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 …show more content…
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found that the behaviors were the same or lower than they were during intervention days after the token economy was no longer in effect (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).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,
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 …show more content…
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found that the behaviors were the same or lower than they were during intervention days after the token economy was no longer in effect (Higgins, Williams, McLaughlin, 2001).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,