A FREE OPERANT ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION PERFORMANC E WITH READING DISABLED CHILDREN By DENN IS LLOYD EDINGER /\ DJSSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF F LORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1969
164
Embed
A free operant analysis of programed insturction ...binde1.verio.com/wb_fluency.org/Unpublished/Edinger1969.pdf · Assessing Instructional Programs began publishing chccklistD for
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A FREE OPERANT ANALYSIS OF
PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION PERFORMANC E
WITH READING DISABLED CHILDREN
By
DENN IS LLOYD EDINGER
/\ DJSSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1969
Copyright, 1969 by
Dennis L. Edinger
This dissertation is dcdicv.t.ed to
Ogden R. Lindsley
ACKN0\'1LE DGEHENTS
This dissertation is the first installment on
my debt to Professor Ogden R. Lindsley .
Carl Koenig and ,:Tolin Nicho l of the B1.:".!havior
Bank (P.O. Box 3351 , Kansas City , Kansas ) deserve enthusiastic
applause from the Florida group for their brilliant efforts
in educational science . The data in this c1.isrrnrtnt.i.on could
no t have been presented without their invaluable assistance .
My gratitude , thanks , and profound regard to
my chairman , nc. W. D. Walking, and to rrty minor c ircctor ,
Dr.. H. s . Pennypacker, for the superb direction nr.n
1.eadershipo.f 1ny infa nt ile gropings for a precise 3Cie ~;.ce of
human behavior.. If I 2.m indeed a scientist, I am of their
SE':2!<l •
Dr. Myron A. Cunningham is directly responsible
for the maj_nte.:-.ence of my doctoral progrm,1. Without his
n&vigation my Hhip of science woultl have foundere~ on
f;.he shoal::, of bureaucr.atic gcrr.yr.ia~der:tng ..
TAilLE Page I A Simple Analysis of Variance for Differences
netwr.:0.n Pre-P l acement Test Scores , last Cor.\pl cted Programmed Reader Book.let Number , and Post -lj lacec ,:,ent. Test Scores. .. ....... .. . . . .... . ... .... . . 2 3
II A Li:idquist Type I AnalysiG cf Variance f or Differences Between Correct and Incorrect Progr a.·nmed Rec:\dcr Response Rates. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 5
III The Direction and Magnitude of Di fference s Bc:?twocn Correct c:.nd Inco:i:.·rect Programmed neader Response Rates . . ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26
IV A Lin<lq1 .:i st 'J~ype VI Analysis of Variance fo r Differences Dctween Programmed Reader. Response Rates c1.nc1 Di&gnostic Test Response Ra ten.. .... . ... 29
V l\. i·Tilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Dif fercnce s Between I3efor.e Phase Correct Proqrammed Reade r Response Rates una During Phase Correct Progra..11med Reader Response Rates.. . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32
VI A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Di fference s Between BP-fore Phase Incorrect Progranmed Re~~<ler Rcsponf;e Ra i:es and During Phase Incorrect Proqranuncd Reader Response Rates ••• • ••• •• • • • • ••• • •••• • •• •• •• o 34
VII A ~ilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Difference s B0.t11.'1."?cn Before Phase Correct Programmed 'Reader Rcf;ponse Ra tefl and During Phase Correc t :i?ro0r::i.mmed Reudcr Response Rates..... . ...... .. . ... 36
VIII l\ t:tilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Differences D(~t•..;cen Before Pha~e Incorrect Programmed R:}2.dGr RG:spon~c Rater; and During Phane Incorre c t Pi:ograrn1t\f-:d Reader Re:sponse Rates • •••••••••• •• •• ~. • 37
IX A Lindquist Type VI fu:alysis of Variance for Di f.ferenccs :Cet· . .;c~e.11 B~fore Phase Diagnosti c Test Respcnse Rates c:1nd During PhuGe Diagnost ic Test Response Rates............... . . . .... ......... 40
X 'l'he Direct.ion and Magnitude of Di ffei:~nce s Between Before Phase Cor~act and Incorrac t Pro<JXfo.T.rnod Reader Responses cmd Dur. ing Phase Cor:i:ect and Incorrect P.rogr~n:-n.0.d Rc<1.der Res tJO n rJ cs • • •• o < ••••• ~ ...... ¥ ••••••••••• ~ • o • • • • • • • • • 41
viii
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE XI A 1-lilcoxon Signed Rank ·rest for Dif forences
Between Before Phase Incorrect Progrru!l.mcd Reader Response R.J.tes an<l During Phase Incorrect Programmed Reader Response Rates ••••••••••••••••••
XII A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Differences Between .Before Phase Correct Programmed Reader Respcnse Ratesand During Phase Correct ProgrammGd Reader
XIII A ivilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Differences netwcen During P.hase Correct Prog1:anmGd Reader Response nates and nfter Phane Correct Prcgrumme d Reader Response Rates........ • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • 48
XIV A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Differences Between During Phase Incorrect Programmed Reader Response Rates and After Phasa Incorrect Pro~rummed Reader Response Rates. .... .......... ... 50
XV A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Difference s Between During Phase Correct Programned Reade r Response Rates and After Phase Correct Programme d Reader Response Rates............................ . 53
XVI A Wilcoxon Signed Rank 'i'est for Differences Between During Phase rncorrcc t Prograr:uned Reader Response Rates and After Phase Inccrrect Programmed Reader Re~1po:1se Rates . ..... ........... ., • 54
ix
LIS'l' OF FIGURP.S
FIGURES Page I 'l\ schematic illustration of the within-subject
design, with replications, used in this study... 15
The ef foict of terninating an arrar.gement made to correct Programmed Reader responses on subsequent correct Programmed Reader response rate . ........................................... .
