DOCUMENT PIMP ID 100 4,7 PS 007 SS5 AUTHOR Buckholdt, David R.; And Others TITLE The Effects of Different Peinforcement Systems on Cooperative Behaviors Exhibited by Children in Classroom Contexts. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Mental Health (OHM, Rockville, Md. Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency. PUB DATE Aug 74 MOTE 4mp.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (82nd, New Orleans, Louisiana, August 3C-September 3, 1974) PPIC? ME-$0.75 HC-$1.85 PLUS POSTAGE D?FCPIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Behavior Change; *Contingency Management; *Elementary School Students; Interaction Process Analysis; Language Development; Learning Theories; Literature Peviews; Mathematics Education; Peer Relationship; *Peer Teaching; *Preschool Children; Peading Development; *Reinforcement; Tutoring TD*NTTFI?PS *Competition Cooperation DASTPACT This paper describes a series of experiments which indicate how different reinforcement systems affect cooperative, competitive, and individualized learning structures. Following a brief literature review of prior research, the experiments investigated (1) individual reinforcement for peer tutoring and (2) shared-group reinforcement for peer tutoring. They examined the effects of reinforcement by demonstrating how reward structures can interact with F,everal independent variables in controlling the cregu.4ncy of cooperative behavior. The studies support the idea that chil'ren from various socioeconomic classes, 3-to 11-years-old, in classrooms of 4-17 members, can work together effectively in coopervAve instructional situations involving curriculum materials ouch as mathematics, vocabulary development, and reading. Also, the results indicate that when appropriate reinforcement is provided for cooperative behavior, helping behaviors as well as student performance are increased. Several research topics are suggested for suture research or 'he levelopment ani evaluation of cooperative goal z;rlic*nreNs. (JH)
40
Embed
The Effects of Different Reinforcement Systems on Cooperative ...
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
DOCUMENT PIMP
ID 100 4,7 PS 007 SS5
AUTHOR Buckholdt, David R.; And OthersTITLE The Effects of Different Peinforcement Systems on
Cooperative Behaviors Exhibited by Children inClassroom Contexts.
SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Mental Health (OHM, Rockville,Md. Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency.
PUB DATE Aug 74MOTE 4mp.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Psychological Association (82nd, NewOrleans, Louisiana, August 3C-September 3, 1974)
PPIC? ME-$0.75 HC-$1.85 PLUS POSTAGED?FCPIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Behavior Change; *Contingency
Management; *Elementary School Students; InteractionProcess Analysis; Language Development; LearningTheories; Literature Peviews; Mathematics Education;Peer Relationship; *Peer Teaching; *PreschoolChildren; Peading Development; *Reinforcement;Tutoring
TD*NTTFI?PS *Competition Cooperation
DASTPACTThis paper describes a series of experiments which
indicate how different reinforcement systems affect cooperative,competitive, and individualized learning structures. Following abrief literature review of prior research, the experimentsinvestigated (1) individual reinforcement for peer tutoring and (2)shared-group reinforcement for peer tutoring. They examined theeffects of reinforcement by demonstrating how reward structures caninteract with F,everal independent variables in controlling thecregu.4ncy of cooperative behavior. The studies support the idea thatchil'ren from various socioeconomic classes, 3-to 11-years-old, inclassrooms of 4-17 members, can work together effectively incoopervAve instructional situations involving curriculum materialsouch as mathematics, vocabulary development, and reading. Also, theresults indicate that when appropriate reinforcement is provided forcooperative behavior, helping behaviors as well as studentperformance are increased. Several research topics are suggested forsuture research or 'he levelopment ani evaluation of cooperative goalz;rlic*nreNs. (JH)
US O. Piligli40114/ Of MEAL TNPutati011till lett AM,
411411004M. 1416 tine 0.Mita/Kir_
ve . .tt t! it t st
01 .4 .4 tt
, ao. 41' tit.1 4 -.
THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT REINFORCEMENT SYSTEMS ON COOPERATIVEBEHAVIORS EXHIBITED BY CHILDREN IN CLASSROOM CONTEXTS
by
David R. BuckholdtDepartment of sociologyMarquette !JniversityMilwaukee, Wisconsin
John S. WodarskiAssociate ProfessorSchool of Social WorkUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee
and
ReseRrch DirectorIntei7ration Project
Jewish Community Centers AssociationSt. Louis, Missouri
PRrer rre7nnteil t the, Annual Meeting of the American Psychological AsIoclationlovult ';"w LA:ulniana
F'r0.7aratlnn of t:11n WA3 facilitted through fundim.: fromy the !.-ttlonal in,;titute of rental
!'or anA
ABSTRACT
The merits of cooperative, competitive, and individualized
learning structures are reviewed. A series of experiments con-
ducted over several years which indicate how different rein-
forcement systems affect these structures are elaborated. Also
discussed are issues for future research.
The notion of children working cooperatively for purptsee of
instruction is not a new idea. As early as the first century, Quintilian
argued that students could benefit from teaching one another (Gartner,
et al., 1971). Johann Amos Comenius (1592-1670) believed that students
would benefit both by teaching and being taught by other students (Comenius,
1921). In late eighteenth century England, Joseph Lancaster and Andrew
Bell made extensive use cf cooperating student gro...ps, and the idea was
apparently tried for the first time in the United States when a Lancastrian
School was opened in New York City in i806 (Cubberley, 1934).
In recent years, the idea of cooperating children working in in-
structional or problem-solving groups of two or more, has enjoyed somewhat
of a revival in this country. Some of this recent interest in cooperative
groups has undoubtedly been spurred by problems of tight school budgets
and overcrowded classrooms, since student teachers can provide instructional
assistance without extra cost. A more positive stimulus for the new
experimentation, however, has arisen from the belief that group instruction
and problem solving may offer significant advantages for students. A
complete list of potential advantages is beyond the scope and intent of this
paper but we can offer several possibilities (Gartner, et al., 1971; Johnson
and Johnson, 1974).
1. Problem solving and overall performance may be better in
group than in individual contexts.
2. ';coup Interaction nay improve interpersonal and cooperative
skIlin In group members.
3. rAern.2e,...tIve or role tAkIni4 and empathy may he
heiw.htened in arms, r.ontexta.
,ntu-tion fro, 'r noo;erattve 2nW:lem nolvinw with other
atudentn nay redu-e antlety e!aunel t.y ntatun, awe, and back,'round
tik.S1 COPY MIME
2
differences between students and adult teachers. That is
tutors may be able to communicate more readily with children
who have slow learning rates, or when an adult creates anYiety
in a studfynt another child may be a more effective teac:ar%
5. Other children can ',rovide more individualized instruction,
including direct and immediate feedback.
6. Teaching another student may increase understanding as well
as build self-confidence, ego strength, and lead the
acquisition of teachine: behavior, a general skill that can
be very useful in an adult society.
7. The opportunity to teach another student may provide motivation
that was absent when a student was responsible only for himself.
8. Peer tutors may be more patient than teachers with children
who have slow learning rates,
C. Tutoring. may reinforce prior learning, may lead to reformulation,
and to deeper understanding A' the basic structure of the
material.
Few of theme potential positive effects have been directly investigated
in experiTental situations, but there have been a number of evaluative
studies risli,nel to test the effectiveness of cooperative tutoring arranF$)-
mmntr, .:rder cw.ltrolled conditions (Ansrla and Leith, 1969; Cloward, 1967:
7raver and ';torn, 1f70; 7artner, Kohler and Tlesrman, 1971;
ire' 1-P2. 'arril and 'herman, 1972; Barris, - herrnln,
Ard /; -;einver and ',la, 19C,Q; (,ai'nor, And
='; Y,;ir!qr#,Pr ar' i.vy, 1-471; !..!orw..an and Toy, 1T/01 NielArnrvAr,
1i q r p Ind N7Jrro 7711, 1c; ,, Ire?, 1 -)71! :Aylor, IrtwrIgnt, :tryi
BEST C J9 44AILABLE
3
1970s Willis, Crowder, and Morris, 1972: Zach, Horner, and Kaufman, 1969).
In comparison with most other educational research, where different learn-
ing environments or different styles of education maku little or no
difference for the instructional effectiveness the results of cooperative
tutoring is promising (Stephens, 1967). However, it is obvious from the
in^onsistent results that some tutoring arrangements are more effective
than ethers. Investigators have sup ested several reasons for this in-
consistency in results, including differences in the training of group
members, the age and background of the group members, the amount of time
devoted to instruction, and the quality of the instructional materials.
