Token Economy Essay

An individual’s disruptive behavior slows the learning process for both the offender and those in the classroom (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). Token economies can be successfully used in multiple settings to reinforce target behaviors (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The Get ‘Em On Task program focuses on working with a classroom of tough kids using a form of token economy to improve classroom behavior (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 2010). Higgins, Williams and McLaughlin, however look at the effects of a token economy on a single individual in the classroom setting to determine if they can decrease problem behaviors (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).
For this study, they monitored the behavior of a 10-year-old boy in third grade who consistently participates in disruptive behaviors such as, getting out of his seat, bad posture and
talking out during classroom instruction time (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). Using a momentary time sample procedure the boy was observed for 20-minute sections during instructional time with data being collected after every one-minute interval counting the frequency of each behavior (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The student had a four-by-four piece of paper taped to his desk where the author would add check marks after every one minute if the participant did not engage in the three disruptive behaviors discussed (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).
A multiple baseline design was implemented for each behavior (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). This allowed researchers to see if the token economy was effective or if a confounding variable was getting in the way. Baseline data for each behavior was collected in 20-minute periods during instructional time in class (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). Baseline data for the three behaviors were collected concurrently for 6 to 15 observable days (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).
When the token economy was introduced the student would immediately receive a check mark at every one-minute interval if the target behaviors did not occur (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). At the end of each 20-minute observation the student had the opportunity to receive 20 check marks (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The author would then count up the check marks earned and divided it by 2 giving the student the opportunity to earn a maximum of 10 minutes (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The results equaled the amount of minutes the student would get the next day to use his back-up awards (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The awards included math sheets, academic games, access to the computer, and reading time (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). The student would also receive feedback on his behavior after every 20-minute observation period (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). They found a significant decrease in the target behavior while the token economy was in effect (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).
To check the maintenance of the decreased target behaviors after the token economy was no longer in effect they took data 10 to 12 days after intervention (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).
They found that the behaviors were the same or lower than they were during intervention days after the token economy was no longer in effect (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). This suggests that the token economy was effective for minimizing disruptive behaviors on a single student in the classroom (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001). However, in this particular study maintenance could not be observed again later in the year because the student moved to another state. It would be interesting to see if the behavior maintained permanently or if intervention needed to be established again later. One thing the Get ‘Em On Task program implements that this study lacks is allowing students to mark their own cards (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 2010). This allows teachers to easily implement intervention and allows for social praise to replace the need for a token economy through fading reinforcement (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis,
2010).