The effect of terminating an arrangement made to incorrect Pro<Jrarn .. rned Reader responses on subsequent incorrect Programmed Reader response
T;~(! ef:fcr;t: of simultaneously terminating arrangements made to correct and incorrect Proarammcd R,:;ader resnonses on correct and incorrect Program .mc~d Rec.1.der response rates •••••• 55
i\ppendix E TA!JULAR CODE
SRP-BC - Prograr.1cd Reader , Before Phase Correc t SRP-D C - Programed Reuder , During Phase Correc t SRP-A C - Progri:lmed Reader , After Phase Correct SRP-B I - Programed neadcr , Before Phase Incorre ct SRP-DI - Programed Reader 1 Dur i ng Phase In corre ct SRP-A I - Programed Reader , After Phase Incorrec t
DT-I3C - Di<1gnost.ic 'l'est , Before Phase Corre ct DT-DC - Diagnosti c Test , During Phase Corre ct DT-AC - Diagnosti c Test , After Phase Corre ct DT-BI - Diagnosti c Test , Before Phase Incorre ct D'l'-DI - Diagnostic 'l'est , During Phase Incorre ct DT-AI - Diagnostic Test , After Phase Incorre ct
xi
Chapter I
IN'l'RODUCTI ON
Education is exclus i vcly co ncerned wi. th behav ior
change for the purpose of developing and maintaining comple x
repertoires of culturally-valued human behavior . In orde r
to eva luate the effectiveness of its procedures, educat ion
r,n.1st have a reliable and sensitive method for c~escr ibing
an d rnGasur ing tile behavior changes it produces. Cm~r~n tly,
such evaluat jon is performed almost total ly by psychometry
psyche-educational tests and rating scales. Despite its
undoubt:cd importance historically, psycho!r..ct·cy has nc~-, been
shown to have se:::ious shortcomin<Js of both i"in cm1pir ical
and othical1Bture . These defic its have been ex~uined in
rJroat detail by II0f.fmc1.n (1962, 1965, 1967). Hoffnian 1 s
docu.11ented discussions include statistical misuse in the
,,.:!evelopmcnt of tests, misuse of test results, fellilcics
in t.he use of pre-t:':!sts , as we ll as the corrupting i~f:.fcct s
tests ha·,~ on l~<luca tiona l practice .
Des pi t0:: thct;e <lcf i c i ts, educators con t.:inn~ to
ur;,:! psycho-aduca. tional tests and r.a ting scales 5.n mos t
oval"..1atic:m :;:-e::::ca.cch: ar,par e ntly because they are una•:!a~e of
more acc0ptabla alternatives . Tests and rating scdle s
are used to evaluate behavior changeo in children , teachers ,
and school adf71 . .inistn:if:or:">, ar; well as to assGG::. the effects
1
of cu:i:ricul.::. and teaching methods on behavior . i-.·ith the
partial e:{.ception of achievement tests , psychometri c
procedures never directly me<1stu:e the behavior in que3t :i.cn .
Unfortunately, the trend in recent years would seern t o be
away from more simple and direct measures of behavior an d
toward procedures which rely highly on indirect Measurer::e nt
2
an d a complex chain of inferential statements mediated by
hypothetical constructs. The Illinois Test of Psychol i ng t1i st ic
Abilities is a n example of this trend .
The present dissertation seeks to utilize fre e
operant technology , in particu lar the di rect and contir,uou s
recording of pupil performance, to evaluate and ana lyze a
progra.1'1led instruction curr.·iculum mate:r.ial.. At the s~me tilr1c,
the records gathered can be used to fu~U1er understand fre e
operant technology itself. Therefore, the disncrtation wil l
describe not only hunrnn 1:::ehavior change ~is a function of.
the programed material, hut it ~ill d~scribe the effect~
of the technolo'}y on pt1~il per.f0rr.1anc~ rates . 'i'rie f incl.i .. nq s
of th.is t~1 pe of resec1rch are directly ar;;-ili.c~hl~ 1:o chilnr<.m
a.ncl m«y be ct ir:ectly related to furt!1er applicc:itlon.s .i..n
which the evnluation of educationa l procedur~s i s of concern .
Related Research
'l'he Ev~1) .. nat.ion of: Proco:amed Inr; t:ruction -···---- ... ------ ·--..;"- .,.._ ....... __ .......... ___ ,. .. _. l\ t:cvic,;·1 of t:he li t.cratux·e re l ating to the evaluati cn
of programed .i.nst:cni:-:tion revea: ,:; t:.hat: tb:!re is no ge1w.n11ly
accepted method available. 'I'hi:;re a~.:-e, ho~;ev{?r , several
met,~ods which arc used Ni th somt1 f rcqmm cy.
The first of these is the checklist.. Al thou<Jh
Newman (1965) has recommended against the devclopr,1ent ar.d
., _,
use of checklists without first lwving conducted e:x:hausti vc
research on their reliability and validity , the checklist has
nevertheless become the most popular and convenient method
of evaluating programed instruction .
nefore 1963 , checklists were comnonly created by
individual researchers for their own purposes (Fry, 1963 ;
Hughes , 1962 ) • Most of these checkl i sts t·,erc quite
heterogeneous , and rested more on considered opinion and
theoretical orientation than on empirj_cal :.:eaearch .
In 1962 , The ,Joint Com.mi ttee for r.ri ter.ia for
Assessing Instructional Programs began publishing chccklistD
for use in ~valuating programed instruction . 'l'hef~C lists
were revised yearly by the committee , on the basis of
their dernonntratcd utility in ~le applied situation. The
absence of systematic research in ev~luating checklists
produced an instrument that was , at best , crude .
Other checklists were later developed (Jacobs, 4aier ,
and Stolurow , 1966) , but .i.n the final analysis , the Jcint
CoiTIP.li t tee ' s checklist b.as b(~comc the standa 1:d in the fie le. It
has been endorsed by both the Natjonal Society for the Study of
Education (NSSE) and the Division of Audio-visual instruction (DA.VI)
of the Nation<1.l Educational l\.ssociation , the two organization s
~ost concerned with quality standards in education .
Ironically enough , the chief rival of the ,Joint
C> r.i.mi ttee • s d1ecklist is another \·:ell-:s:c.:sp.~ct ed cduc.::.tior:u.l
standard. that wa=.; not developed .specific,'.\lly for eva J.uat ing
instruction. Bloom• s Taxonomy of F.dnca tionctl Ohjccti ves - - .. ------· . ----(1956) has been repeatedly invoked as the evaluative
/ standard form a "cognitivcn point of view. 'l'he chief
spokesman for this type of evaluation i.s Louise Tyler
(1966). Not satisfied with theory only, she has reported
some data on its use by teachers already frn1iliar with the
taxonomy. Newman (1965) has u::;ed it to evaluate programed
instruction in the Social Studies.
The second method of evaluation that can be
distinguished might more properly be called the comparison
procedure. It generally takes the fom of comparing
programed instruction with traditional teaching methods ,
or programed texts with standard texts.
Schramm (1964) indicates that much cf the
evaluative research done in progrruned instruction is of
4
this nature. An examination of Educational Abstract s
confirms this statement for the subsequent years. ·rhe
difficulty, however, is that comparison, as a researc h
method , reveals little or nothing about the pro9ramed
instructional material~.::!!:.• Nevertheless, the Joint
Commit tee recom!!l.ends comparison as a method for the external
validation of programed material , and it may be an acceptab.le
procedure for this task.
Another difficulty with comparison studies lies
in the nature of the research dcoign employe d. It is almost
irnpossible, ir:. this type of l·cscarch, to contro l for
individual differences in children and in teachers, an d
its even mor~ di ff icul t to control for. dif:f.et·enccs ln content .