Cne set of potentially powerful factors has generally been neglected,
howover, in the explanations of differential effects, and that is the goal
structure of the learning environment which can function either to facilitate
or hinder cooperative tutoring. Johnson and Johnson (1974) have identified
three goal structures: individualistic, competitive, and cooperative.
IndivlIuallItic structures are pre3ent when the behaviors and accomplishments
of chillren have no consev.nces for anyone but thetzelves. That is, their
performance or attainment (1,)es not affect the goal attainment of other
chillrIn. For example, in a completely individualized instructional program
or tn an indiviluAlly administered reinforcement progran, the success or
fall.ir," of ono has little or ro effect on the evalu,7.tion, gr'a'des,
rewa7-!,, or ' ;t1', 1 or otho :n a conneti tive itructurt the sucr!ons
or fa41,1re of one
II I
1oirly affe7t th chanf, for ;;w7cen9 of other
^_hiHren V*" '701r re.' y1 tt or arothr.r in It fynt-7., of limited
")^ r)r nee 1y 74,1)^,,, the n----)rt,Iritic. for r al attain-,'
r.fn rt nr. p 1:11 "O;41 ettrlirtir,vi
4
revolves around groups rather than individuals. Group members share in
the success or failure of the group's performance. A cooperative goal
m!ructure should theoret'Acally promote more helping behaviors ')etweurl
children and better tutor!.ng. In individualistic systems, the performance
o: others is irrelevant to a student's own goal attainment while in a
competitive system thl success of others threatens one's own achivement.
In both of these structures we would expect a low incidince of cooperative
behavior. In a cooperative structure, however, the success or failure of
indviduals has implications for other students in the cooperative group.
Thus, if rewards are str'ctured that axe contingent upon the group's per-
formance the incldence of cooperative behavior eaould increase with the
proportion of reinforcement that is contingent upon the group's performance.
For our present purposes, one way to conceptualize the goal structure
is to focus on the structure of rewards (Kelly and Thibaut, 1969; Coleman,
19;1). In a comnetitive structure where the rewards are limited and compari-
sons are mr.le between individual children, the success of one individual lg.
gaining maximum rewards reduces the probability of success of others. In an
ihdYilualiltie7. system, judgment is not made on comparative bases and rewards
are lintrIbuted acrording to pernoaal achlevemcnt, possibly judged against
one's 7,-;tt aehieyemont. In a ccoperAtive system, individual rewards are
earnei ;VI 1 f-lnnfluon of the quaLty of croup work. Student tutorin.; itnd
rellt^d renratlye behayirr should be partially dependent on the reward
0,tr'r7t!in of nll'Inrc-n. n or learn_nr 614untion, incroaninz an the proportion
'n-nn-,r.ne 1.,7Andflnt u;:on croup perfornance increa,;eu. Lata nef,n to
" '!On^rn.tIVr, ,t1h17!01-1 Inr^ 'e fr#!quontiy in a f.c-)n.,ratIv.
In! -1-11ffin.tntly innl frPTIont in a rr,np-tit1:n or
3. 00%A'.1.4,..1. .,0., -0-:nonilvenesi tl reinforcPlent, a desire to help
a 1,el -;!* a%Ility, And no are needed to
tr!
it t:1,7
:Jo 7o:-It hale th.!,7,1 rA-.1113
r 7:r.*_11n^d ovmr loni
:1P. :
W-4()f tin'?
22
tutoring to indicate whether they continue to exhibit cooperative
behaviors in other contexts at later points in time or whether the
tutor and tutee maintain the academic gains.
5. Are group structures best for all subject areas or are there subjects
which should be handled in another way, with competitive or individual-
istic structures? In other words, we need to isolate the conditions in
which group contingencies work best with what type of curriculum
matevials. Likewise, (in some subjects more than in others) students
may be more effective tutors or may require extensive training in teach-
ing methods to be effective.
6. Is competition helpful between groups or should groups compete against
an abstract standard or their on past performance? Should there be no
competition of any kind? Can competition be eliminated or simply re-
directed?
7. What are the effective components of the tutoring process, the friend-
ship bond, interactional behavior, actual instruction in acquisition of
skills, reinforcement provided by peers and tutors, feedback, and so forth?
A. Very few studies exist which empirically compare the effects of coopera-
tive, competitive, and individualized structures created by various
rinforcenent systems. We need more investigations to provide hard data
to ascertain the effects of these various structur7s on essential depen-
dert variables in education.
