Bonus rewards for everyone: Enhancing mathematics performance with supplemental interdependent group contingencies

References

• Adcock, J., & Cuvo, A. J. (2009). Enhancing learning for children with autism spectrum disorders in regular education by instructional modifications. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 319–328. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2008.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akin-Little, K. A., & Little, S. G. (2004). Re-examining the overjustification effect. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(3), 179–192. doi:10.1023/B:JOBE.0000037628.81867.69
   Google Scholar
• Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. 9th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Aloisio, D. B. (2006). Improving homework completion and accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components (Psy. dissertation). Hofstra University, New York, NY. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/305318936/abstract/87B2BDD683A5441EPQ/2
   Google Scholar
• Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124. doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berliner, D. C. (1988). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In E. L. Meyen, G. V. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children (pp. 7–31). Denver, CO: Love.
   Google Scholar
• Billington, E. J., & Skinner, C. H. (2006). Reducing perceptions of time required to complete math assignments by adding problems to assignments: A meta-analysis of the additive interspersal procedure. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15(3), 181–190. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9015-9
   Google Scholar
• Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students’ perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6), 477–490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briesch, A. M., Briesch, J. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2015). Investigating the usability of classroom management strategies among elementary schoolteachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(1), 5–14. doi:10.1177/1098300714531827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright, C. N., & Penrod, B. (2009). An evaluation of the overjustification effect across multiple contingency arrangements. Behavioral Interventions, 24(3), 185–194. doi:10.1002/bin.284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Combining explicit timing with interdependent group contingency program to decrease transition times: An investigation of the timely transitions game. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 11–28. doi:10.1300/J370v20n02_02
   Google Scholar
• Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M., & Lewis, J. C. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. The Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 37(1), 47–53. doi:10.1002/j.2164-4683.1998.tb00405.x
   Google Scholar
• Cashwell, T. C., Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (2001). Increasing second-grade students’ reports of peer’s prosocial behaviors via direct instruction, group reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication and extensions. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 161–175.
   Google Scholar
• Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. doi:10.3102/00346543071001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, S. N., Witt, J. C., Galvin, G. A., & Peterson, R. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral interventions: Factors that influence teachers’ decisions. Journal of School Psychology, 22(4), 353–360. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(84)90022-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feingold, B. D., & Mahoney, M. J. (1975). Reinforcement effects on intrinsic interest: Undermining the overjustification hypothesis. Behavior Therapy, 6(3), 367–377. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(75)80111-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus Upon Applied Behavior Analysis in Education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special Education, 16(1), 101–110. doi:10.1177/002246698201600110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.
   Google Scholar
• Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other Bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0035519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(3), 229–239. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90019-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347. doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & Newman-Eig, L. M. (2010). Effects on homework completion and accuracy of varied and constant reinforcement within an interdependent group contingency system. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(2), 115–131. doi:10.1080/15377900903471989
   Google Scholar
• McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Ignacio, P., & VanMarren, V. (2018). The timely transitions game: Occasioning efficient transitions. (pp. 29–62). In R. Hawkins & L. Nabors (Eds.) Promoting prosocial behaviors in children through games and play: Making social emotional learning fun. New York, NY: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007). Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 53–64. doi:10.1002/pits.20205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing the influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 575–583. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, R., & Williams, R. L. (2006). Performance patterns of high, medium, and low performers during and following a reward versus non-reward contingency phase. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(2), 119–147. doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.2.119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved from http://ericae.net.k12assess/colcoo.htm
   Google Scholar
• Poncy, B. C., McCallum, E., & Skinner, C. H. (2011). Advocating for effective instruction: School psychologists as instructional leaders. In T. M. Lionetti, E. Snyder, & R. W. Christner (Eds.), A practical guide to developing competencies in school psychology (pp. 155–173). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 271–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pumroy, D.K., & McIntire, R. (1991). Behavior analysis/modification for everyone. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(3), 283–294. doi:10.1007/BF00947183
