Group Title: effects of self-recording upon nonverbal reasoning performance for elementary school students /
Title: The Effects of self-recording upon nonverbal reasoning performance for elementary school students
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098870/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Effects of self-recording upon nonverbal reasoning performance for elementary school students
Physical Description: xvii, 146 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Rubin, Roberta Iris, 1951-
Publication Date: 1976
Copyright Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Elementary school teaching   ( lcsh )
Behavior modification   ( lcsh )
Educational psychology   ( lcsh )
Foundations of Education thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Foundations of Education -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 141-145.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Roberta Iris Rubin.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098870
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000176272
oclc - 03064670
notis - AAU2751

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 6 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text















THE EFFECTS OF SELF-RECORDING UPON
NONVERBAL REASONING PERFORMANCE FOR
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
















By

ROBERTA IRIS RUBIN















A DISSERTATION 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


1976































For Philip Rubin,

whose implacable drive and courage made

me very proud to be his daughter



Ich hub dich lieb














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many thanks are due to various individuals who helped

arrange the environment within which I could complete this

undertaking.

To my chairman, Dr. Barry Guinagh, whose patience,

support, and leadership did not falter throughout the course

of my studies. His professional contribution to this

project cannot be overstated.

To Dr. William Wolking, who contributed a great deal of

time and energy into teaching me the importance of applied

behavior analysis and measurement as they relate to school

situations. His unrelentless support during the planning of

this dissertation is greatly appreciated.

To Dr. Donald Avila, who provided counsel and guidance

when it was needed. His advice and optimism was most valued.

Special thanks are also due to Dr. Henry Pennypacker,

Dr. Gordon Greenwood, Dr. Richard Anderson, Maria Llabre,

Richard Thompson, Steve Sledjeski, and Gail Cadow, whose

assistance during crucial moments was always forthcoming.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Jerry

Hill and Barry Gottlieb, the two teachers involved in this

study who so generously allowed their students to participate,

and to the students who enlightened me to the wonderful

processes of child learning.

iii









Special appreciation is extended to Bobbie Wilson whose

expert typing skills made the final preparation of this

manuscript possible.

To my mother and family, I owe a special debt for

shaping my behaviors to the point where I was able to pursue

so meaningful a goal.

Most importantly, my thanks are due to my husband,

Samuel Streit, whose contribution transcended any single

aspect of the study and who possesses the ability to withstand

a great deal of my pressure and continues to provide under-

standing and warmth unquestionably.












TABLE OF CONTENTS




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . .

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTERS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

Statement of Intent . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . .

Precision Teaching . . . . .
Different Types of Standard Behavior
Charts . . . . . . . .
The Reactivity of Self-Recording . .
Self-Management in the School
Environment . . . . . .
Self-Management in the Clinical
Environment . . . . . .
Knowledge of Results . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .

III. METHODS AND HYPOTHESIS . . . .

Methods . . . . . . . .
Subjects and Sampling . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . .
Data Collection . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . .

IV. DATA ANALYSES . . . . . . .

Analysis of Grouped Data . . . .
Analysis of Individual Data . . .
Specific Supplementary Data . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .


Page

iii

vii

xii

xiv

xv














V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . .
Self-Recording Without Modification
Procedures . . . . . . . .
Self-Recording With Concurrent
Modification Procedures . . . . .
Implications and Recommendations . . .
Significance . . . . . . . .


APPENDICES

A

B


INDIVIDUAL DATA TABULATIONS . . .

INDIVIDUAL GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS .


C DATA ANALYSES FOR THE FIRST EIGHT
DATA DAYS OF THE EXPERIMENT . .

D QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . .

E RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . .


Page

63

63
65

65

66
67
69


. . 73

. . 101












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . .. .. .. 5

2 REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT PARADIGM . . 6

3 LINEAR REGRESSION LINES AND THEIR FIT
PERTAINING TO STANDARD BEHAVIOR CHARTS 14

4 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS (r ) OF THE
TESTS AND IQ SCALES, BY AGE N=200
FOR EACH AGE GROUP . . ... . . .. 31

5 SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT DELIVERED
TO ALL STUDENTS . . . ... . . 35

6 DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT . . . . .. 40

7 DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ... . 42

8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FOR
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN SCORES . . . .. 45

9 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR C GROUP,
SBC GROUP, AND RSR GROUP FOR AVERAGE
DAILY GAIN SCORES . . . . . .. 46

10 TUKEY'S HONESTLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
PROCEDURE FOR C GROUP, SBC GROUP, AND
RSR GROUP . . . . . . . . 47

11 PRODUCTIVITY AND CELEBRATION MEASURES
FOR BOTH SPEED AND ACCURACY FOR ALL
SUBJECTS . . . ... . . . . 49

12 SUBJECT 18-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 53

13 SUBJECT 27-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 55

14 SUBJECT 10-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 57

vii












Table Page

15 NUMBER OF ABSENCES FOR THE C, SBC,
AND RSR GROUPS . . . . . . .. 61

A-i SUBJECT 1-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 73

A-2 SUBJECT 2-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 74

A-3 SUBJECT 3-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 75

A-4 SUBJECT 4-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 76

A-5 SUBJECT 5-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 77

A-6 SUBJECT 6-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 78

A-7 SUBJECT 7-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 79

A-8 SUBJECT 8-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 80

A-9 SUBJECT 9-C: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 81


viii












Table Page

A-10 SUBJECT 11-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . ... . . . . 82

A-ll SUBJECT 12-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 83

A-12 SUBJECT 13-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . .. 84

A-13 SUBJECT 14-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 85

A-14 SUBJECT 15-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 86

A-15 SUBJECT 16-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 87

A-16 SUBJECT 17-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 88

A-17 SUBJECT 19-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . ... . . . 89

A-18 SUBJECT 20-SBC: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 90

A-19 SUBJECT 21-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 91


lX












Table Page

A-20 SUBJECT 22-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . ... . . 92

A-21 SUBJECT 23-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 93

A-22 SUBJECT 24-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 94

A-23 SUBJECT 25-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . .. . . . 95

A-24 SUBJECT 26-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 96

A-25 SUBJECT 28-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . ... 97

A-26 SUBJECT 29-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . .. 98

A-27 SUBJECT 30-RSR: ACCURACY; SPEED; AND
NUMBER OF CORRECT, INCORRECT, AND
TOTAL RESPONSES ON THE WISC-R
CODING SUBTEST . . . . . . . 99

C-1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FOR
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN SCORES FOR THE
FIRST EIGHT DAYS OF DATA . . . .. .129

C-2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR C
GROUP, SBC GROUP, AND RSR GROUP FOR
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN SCORES FOR THE
FIRST EIGHT DAYS OF DATA . . . .. .130











Table Page

C-3 TUKEY'S HONESTLY SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE PROCEDURE FOR C GROUP,
SBC GROUP, AND RSR GROUP FOR THE
FIRST EIGHT DAYS OF DATA . . . .. .131

E-l TABULATED RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
GIVEN TO THE C GROUP . . . . .. .137

E-2 TABULATED RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
GIVEN TO THE SBC GROUP . . . . .. .138

E-3 TABULATED RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
GIVEN TO THE RSR GROUP . . . . .. .139

E-4 SAMPLE SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES GIVEN ON
THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY THE C, SBC,
AND RSR GROUPS . . . . . . .. 140












LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

1

2


METHODOLOGICAL STRUCTURE . .

THE STANDARD BEHAVIOR CHART .


3 RAW SCORE RECORD SHEET .

4 SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY


SUBJECT 18-SBC

5 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 27-RSR

6 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 10-C

B-1 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 1-C .

B-2 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 2-C .

B-3 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 3-C .