Partial answer !A for come of these questions exist in the literature. The
tIT'e in rlre, how,ivor, for larce-scale and systematic research on the effects
and ImT,le.lentation of Fca,J....r;tructures which promote cooperative behaviors
- , nr, ,;:rolter n cial 7.rolr!m to t -,f2Ived tnan
23
invidtous competition, lack of communication wad empathy, and mutual
hostility among people. We can begin seeking the solution by teaching
our own children how to help one another.
BEST COPYAVAILABLE
REFERENCES
Maria, R., L. Birmt, and C. Leith. "Individual versus Cooperative Learning."Educational Research, 11, February 1969, 95-103
Bronfenbrenner, U. The Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New YorktRussell Sage Foundation, 1970.
Buckholdt, D. R.. D. E. Ferritor, and S. Tucker. "Effects of Training inTutoring and Shared Group Consequences on Reading Performance andTutoring Behaviors." Paper presented at the American Educational ResearchAssociation Cc -ention, Chicago, April 1974.
Cloward, R. "Studies in Tutoring." The Journal of Experimental Education,36, Fall 1961', 14-25.
Coleman, J. S. "Academic Achievement and the Structure of Competition." InSocialization and Schools, Harvard Educational Review Reprint Series #1,1968, 1-23.
Comenius, J. A. The Great Didactic. London: A. and C. Black, 1921
Cubberly, E. P. Public Education in the United States. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co.. 1934.
DeVries, D. L. and K. J. Edwards. "Learning Games and Student Teams: TheirEffect on Classroom Process." American Educational Research Journal,1971, 10, 307.318.
Etters, E. "Tutorial Assistance in College Core Courses." The Journal ofEducational Research, 60, May-June 1967, 406-407.
Fraser, C., A. L. Beaman, and R. T. Kelem. "Two Heads are Better than One:Modification o' College Performance by Peer Mm7it:ring." Paper read atWestern Psychological Association Convention, Par-%,J 4,nd, Oregon, 1972.
Frazer, S. and C. Stern. "Learning by Teaching." Reading Teacher, 23,February 1970, 403-405.
Gartner, A., M. Kohler, and F. Riensman. Children Teach Children. New York:Harper and 1,,ow, 1971.
Hamblin, R. L., L. Buckhol-i; D. Ferritor, M. Kozloff, and L. Blackwell. TheHumanization Processes. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971.
Hamblin, R. L., C. Hathaway and J. S. Wodarski. "Group Contingencies, PeerTutorirs,,, and Accelerating Academic Achievement." Pp. 41-53 in EugeneRamp and dill .71.otkins (:As.), A New LArection for Education: BehaviorAnalvnin. Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas, department of!!uman J,,v0+10;..nolnt, 1771.
fir Si COPY NOILITLE
Hamblin, J. and R. Hamblin. "On Teaching Disadvantaged Preschoolers toReads A !!uccessful Experiment." American Educstional Research Journal,9, Spring 1972, 209-216.
Harris, V. W. and J. A. Sherman. "Effects of Peer Tutoring and Consequenceson the Math Performance of Elementary Classroom Students." Journal ofApplied 1,havior Analysis, 1972, in press.
Harris, V. W., J. ':;herman, D. Henderson, and M. Harris. "Effects of PeerTutoring on the Spelling Performance of Elementary Classroom Students."A New :;irection for Educations Behavior Analysis. Lawrence, KansassThe University of Kansas, Department of Hunan Development, 1972.
Hassini7pr, J. and M. Via. "How Much Does a Tutor Learn Through TeachingReading." Journal of Secondary Education, 44, January 1969, 42-44.
Johnson, D. d. and R. T. Johnson. "Instructional Goal Structures Cooperative,Competitive, or Individualistic." Review of Education Research, 44, 1974,213-241.
Kelley, H. H. and J. W. Thibaut. "Croup Problem 3olving." In G. Lindzey andE. Aronson (Eds.), The v.andbook of ;;octal Psychology. Reading, Massachu-settst Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969, 4, 1-101.
Lucas, J. A., G. Gaither, and J. Montgomery. "Evaluating a Tutorial ProgramContaining Volunteer Subjects." The Journal of Experimental Education ,
36, Spring 196e, 78-81.