5
'l'he majority of research of the comparative typ~ , as Schramm
notes, is so poorly done that little faith can be placed
in the validity of the results . There arc fortunate exceptions ,
particularly with regard to exceptional child populations.
Blackman and Copobianco (1965 ) , for example , report on
the use of a specif ic programed material with retarded
children . Likewise , Rainey and Kelly {19G.l) report.
the use of a time-·telling program with educable retarda tcs ,
and Streng (1964 ) reports evaluating a program with deaf
opulations . This research is child-oriented and involves
the determination of the utility of a specific program for
developing a defined behavior in a given exceptional chil d
population . The utility of this type of research for the?
practici11g clussroom teacher should not be under-estimated.
Closely rel~ted to the programed instruction with
"other" comparison, is the programed instruction with
achievement test comparison. Normally , the test used is
one of the standard ~chievemcnt tests such as the Wide Range
Achievement 'l'est or the Metropolitan Achievement Test . In
this case , the research questions are directed to differenc e
scores on the specific test before and after the administration
of the programed instruction material . The discontinuous
(before and after ) nature of this procedure is a seriou s
shortcoming because it does not. allow ,'l point to poin t
analysis of the relationship between the program and the
child ' s behavior . This method, like the progrMicd instruction
with "other" comparison, is recorr ,mended by the Joint
Committee for the ex.tcrn~1l valldation of the material .
6
The careful reader of research is quick to not e
that the dependent variable in these studie.s is not prograr:1.ed
instruction performance, but achievement test performance .
Programed instruction pcrfor.mance is then inferred f r om
the test performanc e.
In his text on evaluating programed .instru c tio n
Jacobs , ct a l . , (1966 ) , mentions the Denver Stud y as the c lass ic
mode l for eval uation . This study , reported int~~ by Jacob s,
util i zed both the progr<:!med instruction with :'other" corn9ar.iso n
and the programed instruction with achievement test type s
of evaluation . The qucnt:i.ons asked in th i s s tt.::dy wer e :
1) Do ,::lasses taught by the prog't"am on ly, by a teacher only, and by a combinat ion of a teacher plus the progrrun differ in the outcomes of levels of achievemen t, attitudes toward pro<;ramed instruct ion and interest in Spanish ?
2 ) How are the input characteristics o f ini t i a l achievement, academic aptitude , and att i tud e towards Spanish related to the outcome s of achievement in interest in Spanish in . each instructional group ? For example , do the brighter classes learn more than t ha slower ones i n each group ?
3) Are teacher's att:li:udes towards Spanis h and various teaching methods relate d to the i nstructional methods used in the stad y?
A careful cx2mination of thc~se quest i ons re v ~a ls
that in no case is programed .instruction pE=!!'formance the
dependent variable. This study , the apparent c l ass ic in
the ewal ua tion of pro91.·an :ed instruction , is in fac t not
an evall!ation of the int".!rnt1l ;,1spccts of prog1. ·~.ms. Bec aus e
it is an ~valuat i on about programed inGtruct i on as it
relates to various dependent var:i..ables ~mch as ach i evemen t
7
test and attitude scale scores, no direct statement may
be made regarding the behavior change on the program itself.
Also mentioned in the evaluation literature ,
but clearly not research , is a caution to the progra.i.l
user to check the credentials of the program author c.nd
the publisher. The Joint Committee advises all publishers
to include with each program sold, comple tc develop!<1<:.mtill
and utilization testing data. The advisement , in practice ,
is little heeded .
In summary, there arc four main methods of evaluating
prograned instruction material . These are :
1) the checklist ,
3) programed instruction with 11other 11 co.:nparison ,
4 ) programed instruction with achiG:,:0.:-i~cnt tes t e•,al ua tion .
J.t is cleur from this review- that prognm. ,~d
instruction performance is typically not the dependent
varic1hle in the evaluation of programed instruction
mater i;.i.ls .
Fz:~ Op~ant !l~~ea.EE.h in Education ·.r
L1 ~he hist.ory of ph'ychology , th~ lU-:c of free
operant techP.iques in the analysis of human behavior .Ls
relatively r2c~nt. It was only in 1949 that Fuller denonstrated
experiffiental control over a vegetative ~ental rGtardatc.
Skinner•s text , using knowledge acquired in tha study of
free operant behavio~ of animals to describe human Lehavior ,
appec:u:ed i 11 19 5 3. In it~ an empir icc:i.l framework for the
8
experimental analysis of human behavior was presented . Sound
experimental data were not forthcoming until Lindsley's classic
study with chronic psychotics (1956 ). Ski11ncr {1958), reporting
on his research with programed instruction technology , an
extension of free operant techniques with animals , excited
much interest in the educational community. Bijou (1957, 1958)
developed observation techniques for young Ghildren patterned
closely after those used by Lindsley.
The marriage between the educator and free opera11t methods
wa~; not long in coming. Birnbrauer, Bijou, Wolf , and Kidder
(1965) demonstrated the application of free operant tcchnlque3
in a classroom s.i. tu.=ttion using pro~rramed instruction as a
cun:icular core. Zim.iuermr'in and Zimmerman ( 1962) also applied
free operant techniques in a classroom with much less structure
than Birnbrauer's classroom .
Ayllon <lnd Azrin {1964) demonstrated the functiona l
utility of token economies in shaping the behavior of patients in
a mental hospital. Girardeau and Spradlin (1964) used the
same type of token control with retardates at the Parsons
State Home and Training School .
At that time, however, there was no systematic or
standard method in human free oper2.nt research. Although a
precise language was available for the description of ani~a l
behavior (Ferster and Skinner, 1957), its application to the
human situation was confusing and left much to be desired.
Research reportH were prcs0nted in the literature with metho d
and discussion sections so radical ly non-standar<l that scientific
replication (Sid maa , 19 64) was ~,iri:ually impossible.
9
o. R. Lindsley (1964) put forth a numerical
temporal descriptive language. Its purpose was to precisely
describe behavior and those events related to behavior,
either in munber or in time. This was fol lo-:·:ed by a
major strategy state~ent indicating that hehavior change
must be produced by teachern and parents in order to meet
the existent need (Lindsley, 1968). Lindsley (1966)
has coined the term precision teaching to describe the u~e
of free operant methods by teachers . The details of
precision teaching and the descriptive language are available
that achievement tests and pupil pcrforr:1ancc on sim ilar
material generated different performance rates when bot h
pupil performance and achievement test performance were
directly recorded. Johnson (1967a) found that teacher
planned rates {'~umber of problems assigned by th~ teacher
divided by the nmnber of minutes allotted by the teacher
for their solution} were , in par t, determiners of sub~equent
pupil performance rate .
