Token Economy System - Article Example

527: Token Economy System 527: Token Economy System Tokens Tokens I will use for this token economy system are two-color counters. These tokens are sold largely in sets of 200 pieces. Since two-color counters are easily available online for purchase, I acquire enough for each student in my class. Each student will get between 10 and 15 counters, which should be adequate for every exercise (Powell, 2009). I will put down personal identification numbers (PINs) on each counter. When my students lack adequate numbers for other purposes, I will assign them counters with PINs. In these situations, I will put down the students’ names on the counters. However, this means I will also have to purchase and set up a new set of two-color counters every academic year and when students move on to the next class (Preece, 2010). I will keep every group of counters arranged into isolated parts in a container similar to a tackle case or craft source planner. Lastly, a container for placing counters after awards. For this system, I will use ash grey and brown drawstring containers that should cover the entire class. Target Behavior and Rules for Successful Task Completion The target behavior for this token economy system is good behavior. The system strives to encourage good behavior during lessons and class projects by rewarding it in a methodical and unbiased manner (Sloane, 1979). The first rule for successful task completion is remembering ways other teachers have rewarded students who exhibited good behavior. I will ask my students to remember how some teachers give them stickers for behaving well and others offer them staple chains to get a pizza party (Plavnick, Ferreri, & Maupin, 2010). At the same time, I will restrict talks about these reward systems because it is a highly popular and distracting topic. A second rule is promoting specified responses from my students. This rule allows me to establish behavioral expectations for an entire academic year and check my students’ previous knowledge as well. Lastly, students should not wait for rewards every time they exhibit good behavior (Sran & Borrero, 2010). under this rule, when a student requests a token, a counter in this case, I will not hand over one to him or her irrespective of how well their tasks were carried out. Only I will determine when a student receives a counter. How my Token Economy System will be individualized First, I will pinpoint a reason for a student’s dramatization so I can decide the proper course of action (Maggin, Chafouleas, Goddard, and Johnson, 2011). Secondly, I will collect at least five reactions from my students on my correction efforts. These reactions should help me enact consequences for every type of correction. Thirdly, I will remain consistent while distinguishing the needs of my students (Powell, 2009). More specifically, I will deal with jealousy amongst some of my students by making them acknowledge and accept that work is equitable and not even. Another way of individualizing my system is by unveiling my secrets of subdued rule implementation to my class and the meaning of this revelation. The fifth method of individualization consists of two serious approaches for handling aggressive, disobedient, and emotionally unhinged students. The sixth method is maintaining a relaxed, unemotional conduct, and recurrent expectation cues (Powell, 2009). Backup Reinforcers One reinforcer is engaging my students in my selection to emphasize that they will see the as valuable things (Sloane, 1979). More specifically, I will ask my students to make a list of things they would like to get after completing a given task. Here, I would make sure reinforcers I use suit their lists to encourage them to actually finish a recommended number of issued reinforcement lists. As a result, I will have to think of the reinforcer’s academic value, price, likely abuse, or risks involved. Toys are another reinforcer I can use in this system effectively (Sloane, 1979). Toys are always appealing to infant students, which makes them assurers of success for my token economy system. Young students will be driven just to earn counters if they expect future rewards represented by the counters. However, toys will only be reserve reinforcers selected by individual students instead of the teacher. Exchange Ratio The ratio of exchange I will use for this system is a mean of each two or three hand raises from every student in class (Powell, 2009). A loss of proper behavior after fading might be the result of too big of a shift in the reinforcement program. In this case, I derived this ratio from fro offering counters on a constant basis for hand-raising to counters on an sporadic basis for a mean of each 10th hand raised (Reed & Martens, 2011). Afterwards, I resumed a short period of constant reinforcement and then attempted a smaller ratio of two to three hand raises from each of my students during each lesson. I continued deviating students from my previous token economy system slowly by giving a lot of acknowledgement for students’ autonomy. Dispensing and Exchanging Tokens First, I would put counters in the chosen container when I observe good behavior amongst my students (Sloane, 1979). I would then pull counters from the container whenever I want to choose a student for a special task. Using counters in this case stops me from having to remember individual students who have exhibited good behavior and figure out whether I am appealing to my whole class fairly. The higher the frequency of good behavior, the more probable I will give the associated students extra duties and privileges (Kazdin, 2012). This is because good behavior is what leads me to put counters in the chosen container. Additionally, exchanging counters should make my support system simpler in the sense that I have to assign each conceivable work to a student anymore. My ability to take counters for special assignments is what allows me to make this decision. Procedures for When Students Do Not Meet Token Requirements When a student fails to meet token requirements, I would allow his or her classmates to share reserve reinforcers. Permitting the sharing of earned reserve reinforcers should aid in the improvement of student’s drive to acquire reinforcers (Sran & Borrero, 2010). An example of such a reinforcer is choosing a game to engage in with a friend. The next step of this procedure is to enact a peer management system. Using the failed student’s classmates to assist in distributing counters, exchange reserve reinforcers, and reduce counters can help enhance his or her motivation to partake in and earn counters. I can use the privilege to assist the operation of my token economy system as a reinforcer in itself within my class and the third step of this procedure. The fourth and last step is mixing my counter economy system with a classroom level structure (Powell, 2009). A classroom level structure is an administration system that involves a series of steps wherein every step represents several target behaviors that each student has to master. I think the using a response cost is les limiting than other types of punishment. This makes students more likely to grasp skills associated with future planning. Unintended Behavior Changes Unintended changes in behavior means an increase in the occurrence of bad behavior in my class. This increase also means my token system is ineffective. Undesired changes in behavior often results from non-application of skills acquired from the token system in daily surroundings (Bailey, Gross, and Cotton, 2011). I can plan ahead of time by composing a wall chart showing a list of counters I intend to award good behavior. This chart should help decide whether bad behavior will lead to only a withholding of tokens or whether I will impose a response cost. In such a scenario, a response cost will be in the form of a fine that entails removing tokens, counters, for the portrayal of bad behavior. Concerns over My Token Issue The only concern over my two-color counter economy system is unintentionally abandoning the needs of individual students (Doll, 2013). Even though a token system should deprive particular students of their academic needs, a counter system may generalize its application and reward systems, and overlook individual needs in the process. References Bailey, J. R., Gross, A. M., and Cotton, C. R. (2011). Challenges Associated With Establishing a Token Economy in a Residential Care Facility. Clinical Case Studies, 10(4), 278-90. Doll, C. (2013). The Token Economy: A Recent Review and Evaluation. International Journal Of Basic And Applied Science, 2, 131-149. Kazdin, A. (2012). The Token Economy: A Review and Evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Springer US Maggin, D., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., and Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 529–54. Plavnick, J. B., Ferreri, S. J., & Maupin, A. N. (2010). The Effects Of Self-Monitoring On The Procedural Integrity Of A Behavioral Intervention For Young Children With Developmental Disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 315-20. Powell, A. (2009). The Cornerstone: Classroom Management that Makes Teaching More Effective, Efficient, and Enjoyable. New York, NY: Angela Powell Watson. Preece, D. (2010). From Combat Zone to Love at Home: The Happy Face Token System: the Happy Face Token System, Volume 2. New York, NY: Debbie Preece. Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (2011). Temporal Discounting Predicts Student Responsiveness To Exchange Delays In A Classroom Token System. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 1-18.  Sloane, H. N. (1979). Structured teaching: a design for classroom management & instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Research Press. Sran, S. K., & Borrero, J. C. (2010). Assessing The Value Of Choice In A Token System. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 553-7. Read More