   Google Scholar
• Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Rheavis, H. K. (1993). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, K. C., Skinner, C. H., Moore, T. C., McCurdy, M., Ciancio, D., & Cihak, D. (2017). Evaluating and comparing the effects of group contingencies on mathematics accuracy in a first-grade classroom: Class average criteria versus unknown small-group average criteria. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 262–271. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0037.V46-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, E. S., & Goldberg, R. (1986). A comparison of group contingencies in increasing spelling performance among sixth grade students. School Psychology Review, 15, 546–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, E. S., & Goldberg, R. (1990). In vivo rating of treatment acceptability by children: Group size effects in group contingencies to improve spelling performance. Journal of School Psychology, 28(3), 233–250. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(90)90014-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 29–46. doi:10.1300/J370v20n02_03
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H. (1990, November). Group contingencies: A solution for some negative side effects of individual reinforcement in the classroom. Presented at the Mid-South Regional Conference on Psychology in the Schools, Nashville, TN.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H. (2008, May). Applying group contingencies in classrooms to prevent and remedy academic and behavior problems. Presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Behavior Analysis International, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H. (2013). Contextual validity: Knowing what works is necessary, but not sufficient. The School Psychologist, 67(1), 14–21.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C., & Dunn, M. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools, 12(1-2), 61–78. doi:10.1300/J008v12n01_04
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., & McCleary, D. F. (2010). Academic engagement, time on task, and AAA responding. In A. Canter, L. Z. Paige, & S. Shaw (Eds.), Helping children at home and school-III: Handouts for families and educators (pp. S3H1–S3H3). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 389–403. doi:10.1002/pits.20065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., & Schock, H. H. (1995). Best practices in mathematics assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 731–740). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Burton, B. (2009). Applying group-oriented contingencies in the classroom. In A. Akin-Little & S. Little (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidenced-based positive strategies (pp. 157–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. F., Skinner, A. L., & Cashwell, T. C. (1999). Using interdependent contingencies with groups of students: Why the principal kissed a pig at assembly. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 806–820. doi:10.1177/00131619921968833
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Wallace, M. A., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2002). Academic remediation: Educational application of research on assignment preference and choice. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 51–65. doi:10.1300/J019v24n01_04
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., & Watson, T. S. (1997). Lotteries in the classroom. Behavioral School Psychology Digest, 1(4), 11–12.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., & Watson, T. S. (2000). Randomized group contingencies: Lotteries in the classroom. The School Psychologist: Division of School Psychology, 54(2), 21, 24, 32, 36, 37, 39.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33, 384–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Wright, S., & McCallum, E. (in press). Addressing won’t do issues in mathematics. In T. Hughes (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of applied school psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sklare, G. B. (1997). Brief counseling that works: A solution-focused approach for school counselors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet. The Elementary School Journal, 88(1), 29–37. doi:10.1086/461521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 105–116. doi:10.1007/BF0095675
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turco, T. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Acceptability and effectiveness of group contingencies for improving spelling achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 28(1), 27–37. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(90)90034-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanMaaren, V. G., Daniels, S. K., Ignacio, P. L., McCurdy, M., & Skinner, C. H. (in press). Reducing hallway disruptions in elementary students using interdependent group rewards: Evaluating a modified timely transitions game. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. A., Cox, E. A., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Increasing independent seat-work: Breaking large assignments into smaller assignments and teaching a student with retardation to recruit reinforcement. School Psychology Review, 23, 132–142.
   Google Scholar
• Winett, R. A., Battersby, C. D., & Edwards, S. M. (1975). The effects of architectural change, individualized instruction, and group contingencies on the academic performance and social behavior of sixth graders. Journal of School Psychology, 13(1), 28–40. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(75)90034-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Martens, B. K. (1984). Acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms: The influence of teacher time, severity of behavior problem, and type of interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 20(4), 510–517. doi:10.1177/0198742917736794
   Google Scholar
• Zibreg Hargis, D., Patti, A. L., Maheady, L., Budin, S., & Rafferty, L. (2016). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and rewards to enhance homework performance in an eighth-grade classroom. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 15(2), 172–192.
   Google Scholar