Johnson (1969) is currently engaged in the use
of precision teaching to evaluate the Science Resear ch
Associates arithmetic series . This study , as yet unpublishe d,
js the only reference known to this writer on the evaluation
o.E any cu.r."Cicultun. through the use of free operant techniques.
In summary , free operant techniques originally
used e.;,:clus5.vely in the study of anima l behavior , have .• in
)~eccnt yeai:s,. seen wide application to human performance .
When used i~ classroom settings, the techniques may be
collectively raferred to as precision teaching (Lindsley,
1966). Although precision teaching has been upplied to
11
a broad range of educational problems, only in one case
has it been used in the analysis of curricular material.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this dissertation is to assess
the usefulness of free operant technology {precision
teaching } in the analysis of proc_p.·c>....1-ued curricular rn.«teriu.l!::.
Metho d
Subjects
Fif ty-r.ine children , thirty~·sevcn boys and
t,·1enty-two gi.t'ls fr.om two Alachua County , Florida, element;:iry
schools , Stephen 1.\,ster. I::lcl".",cntary and Duvnl F.:lementary ,
participated . Thi:; <.:hi.ldren were placed in grades three
th:rough six and wer<~ ref(~rrcd to the writer by their rcgul~r
teachers. The sole referral criterion was that tha child
be t:,va or. more yEim:s bE:h.i.ad in his 1:eading performance .
Child:cen we:ce not cxcluc:h,~d because of low IQ test scorGs.
BJ.even teachers participat,~d in this si.:.udy . ..?\11
at thn University of Florida. N.i.ne were :"-!aste.ts c~n<l.i.<l-.1tes,
one <I.fl Ed.D. ca1H1ic1ate , ar.d on(~~ Ph . D. can<l.idate • .1"-\ll
teachers received some form of graduato credit for their
participation in the study .
Teaching s.U . .:uation -----------...-.. ---'£he child.:-c:n in the :,'l:udy left their r<!gul~r
cLlss1::'..5 ;,t a pre<l0t'?:'rmint"?d tim<:~ to meet in a sroup with tiw
12
. 1 ' specJ.a teacner . ·rhe teaching si tuationn varied from teache r
to teacher , but in general cun be described as poor . Lac k
of space necessitated some classes meeting in cafeter i as ,
gyms , hnlls , and the like . rn all cases , however , the s choo l
administrato~s :i.n each school made every effort t o innur e
the best teaching situation available in the specif ic
circumstances .,
Curricular~bteria l
The Sullivan Reading Program ( 1964 } was selecte d ~--~~----~-------for use in this stu<ly. Consultation , initially , wit h
educational specialiots and, later , with teachers usin g the
program , indicated that it enjoyed wide acceptance and was
considered educationally soun d.
In its entirety , the ~~livan ncading;_~1E._~
is not all programed instruction. Also included ar e
storybooks , filmstrips, and end-of-book tests. These
mate.rials are not programed. They were not used in th i s •
stud y.
The programed instruction porti o n of the Sulliva n
~ing P~~ is presented in three series. Series I
includes Pl'.."og:rammcd Reading Booklets 1- 7 (Grade 1}, Ser i e$
I1 inGludes ?rogramt11ed Reading Booklets 8-1, i (Grade 2} ,
and Series II! includes Program.'1led Reading nooklets 15- 21
(Grade 3) . A sample of the pr.ogr,Jm from S(~ries :t i s
prC:::;en ted iri. Appendix A.
Follow.ing approximately each fifty f.r:am~s , a
Diagnostic Test is scheduled. The Diagnostic Tast , un li ke
13
the progrc:uned text p:r.oper , has no answm:s in the answ0.r
column . The purpose of the Diagnostic Test is to give the
teacher a check on the progress of the student by presenting
a sample of the content presented in the preceding fifty
frames. A s.:i!nplB Diagno!3tic Test is presented in Appendix n.
To determine the i ndividua l child's proper
starting point in the Programmed Reader , a Placement Tes t
is provided with the Sullivan Reading Program . Ti~~
Placement Test i s similar to the Diagnostic Test in that
i t has no answers . Each two pages in the Placement 'l'c:3t
summarize the content in one Programmed Reade1·. 'l'ht-.) ch.iJ. d
begins in the booklet indicated by his first error in the
Placem~nt Tes t. A sample Pln.cement Test is presented i n
Appendix c.
Experimental Design
The purpose of this study was to assess the
usefulness of free operant technology , precision teaching ,
in the analysis of programed instruction material , specifi c all y
the material in the Prcgr,u,1.med Reader of the Sullivan
~~in~_E!~5L1:.:~· The experimental design had to meet two
reqtti:rements :
1) it had to use the Programmed Reader exact l y
as indicated in the 'l'eacher * s Guide , and
2) it had to apply free ope~ant rnethcds to the
recnrding and nodi.f.ication of Progrill'i\f!\Gd
Reader Performance .
The within-subject desi1n , using each child as his own
contro l, socmi?d an ideal choice . Following S.idnc1.n'::; (.1964 }
sr.ggestion, t:he expc~riment was conducted L\ phases (the
Defore Phase, the During Ph ase and the Af l:<~r Phv.se) with
rt~plications across children and teachers. This particular
design also allowed subsequent bet~veen··subject para met ric
analysis of many of the questions. This is schematicall y
ill11strated in FIGURF. I.
In the first phase , the nefore Phase , the
Placement Test was administered and each child began in
the Progranuned Reader Booklet indicated by his Placemen t
Test score . '.Phis phase lasted approximately eleven day's
J.4
and established the baaelines needed to evaluate the effects
of the curriculum and the teaching procedure. In the secon d
phase, the During Phase, all experimental ~an ipulations
of independent v a 1:iables i:ook place. This phase lasted
approximately eleven days. The last phase , Ll1e Aftur
i?ha.se, was a replication of the Bf'.?fore Phase with no
experimental manipulations in ef fee 1:, and with thG P:i.acernent
'l'est bo:i.ng readministered at the conclusion of nppro:<imatel y
eleven days .
Bxperiment<l.l <.h~s:i.gn applied in the classroom ------ ..... -.... ~,...,---......-.---------- ... ·--'l'he teacher in the classroom irtt~nding to use
must first c:ctfn:mine in which Progra7:llncd Rcnde;l;, (Booklet
1-15) each ~hild is ~o begin. The Placement Test is provide d
for this purpose.. If perfor.r.1an.cc on th~ Pla~ement Test is
not equi valcnt to perfo1:.1uGtnce in the P:r.ogramnv~d Rcv.der ,
tht~n the Plac~ment '.J.'est is not perf<).L"T-lj.ng its st,:1t8d function
with r,~spect to placing the p1.!pil in hit: co:CJ:(:lCt j),,::.gi~1ning book let.