B-4 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 4-C .

B-5 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 5-C .

B-6 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 6-C .

B-7 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 7-C .

B-8 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 8-C .

B-9 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 9-C .

B-10 SPEED AND ACCURACY
SUBJECT 11-SBC


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


SUMMARY


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


CHART FOR


Page

S 4

S. 13

S. 34


S. 52


S. 54


S. 56


S. 01


. 102


. 103


. 104


. 105


. 106


107


108


109


110












Page


SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY CHART FOR


SUBJECT 12-SBC


B-12 SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY


B-13


B-14


B-15


B-16


B-17


B-18


B-19


B-20


B-21


B-22


B-23


B-24


B-25


B-26


B-27


SUBJECT 13-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 14-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 15-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 16-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 17-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 19-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 20-SBC . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 21-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 22-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 23-RSR .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 24-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 25-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 26-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 28-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 29-RSR . .

SPEED AND ACCURACY SUMMARY
SUBJECT 30-RSR ..


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


CHART


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


FOR


xiii


Figure

B-1


. . 112


. . 113


. . 114


. 115


116


117


118


119


120


121


122


123


124


125


126


127










KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS


C Control

SBC Standard Behavior Chart

RSR Raw Score Record

WISC-R Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE EFFECTS OF SELF-RECORDING UPON
NONVERBAL REASONING PERFORMANCE FOR
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

By

Roberta Iris Rubin

December, 1976

Chairman: Barry J. Guinagh
Major Department: Foundations of Education

The purpose of this study was to investigate the

effects of two different forms of feedback upon nonverbal

reasoning performance as measured on the Coding Subtest of

the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R).

In an attempt to expand upon the existing knowledge in this

area, this study dealt with two specific methods of self-

recording.

The first type of self-recording method used in this

study was the Standard Behavior Chart. The inherent structure

of this chart eliminates the excessive time and complication

usually associated with other traditional recording techniques.

In the past, this chart has been used concurrently with

various modification programs in order to bring about success-

ful changes in behavior. This particular research study

focused upon the chart as a means of modifying behavior with-

out any additional modification program. The second method









of self-recording involved the simple task of recording

raw scores on a sheet designed for that purpose.

The students selected for this study were chosen from

a population of fourth and fifth graders. A table of

random numbers was applied to the fourth and fifth grade

rosters in order to select the sample. The sample was com-

prised of thirty students and included fourteen females and

sixteen males. Eighteen students were fifth graders and

twelve were fourth graders. The mean age for all students

was ten years and three months.

The sample of students was randomly assigned to each

of three experimental treatment groups resulting in an

equal number of students in each treatment level. Each

student received only one experimental treatment level. In

addition, there was random assignment of experimental treat-

ment levels to each group resulting in a completely randomized

design.

The subjects in this study performed on the Coding

Subtest of the WISC-R for a total of fourteen data sessions.

During the administration of this task, the examiner allowed

for a two minute timed sample in which the subjects marked

empty boxes with appropriate symbols. The administrator of

the task recorded the correct and incorrect responses and

awarded one point for each item marked correctly. Two of

the experimental treatment groups received immediate feed-

back as to their performance on the task. This feedback was

considered to be ancillary to the typical feedback which


xvi









is afforded by viewing one's progress on the test. These

two groups recorded their scores for the day according

to the particular procedural treatment assigned to that

group. A third group acted as a control group and received

no formal feedback except for that feedback which naturally

consequates performance, such as the visual inspection of

the finished task. At the completion of the experiment,

questionnaires were distributed to each student. This

questionnaire was constructed so as to elicit brief sub-

jective opinions from the students concerning their percep-

tions of the study.

Results showed significant treatment effects (p < .05)

with a significant treatment difference between the Standard

Behavior Chart and Control groups. Individual data analyses

were done to clarify trends and to focus upon individual

productivity and celebration measures for both speed and

accuracy pertaining to three different subjects. The superi-

ority of the treatment intervention was observable in these

data and in the data of the individual subjects.