McWhorter, K. and J. Levy. "The Influence of a Tutorial Program UponTutors." Journal of Rending, 14, January 1971, 221-224.
Morgan, R. and T. Toy. "Learning by Teachings A Student-to-Student Compen-satory Tutoring Program in a Rural School System." Psychological Record,20, Spring 1970, 159-169.
Niederneyer, F. C. "Effects of Training on the Instructional behaviors ofStudent Tutors." Journal of Educational Research, 64, November 1970,119-123.
Pfeiffer, C. A. Teaching Preschoolers Complex Skills Using a ProgramasdExchange. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, l9' .9.
Pierre, R. M. and 1. Sorrell. "White Tutors for Black Students." JournalCo11, P^rIonnel, 11, ',Lay 19?0, 169-172.
Ramirez, J. 7. "The' Effects of Tutorial Experience on the Problem-3olvingBehavior of 6th traders." California Journal of Educe-ttional :)enearch,22, ""rich 1171, &0-90.
'APIDhen, J. Y. Me Promn, of 'r!hooling. New Yorks Holt, tiirsehart, and
Stoddard, D. Commrative Analysis of Training Programs in behavior Mofi-fication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University,1970.
Taylor, R. G., P. Cartwright, and C. Hanson. "Tutorial Program for Fresh-man Engineering Students: Effect on Grades and Attrition." TheJournal of Fxnerimental Education, 38, Spring 1970, 87-92.
Willis, J., J. Crowder, and B. Morris. "A Behavioral Approach to RemedialReading Using Students as Behavioral Engineers." In George Bomb (Ed.)A New iirection for '.Aucltiont Behavior Anal nis. Lawrence, Kansas:The University of Kansas, Jepartment of Human Development, 1972, inpreps.
Wodarski, J. S., R. Hamblin, D. Buckholdt, and D. Ferritor. "Effects ofIndividual and Croup Contingencies on Arithmetic Performance." Paperread at American Educational liesearch Association, New York, February1971.
Wodarnki, J. J., R. L. Hamblin, D. R. Buckholdt, and D. E. Ferritor. "TheEffects of Low Performance Croup and Individual Contingencies on Co-operative BehAviors Exhibited by Fifth Graders." The PsychologicalRecord, 22, 1972, 359-36e.
Wodarski, J. R. L. Hamblin, D. R. Buckholdt, and D. F. Ferritor. "In-dividual Consengences versus Different Shared Consequences Contingenton the Performance of Low-Achieving Croup Kembers." Journal of AppliedSocial Fn./0101°7, 3, 1973, 276-290.
Wooarski, J. R. L. Hamblin, D. R. 3uckholdt, and D. E. Feffitor. "Useof Croup reinforcement In .,chool Social York Practice." The Journal ofSchool :43,11a1 'dork, 1, spring 1974, 26-38.
Zach, L. Y. Frner, and J. Kaufman. "Tutoring in a Slum School." ElementarySchool Jo.ArnAl, 70, October 1969, 20-27.
30
20
1.1111010
So-
.4)- 0o- ;5 pi" , T4.4-7f1
Figure I
Cloup A
Group 11
group C
Bf SI COPY AVARAIILE
. Y 04(
tr'dR. A. r m11011.
10
Days15
Lffe7ts of peer tutorinr, for Iroup A with materialreinfor,7erl for leArnir., Iroun withmateria: nlinfor(7!_,r1 atten!ances anl Iroupwith r.o ratf!rial rt!infor7r1.
20
l 0
Iwo
figure 2
AL I Al t) I I I ;761
8c ri
20
11.1.1MI
dm.
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
A2 I 132 C
30 35 40 45 50 55School Days
a.n -:ercent of sc.s?..e ti:-.e spent cooperating at %an P,uage '.'tater eachAfter 1' l'fe Ala 'ware reinforcement wos
' ;en ; qr.-. tti , for 7...Itual . voerttul0.r7r.:! 7-11r7,. I reir.foreers ti in Alb
a.n Ft:. co-)7e atinc, et. :,anruagerein f'-,r-7e-r,; in
- .
10
Ala Aft
Figure 3
61
I
C
2
IMMomirl
111111
I0 25 30 35 40
School Days
45 55
n._1.-r.ner of wor-.13 learnt' to criterion per child each school dly.(Aster I re f r,
60
17-1
. II 0
0
roV
C F.-30
CI
on
I6,*
ror 20
r
VE.