FIGURE I
A schematic illustration of the within-subject design, with replications, used in this study.
Befcre Phase During Phase After Phase
Class A Child Al Child Al Child Al A2 A2 A2 A3 A3 A3 . . • .
·rhe careful t e acher will want to know if, indeed ,
t he Pl ace ment Test scor e does approximate the level of
perfor manceof the bookl e t indicated. To investigate this
question , the Placement Test was r e ad.ministered on the
16
last <lay of the After Phase . If the Placem ent Test was
correctly indicating Programmed Reader performance level, the
final administration of the test should have indicated the
book in which the child was last performing .
Skinner points out ( 1954, 1958) that one of the
central goals of progr amed instruction is to maximize
correct responding and minimize incorrect re s pondin g.
This is aGcomplished by carefully constructing each programed
frame (antecedent event) in the program . The teacher uning
the §ullivan Rea<:}_i_ng Program naturally wishes to know whether
the Progr tunmed Reader does , in fact , differentiate correct
responding from incorr e ct responding .
To ex amine this question , correct clnd in.correct
response rates on the Programmed Reader in the Before
Phase were analyzed. If the Progr ammed Read e r differentiated
correct from incorrect responses , then a difference shoul d
exist between the two response rates .
'J.'h~ most recent li torat.tu:e in programed instructio n
(NSSE, 1967) concerning the development of programs suggest s
"in-progru.m 11 checks with frames similar to t hose in the
regular program , but without the co.rrcci: solutions available .
'l'he Progr <'.lmmed Read e r of the Sulliv an Re adi ng Program has ... --- ... - ----... - ·-- ·11'1-- · . incorporat ed this principle in t he Diag nostic Test. The
Diag nostic 'r o s t, according to the •reach er's Guice to ·----- ,- ..... ----·-·
17
Programmed Reading (1964 ), i s no t to be graded , but instead
to be used as a guide to check on the quality of the students '
work .
The co.reful teacher wil l want to know if perforr.1ance
on the Diagnostic Test is equivalent to performance on the
Prog:canuned Reader before she alters her supporting cttrriculu.'il
on the basis of this quality chec k.
To evaluate this problem , correct and incorrect
performance rates , on both the Diagnostic Test and the
ProgrammP.d Reader , collected in tiw De fore Phase were
analyzed . If the Diagnostic Test and the Progran~~ed Reader
are equiva l ent , there should be no difference between the
per forri\er ,ce rates on the two progr.am o.
The teacher who has taught with the Pro(:Jrammcd
Readers for a period of time is able to assess the perfornwncc
of her students . By examining each child ' s rate correct
and rate incorrect as plotted on his six .. cycle semi-log graph
and recorded on his data sheets {Appendix D), she can
decide on the best tactic to ~aximize his performance
accura cy. That i s , the teacher can plan how to increase
the diffArence between correct response rate and incorrect
responi::;e rate . One of the most common t<J.ctics to this en d
i s the arrangement , the p~encntation orwithdrawal, of a
subsequent event: followi:r. .g ecJch res!.)<):1se or series of
responses m2-dc in the curricular. materiu. l. This arrangement
can be r1a(~e H:L th Uie intent of c1cc.,-:leratin.9 correct response
rate by presenting the subsequent event; or decelerating
incor.:.-ect response rate by withdrawing the sub!Jequont event,
or. both .
18
The te acher who makes such c:m ar r ang ement for e a ch
child will want to kno w precisely what eff e ct it has on
the child's behavior. In addition, she will want to know
what effect the arrange ment procedure, itself, has on the
performance of her cla s s as a whole.
To investigat e this problem, the data gathered
in the Defore Phase, where no experimental conditions were
in effect, and in the During Phase, where arrangements
were in effect, were co mpared. If the subsequlrnt event
arranged to follow the Progr ammed Reader correct and/or
incorrect response produced an effect on response rate,
this wouldl:::e seen as a difference between response rates
in the Before Phase and response rates in the During Phase.
The classroo m teacher is only too aware that often
pupils are not motivat e d to perform on test item~. It
might interest her to kn ow whether, on the Progranuned
Reader, a subsequent e ve nt presented to the child following
each er.roJ~les::; Dia gnos t ic Test will alter performanr;e rate
on the Diagnostic •rest. To investigate this problem,
correct and incorrect pe rfo:r.mance rates on the Diagnostic
Test in the Before r-!'lase ar.d in the During Phase were
analyzed. If the subs e quent event follm·dng each crrorless
Diagnostic Test produc e d nn effect on correct and/or
incorrect response rate, this would be seen as a difference
between response rates in the Before Phase and response
rates in the During Phas e.
The i nquisiti ve teacher, when shG p:i:'Bsents a
subsequent. event follo wing only the correct Programm.Gd
Reader response will want to know whether the correct
response rate accelerates or not, and exactly what happens
to incorrect response rate in this condition. In order to
answer this question, incorrect response rates on the
Programmed Reader in the Before Phase and in the During
Phase were compared . If the subsequent event presente d
following the correct Programmed Reader response hac1 any
effect on incorrect Programmed Reader response rate, this
would he seen as a difference between incorr ect response
rates in the Before Phase and incorrect response rates in
the During Phase.
Similarly, the teacher will want to know what
the etfect on correct response rate is when she •,dthdraws
a subsequent evGnt follm·1ing the .incorrect Progranuned
Reader response. 'l'he same procedure was rcpea·;:ed for the
correct response rates in the Before Phase and in the
Durlng Phase for t!"lis comparison. If the subsequent
event withdrawn following an incorrt?ct Programmed Reader
response had any effect on correct Programmed Reade r
response :ca.te , this would be seen as a difference between
correct response rates in the Before Phase and correct
response rates in the During Phase.
Since the purpose of arranging a subsequent
event is to produce a lasting change in the magnitude of
19
the differeP-ce between correct and incorrect response rates
maintained by the natural consequences of auperior achievement,
the careful teacher will want to know pn'!cisely what the
effect of the removal of an accelerating or decelerating
20
CO!li:;cquence has on subsequent performance. 'fhe problem
was investigated by comparing correct and incorrect Programmed
Reader response rates in the During nnd After Phases . If
the removal of a consequating condition following Programmed
Reader perfo11nance produced a subsequent change in Programme d
Reader response rate, that change would be observed in a
difference between performance :::ate in the During Phase and
performance rate in the After Phase .
Statement of the Problem
The analyses indicated above may be condensed and
summarized in the following eight questions :
1) Is the Placement Test score equivalent to
indicated-Programmed Reader book number ?
