child broke the rules anywhere from six to ten times they would receive the middle drawer, an average of two disruptions per day. The least sought after prizes were awarded to children who, on average, made three mistakes a day. Any more inappropriate behaviors than that received no prize at all.
Results
At the end of the study baseline data was compared to the data taken during the token delivery stage.Although mean comparison depicts a decrease during the token delivery phase, dependent paired t-tests were conducted to ensure validity and homogeneity of variances.
Discussion
This study concluded that a token economy can statistically alter the behaviors of preschool children during its active phase. It is important to note that the disruptive behavior of the children only increased for a 5 day period after the removal of the reward system. The implementation and then removal of the system did not cause any permanent changes in behavior, when post data was compared to baseline using a dependent t-test. Therefore, in order to maintain classroom cohesion the token economy system needs to be in place consistently. Further studies that employ a token economy system for a longer period of time would provide greater insight on the possibility of permanently modifying behaviors. A system which fades the delivery of the reward while molding children to self-gratify may be another possible study to further examine the effects of the token reward system in preschoolers.
Modifications may be necessary for children in the classroom diagnosed with a developmental or behavioral disorder. In this study one child was labeled as having Pervasive Developmental Delay and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Modifications were only made to the reward incentive the child was working towards; instead of a weekly reinforcer inventory the child had new items or activities added to the drawer each day. This was done because the child with developmental disorders may have a difficult time maintaining motivation and sometimes requires unusual items that may not be appealing to the other children. It is important to note that motivating items are an absolute necessity for the system to work properly.
Without a highly reinforcing item in the reward cart for every single child the system may not work. Even if just one child sees nothing of interest to him or herself then the system is not functioning as intended. If a problem arises in which the children seem to have a disregard for the tokens, a check on reinforcer potency may be required. REFERENCES
Campbell, S.B. (1995). Behavior Problems in Preschool
Children: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Child 113-149.
Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 (1),
Filcheck, H.A., McNeil, C.B., Greco, L.A. & Bernard, R.S.(2004).
Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher
skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive
behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 41 (3), 351-361.
Madsen, Jr., C.H., Becker, W.C. & Thomas, D.R. (1968). Rules,
Praise, and Ignoring: Elements of Elementary Classroom
Control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 (2), 139-
150.
Shapiro, E.S. & Goldberg, R. (1986). A comparison of group
contingencies for increasing spelling performance among
sixth grade students. School Psychology Review, 15 (4), 546-557.
Winsler, A. (2002). Behavior Problems and Social Skills in
Preschool Children: Parent-Teacher Agreement and Relations
with Classroom Observations. Early Education and 41-58.
Development, 13 (1), After conducting a paired t-test between the baseline data and token delivery data, the statistical significance was made evident, supporting the hypothesis that a token economy system can alter the rule following behavior of early childhood students. Furthermore, although there was a spike in negative behaviors after the removal of the reward system, the comparative analysis showed no statistical significance between baseline and post data.