10
BEST COPY AVA:LIGLE
e A B
D
/I'
B
ti9%
c, 'ti
\). e.
fiF
A
. d
.
C
tckli/7/
06
'
I
/
i
A
0
9
\ /%/
=1
...
60 /0 80Day (of Semester)
90
''enn 1.7e seventeen rres7hcolern spent stulyin7 in tutor-punil pnir3 andthe mean nu.-.ber cf tent cornIctiv cornietel by tutore! rum's 1)/d'ty throu,:n scrien exrerir-.ental rerio1.3.vorKel it token f-_)r witntutor eorre-!t,v%ems ni -.I 1 'Ix fat wc.rth our"ti r'; fc,r it.3;:.-r,e l le
trinn were
I . I
In the A conflitionnrerular token for
trokn, in :it themr,u1nr tokens were
7 Wt.: !;11.:11
(Artf...r :;t0.1-!nr.1,
j!
95
the te:vhersntu,lent-
token exch 1:117e
riven tonr to (!xcent
20
5
vt
I-
0 0L
.f)f-a
Cyr,
a.
5
o 0 1,
L
0 4-416- 3
Li.r)
I:
2
Cro V
0
ri5dre 5
titS1 Cal Mk
Preschoolers:
r---1 Low I.Q.
r---1 High and Medium I.Q.
1111.
Tokens for Tokens for Tokens for Token!., forReading Reading Attending Attending
The relationshi7 of books read (attendance controlled) to tokensani t..itcrinv, by levels. (After J. A. Hamblin, 1970.)
'1 ,:
'3 --
14 .1 .7
.:3 1 t r
L'
Performance
Group Contin.;ency
High Performance
Group Contingency
Averacle Performance
Group Contingency
Individual Perforriance
Contingency:
771 c
Individual Attendance
Contingency
Average Standardized Gain Scores
O
01
(9
.3
J :3:
.
...
:1.
:1 ...
Low Perforrance
Grou
Contingency
High Performance
Group Contingency
Average Performance
Group Contingency
Individual Performance
Contingency
Individual Attendan-e
Contingency
Aver:.je Standar.11-.ed :ai, .).ores
00
L0
euXsv
)00
fire
83
PO
72
64
56
/18
40
32
24
16
8
Figure 8
Co -T.,,:r:st.1 GroupF.Ypf.ri-a-it11 Group 1
A A Expfrir1-2ntu1 Group 11
a a Ex, cr Group IItx-)Lri;.ental Group IV
0'
° e°,00'
.0/;00 /
1,"°./ /
.00 .33 .6";
Proportion of Group Reinforcement1.00
Pf.rcenta,-,e of cooperative behaicr for each exnerimental groupai-,,ainst the proportion of group reinforcement composing
contingencri.
corrpariion group rrovi''.es a base inc for entire periol of thestu,!:1. .he fcar va:ue3 are for fletoh (onleclitive nev,nentof t.he experi7er.t. p:ettir.,7 of the n-pre_nr; of the! 14 af
*.(n ri sec7ents ir, ri!rr.enta.-?.s Or
. 48
. 140
. 36
. 32
. 28
_ .24.
.20
. 16
0
.12
. 0 Scr-
cz..014
. 00
-.014
-.08
-.12
Figure 9
00
0
O
00
0
0
0
00
.00 .33 .67 1.00
Proportion of Group Reinforcement
:Aefult-311,1r^7. rep,rensinn line for the r:oefficients for the 'whole
group plottei ri,:air-,zt the pron,ortion of r,roup reinforcement
:n ocntrni%, n,! m7o,,ffi,!ten*,1 for ',.he -orrtrisongrGur, for erth ner7rent o' the exTerir..ent
1..,!re... 07. -. . 4.. 0.
TABLE 1
UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEOF READING COMPREHENSION MEASURE
Source df MS F P...
Factor A (Reinforcement)1 276.14 14.85* p c: .001
Factor B (Tutoring)1 85.55 4.60* p ..:: .05
A X B1 28.75 1.55 p 2:0.05
Within cells36 18.59
*F-ratio sicylif;cant at least at .05 level
TABLE 2
UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEFOR MEASURE OF TUTORING BEHAVIOR
Source df MS F P
Factor A (Reinforcement)1 21,390.62 254.65* p .c: .001