2) Is correct Programmed Reuder ~esponsc rate
dlf fcrent from incorrect Programmed Reader.
response rate?
3) Is performance rate on the Diagnostic '.rest
equivalent to performance rate on the
P.;:ogrammed Reader ?
4) ~vhat is the effec t of the ar.rcl.r.gemc nt of
a subse::quent event follm·ling the Programmed
Reader r.esponse on Programmed Reader re~ponsc
rate?
5) What is the effect of a subsequent event
follo·v'iing each er1:or.less Diag11ost.i.c:: Test on
Di.agnost.i.i:: Test p(?rformancc rate?
6) What is the effect of the arrange~ent of a
!;ubscquen~: event following each Programmed Rt:rn.der
21
correct response on Programmed Reader incorrect
response rate ?
7) What is the effect of the arrangement of a
subsequent event following a Programmed
Reader incorrect response on Programmed
Reader cor1·1~ct rcspor.se rate?
8) What is the effect of the removal of the
accelerating and decelerating consequences
following the P.rogranuned Reader response o n
Progrrunrned Reader performance rate ?
Chapter II
RESULTS
Placement Test Acc..!;lracy
The Sullivan Readin~"RE29ram is org3nized so that
a child may begin at any perfo:r.mance level from grades 1
through 4. The Programmed Reader booklet in which he
beginG is determined by his performance on the Placement
Test. The child bogins in the booklet it!dicated by th~
location of his first error in the Placement Test .
To d2termine the accu:cacy of the Placement 'l'est ,
the score:; on pre-Placement Tests administered in the
Before Phase , the scores on post-Place..ment Tests administered
at ~1e conclusion of the After Phase, and the booklet
numbers of the last Programmed Readers completed in the
After Phase, were compared by means of a simple analysis
of variance . The results, p.resented in TABLE I, suggest
that a reliable difference existed among the three measures .
A .!. test bctv;cen the last Progra nu:1ed Reu.dcr booklet
co~pleted and the post-Placement Test yielded a! of 12.66 ,
p .01 . Strong support is lent to the conclusion. tha t
the 1')12.cement Test ,1as not a reliable estimate of Progra..unecl
Reader perforr:1ance .
2 2
T.l\J3LE I
A sb,ple Analysis of Variance for Differences Bcb-,o~ n Pre-Plac eme nt Test Scores , last Conp lcted Pro gra'l med
Reader Booklet t~umbe r , and Post-Placement Test Scores
23
----.~--·----------·------~ ·---------- · Source of Variatio n
Bet•.-mcn Groups
t·Ji thin Group s
Tota l
*P < . or-·--
d f
2
5 6
5 8
Variance Est:;.mate
278.43
6. 27
15 .. 55
·---tt---·-4S.2*
·---·---·------ --- ----,·----·
24
•r·he Difference Between Correct and Incorrect Program 1;1e<l Reader Performanc e Rates
In setting up guidelines for writing programs ,
Skinner (1954) pointed out that the well-constructed
program should maximize correct responding while permitting
a minimum number of error responsen . The question of this
difference was examined ln the Programmed Reader by treating
the correct and incorrect Programmed Reader responsa rates
collected in the Before Phase with the Lindquist Type I
Analysis of Variance (Lindquist, 1953 }. TABLE II indicates
that correct and incorrect response rates on the Programmed
Reader were well differentiated . TABLE III and FIGURE II
display the direction and m2.gnitude of this difference for
the entire population and for one typicul child, respecti V(~ly .
The Difference Betw..o;:;1n Proqr anm1ed Reader Performance Rates and D1agnostic ",fest" ?e r. f or ~a nce ~ ___ __ _, =-- - -
In the Progra mmed Reader booklets, a Diagnostic Te~t is
scheduled approximately each 50 fralt'.as.. The Diagnostic
Test is intended to be a quick check on the accu:cacy of
pupil performnnce. If l:his check is to be meaningful ,
the correct and incorrect Diagnostic Test performance rates
must be approximately equal to the correct and .incorrect
performance on the I'rogra.1mted Reader i tself .
The extent of the difference waG analyzed with
the Lindquist Typ0 VI i".naJysis of VarL:mce . This analysis ,
presented in TABLE IV, considered class units , in additi o n
to both coi:rect n.nd incorrect renponsP- rates on the Diagnostic
Test .:..nd the Programm ed Reader. It is clear that a rcliabl~
TABLE II
A Lindquist Type I Analysis of variance for Differences Between Correct and Incorrect Progra~med Reader Response Rates
I~ ~r=:=~9~tr.,~~Cl!!=t~~~~tU4;i~·~:=::~i'./·:'.:c,t; · ,---,---r ~R~ l'-·::i.,m~•-· ·r·-:::J ·-- 1· • ·• • • .. • • •• • ·:--,-·•···-· c t: ,·- · 1"- •· !·'- - ··-··· · .... -1----..........J ' I ' I ! . &)~ r· .. . i: '~~' ,, . ! i l . : I: r' 1.; i f ~. ~:: •. : 11 I t I ;: l ';. . i ~: i: : l ·: ~ . I I, : . l. • t I I I' J : I. : . : I
'l'he Effects of the Arran ge ment of a Sub s equ e nt Event Foi lo w.in'g' Each E?rogc:-; s PTagnosti c"1.~~st
39
It has just been demonstrat ed that the present a ti,:m
£tnd withdrawal of a subsequent event following Programmed
Reader performance reliably altered the ra'ce of that performance .
Nhat , then , is the effect of presenting a subsequent event
following each errorless Diagnostic Test? To answer this
question ,« Lindquist Type VI Analysis of Variance was
performed on all Diagnostic Test response ratGs, correct
anrl incorrect. The data were analyzed by phases, !3efore
Phase and During Phase; with a subordinate analysis by
class units .. It can be seen in TABLE IX that, although
the main effect for class units and the main effect for
correct and incorrect response ra~es were significant , the
Before and During Phase main effect was not sign :U:ic a nt.
This result is cle a rly evident in the lack of uniformity
in the direction and magnitude of changes presentGd in
TABLE X.
The Effect of Presenting a Subsequent Rvent Pollc,wing Corr e ct Pro gr a'ilme<l Re ad e r Responseso nincorrect P!:'og:cammed Read e r -~ -ponse Rate - -
It was previously demonstrated in TABLE v that the
presentation of a cubsequcnt event following the correct
Progr<.'...mmed Reader response accelerated that response. In
that condition, the incorrect Progra mmed Reader response
wns ignored. To investigate the t:lffect of the pres e nted
subs equent on tha previously ignored incorr€ct r e s ponse rate,
<1 ;·;.i.J.coxon Signed Rank Test was performed on the incorrect
Pro g ra mm:::!d Header r.esponse r c>te.s obs e rved in the nefore a nd
TABLE IX
A Lindquist Type VI Analysis of Variance for Differences Between Before Phase Diagnostic Test Response Rates
Pattison Ross Brown James Stewart Walker Berry Haile Alexander Burke Brown, K. Davis Smith, J. Bas s Fogarty Howard Shaupc ~·
Correct Direction o1:··· Hagni tu<le of
Change Change
+
+
+
+
+ ,(•
1.30 00
4.50 00
1.00 .20 .80
3.50 .40
00 .40
00 .20 .. 21 .30
2.60 2.00
Incorrect Dir.ection of Magnitude of
Change Change
+
+
+
+
.54
.49
.63 00
.25 1.79 1.05
00 .33 .so .94
3.50 .15 00
.34 3.45
.88
....... ' ---·---------··------------------·- --
43
During Phases . TAnLE XI shows that incorrect Programmed
Reader response rates were reli ab ly decelerated whnn an
arrangement was made to follow correct Programmed Reader
responses . Z'm examination of column 11d II reveals that in
only two cases was an acceleration observed , and these
cases r;howcd the least changes in magnitude. FIGURE VI
displays this deceleration as observed in one typical child ' s
performance .
The Effect of \vi thdrawing a Subsequent Bven t Following Incorrect Pro9ra m1nect -Reaacr- Response s on Correct-P:r.oqrar.med Reader_~sponse Rate . --·- . -- ·- -- -
TABLE VI demonstrated that withdra\·1al of a subs equent
event fo:lowing the incorrect Programi-ned Reader :::-e~ponsc
dec~lerated incorrect response rate. In th.a I: condition, tlh-")
correct Programmed Reader response was ignorad . To
investigate the effect of the pres ented subsequent evC!nt on
the previously ignored correct response rate, a t·Jilcoxon
Signed Rank Test was performed on the correct Programmed
Reader res!_:•o:nse riltes observed in the Before and During
Phases . TABLE XII shows that correct Programmed Reader
responses were not reliably affected by the withdrawal
of a subsequent event following the incorrect Progranuncd
Reader response . An examination of column "d O in TABLE XII
rev~als that, although the direction of changes was
predominately accelerating , the magnitude of change s
obs erve d in the four cases of deceleration was sufficiently ./
large to counteract the- directional predomenance of the
data a~d yi e ld a non-significant result .
44
TAnLE XI
A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Dif fm:-ences Between Before Phase Incorrect Programmed Reader Response Rates and
The effect of simul tnn e ou sly ~err:d:rn.ting arr~ngemE.:nt~1 r:wde to correct nnd incorrect Pr ogr ai'ili,h~c Reade::::- r1?.:=;ponsas on correct and
;:r??~:,:::Yrni:)}':\:r~:=::}r~1:::::/J?iiJ@?tm:1:?mit~:·f}:f;?·~:i~0··~~~+~rwmrnw:ft::r::::tr-:::::Gr~?:)~:frrn:tmrn;= M ! J F fFP!!C-te4WA ,.., .. Mt....r.!JWAiMI M 1¥1 .:•:e:t.t~~))Sl[O!...~ -
3.80 4.6() 7. (10 o. oo c. cc o. oo 4 . 60 6 . 20 ., • 40 o. cs o. co 0 . 01) 't. 7 0 6.00 4.90 0 . 20 o. cc o. oo 5.50 5 . 20 8 .7 0 0 .1 0 o. cc o.oo 8 . 60 4. 50 9 . 00 0 . 20 O • .?.O o. oo 5.00 e .so 2.90 o. co 0 .! 3 o. oo 7 . 30 5.30 11.10 0 . 15 0 . 20 0 . 05 8 . 40 5 . 90 8 . l 0 o. oo o. co o.oo 6 . 50 6 . 40 10 . 30 0 . 05 a. co o.oo ~.so 3.20 8 . 30 0 . 10 o. uo 0.00 3.20 3 . 40 a. so 0 .1 5 o. co o.oo
2 . 00 s .oo 5 . 00 3 - 50 2 . 00 5 . 50 o. 5~ 2 . 00 t. 50 2 . 00 3 . 66
1--' ~
....J
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayl lon, T ., and Azrin , N. " Reinfo rc ement and instructions with rnental oa tients," ~ournal of the Exne ri men tal i'\nalysis of ~ehavi or, 1964, 7 , 327-31 . -
Bijou , s. "Patterns of reinforce men t a nd resistance to extin ction in young children," Child Deve lopment, 1957, 28, 47-54 •
• "Ocerant e xtinction after fixed interval ~-sch e~u les with young children," Journal of the
E>:perincn t al !mal vs is of Bchavior-;-1958 , 1 , ::s-29. Blackman , L ., and CO!:)Ob ianco, R. "An evaluation of
progra..'iL'Tied instruction with the mentally retarded utilizin 9 t ea ching machines 1 " A,-:1erican ,Tournal on ~ental Deficiency , 1965, 70, 262-9.
Bloom, B. Ta xono my of Educational Ob1ectives, the Cl a.ssif1. c at:.on of Educat ional Goals , Handbo ok I: Cognitiv e Domain . !Jew York: Long mans , -Grcen , 1956.
Birnbrauer , J., Bijou, s., Nolf, M., and Kidder , J. ,:Pr ogrammed instruc t ion in the classroo:n 11 in t:'l l man, L., and I~rasner, L., (F.d.s.) Case Studies in Beha vior Modification . New York: Hol t, 196~.
Buchanan , c. D. Teachers Guide to Pro gra mmed rteading . St. Louis: 1·~cGraw- H1Il , ·y9g4 .
Caldwell, T. "Comparison of cla ssroom r.1easures : per cent, nu.rnber, and rate, 11 Unpu blished 1·1anuscr ipt, University of Kansas, 1966 •
• Can Puoil Perfornance Rates Tell Us When a ------Stu ae nt Teacher l.S Reaay'for Her Own Class?
Doctoral Dissertation , Univ ersity of Kansas, 1967.
Catania, c. "Concurrent operants," in Honig , !·1., (Ed.) OQerant Behavior : Areas of nesea rch and Application . 1966.
Ferste r, c., and Skinner, n. Sc hed ules of Reinforce~ent. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts , I9S7.
148
Fry, E . Teaching Machines an d Programmed Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill ,-196 3.
Fuller, P. "Operant conditioning of a vegatative hmnan organism," A~erican Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 32'2-27.
Girardeau, F., and Spradlin, J. "Token · rewards in a cottage program ," Mental Retardati~, 1964, 2, 345-51.
149
Glaser, R. "Toward a behavioral science base for instructional design ," in Glaser, R. Teaching Mac h ines and Prograned Learning II. Nasfiington, D.c.: National Edu cation Association, 1965.
Haring, N., and Schiefelbusch, R. ~-1ethods in Special Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Haughton, E. "Teachers and educational psychology: grounds for divorce?," Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association , Chicago, May, 1966 •
• A Practical Method of Tailoring Classroom ~~~-Conse que nces. Doctoral 'oissertation, Univer sity
of Kansas , 1967.
Hoffman, B. The Tyranny of Testing. New York: CrowellCollier, 1962 •
• " Are aptitude tests valid for the highly able?," ---- Scien~, 1?65, 148, 1297-1301 •
Holland , J. 11 Research on programming variables," in Glaser., R. Teaching ~achines and Proqrammed Instruction II. lvash1ngton, D. C. : National Education Association , 1965.
Holzschuh, R., and Dobbs, D. "Rate correct versus percentage ccrrect, 11 Unpublished Manuscrip t, University of Kansas, 1966.
Hughes, J. Prograr:ied Instruction for Schools and Industries. Chicago, Sci"ence Pesearcfi Assoc'iates ; I962 .k
Jacobs, P., Maier , M. , and Stolurcw, L. A Guide to Evaluating Self-Instructional Programs. N~w York: ~olt, ~Inefiart and Winston , 1966.
Johnson , N. "Acceleration hy a student teacher of both planned and performed rates of pri::nary lenrnin9 · disabled pupils,» Unpublished Manuscript , University of Kansas, 1967 . (a) •
• "A comparison of arithmetic performance of ~~~~~-students identified as gifted with students
i<lenti fied as average or below average, 11 Kan s_~:: Studies in Education, 1967 , 17. (b) •
• "Daily arithmetic performance compared with ---- IQ and achievement tests, 11 Unpublished >tanu s c;.-:-i· ·. University of Kansas, 1967 . (c).
Koenig , C . Precision Teachinq ',vi th Emotionul 1 v Dis tu1: b2:·. Pupils . :,1aster I s Thesis, uni ve:rs.i ty ot Kuns:-.-~~ 1967 .
• Personal CoT'.U".'lunication, 1969 • ----- -Lindquist , E . Desiqn and Analysis of Experi ments . Bea
Eought'on Hirf!in , 19!:r .
Lindsley , o. "Operant conditioning methods applied ~c research in chronic schizophrenia , " Psychi a ~· Rasear<:h Reports , 1956, 5 , 14 0- 5 3. ---- "·· ··-·-
• " Direct measurGment and prosthesis of J:1::'~ -------. behavior ," Journal of Education . 1964, 48,
• Personal Communication , 196 6 • ----- -• "Procedures in common described by a c o r:r ···, language , 11 Paper presented at the Univ(::o!'.'si ~·v Kansas 9th Annual Institute for P.escarc~ i n ·~ Psychology , April , 1967 •
• "Training parents to precisely m&~age c h i J. ----- oehavior , " Paper presented at c. s. ·~ctt rm, Childrens Health Center, ;.1arch , 1968 .
• ---- - Personal Com..~unication , 1969 •
Hager , R. Premarinq Objectives for P!".'oqra r:lmed !Ps "i.:n,s·:...: ·. San Francisco: Fe nron , -n-;i:-.- -- ·---- -- ·····
151
Markle, S. "Empirical t.es ting of programs," NSSE 66th Y.~«rbook, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l.967 .
National Society for the Stu<lv of Education 66th Yearboo?:::., -~--Vol7b"b(!f1". -c"'fiicago: l~nJ.vernt y of cfifcago
Press, I~G7';
Newman, F. riEvaluations of programed instruction in the social studies," Social_E.9-_ucation, 1965, 29, 291-5.
O'Brien, F., Azr.in, N. , and Henson, K. 11 Increased commun:i.cati.0;1 of chronic mental patients by reinforcement and by response priming," ,Journal of Applied Behavior ~~lysi~, 1969 6 2, 23-2g. · ---------··-
Rainey, D. and Kelly, F. "An evaluation of a progr&.1mca. text book with educable mentally retarded child~en.u Exceptional Children, 1967, 34, 1969-74.
Reynolds, G. "Behavioral contrast, 11 ,Journal of the F;xpcr imcntal ~,a.l;,ys:!:._s of Behavior, 1961, 4, s·r:.-~;r ;·------------
Sidman, H. Tactics of Scientific Research. New York: Basic Books, 19 GT:_,, -
Skinner, B. Science and Human Behavior . New York: Macmillan, 1953:-
·--- • "The science of learning and the Hrt of teaching," Harvard Educational Review , 195~, 24, BG-97 •
Streng, A. •:The applicability of individualized pro3:.:am:1cd in st ruction in the education of deaf children," Exceptional Children, 1964, 30, 365-71. __ , _______ _
Sufu~Reading, , Pr.:,og_E~.· New York: McGraw-Hill, 196-1.
'I'row, W.
'rylcr, L.
Teach er and Technology: New Desi gns for Learning. N"ew'Tork : Appieton-o:mtnry-CrotF.s , !~ 63 . --
"The taxonomy of Aducational objectiv es : cognitiv e domain -- its use in evaluating progr~!mcd instruction," California Jo~rnal of Educ~tionnl _~~~~£:~ , 1966, rr;-26-32.
152
Zi mmerman , E. and Zimmerman, J . " The alteration of behavior in a special cl ass room situation," Journal of t he Experimental Analysis of Behavior , l9b2 , 5,59-GO. --
BIOGPAPHICAL SKETCH
Dennis Lloyd Edinger was born March 18, 1943,
in Portland, Oregon . He attended public schools in
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and was graduated from Wheat
Ridge High School in 1961. Prom 1961 to 1964 he served
in the U.S. Army Security Agency {AIS} with the 79th
u.s.A.S.A. Special Operations Unit {MFJOG), Shemya
Island, Alaska; and at the 12th u.s.A.S.A. Field Station,
Chitose, Japan. He holds the Good Conduct Medal and a
Presidential Unit Citation.
Following his honorable sepa.ration from active
duty, he enrolled in Colorado State College, where he
received his B.A. with Honors in 1966. In 1966 he was
award ed an NDEl\ Title IV Fellowship at the: TJnivcrsity
of Florid~,where he actively pursued the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy. During the sum.l'!ler of 1967, he was Research
Assistant to Professor Ogden R. Lindsley, Special Education
Resc~rch, Univ0rsity of Kansas Medical School, Kansas
City, Kansas.
Mr. Bdinger is a bachelor.
This dis sertation was prepared und e r the direction
of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory co mmittee and
has been approv ed by all mer.lbers of that committee. It was
submitted to the Dean of the College of Education and to the
Graduate Council , and was approved as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.