In addition to extending the existing knowledge in this

area, this research may have significance in that it suggests

new procedures for curriculum and behavior management in

classroom situations. It demonstrates that charting itself

is a reactive process and may serve to accelerate or

decelerate the behavior charted. Thus, teachers and other

professionals could utilize this knowledge and plan inter-

ventions which use the potential power of charted feedback

instead of other extrinsic mrinforcers.

xvii















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



One of the most important contributions to the science

of human behavior has been the proliferation of knowledge

concerning the reactive nature of various forms of feedback

(Geis & Chapman, 1971). Of these various forms, student

self-recording exists as one particular type of reactive

feedback with significance to the classroom teacher. There

have been many traditional types of self-recording found in

classroom environments which have consumed more teacher

and student time than is warranted. This expenditure of

time has resulted in a teacher reluctance to use innovative

feedback procedures.

However, some innovative types of feedback have been

introduced into classroom use with recognized and favorable

results. One such self-recording device, a behavioral graph,

has been found valuable when used in conjunction with be-

havior analysis techniques (Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Duncan,

1971; Houton & Sullivan, 1975; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973;

La Croix, 1973; Mahoney, 1971; McFall, 1970; McKenzie &

Rushall, 1974; Robertshaw, Kelly,& Hiebert, 1973; Zimmerman,

1975). Favorable results have also been obtained in some









studies dealing with this self-recording device without any

concurrent modification procedures (Berger, 1972; Kazlo,

1976).

Although significant results have been reported in the

self-recording literature with respect to reactivity,

additional research which specifically utilizes different

types of self-recording techniques is needed. The purpose

of this research study is to introduce two methods of self-

recording in an academic environment which are considerably

different from the methods used in previous studies. One

method involves recording on a Standard Behavior Chart; the

other method is concerned with recording raw scores on a

form designed for that purpose. These two methods will be

analyzed on their own merit without any concurrent modifica-

tion procedures. A third method which does not utilize any

systematic self-recording device will be compared to the

first two methods discussed above.

The rationale for this study as it relates to the forms

of feedback mentioned above can be explained best by consid-

ering the relationships among the areas of knowledge of

results, precision teaching, self-recording, and reinforce-

ment theory. Knowledge of results represents the concept of

feedback and is defined as all forms of feedback given to an

individual. Many researchers have concentrated their studies

in this particular area, as reviewed by Locke, Cartledge,

and Koeppel (1968):









The facilitative effect of knowledge of results
(KR) upon learning and performance is one of the
best established findings in the research
literature. (p. 474)

As seen in Figure 1, precision teaching represents the

operations by which feedback is carried out. It involves

the daily recording of frequencies of performance, analyz-

ing individual data, and making appropriate changes in the

environment as indicated by the data collected. Alper and

White (1971) described precision teaching in the following

way:

First developed by Lindsley (1964) at the
University of Kansas, [precision teaching]
is an adaptation of the principles derived
by Skinner (1953) in operant technology.
[It is a] self-examining, self-evaluating,
and self-correcting analytic paradigm which
[has] been demonstrated through countless
basic and applied research projects to he
both [an] effective and easily implemented
method for the development and improvement
of almost any behavior. (p. 445)

The particular component of precision teaching elaborated

upon in this study is the area of self-recording (see Figure

1). Self-recording can function as a reinforcer, punisher,

or discriminative stimulus. Further explication of these

terms is presented in Table 1.

The first function that self-recording may serve is that

of a reinforcer. As indicated in Tables 1 and 2, reinforce-

ment may be defined as the application of a positive

stimulus or the withdrawal of an aversive stimulus with

a resultant increase in the frequency of the behavior being

measured. In this case, self-recording may function as a

reinforcer by acting as a positive stimulus which follows




















































SU



t3 H
H
ra o
0r
0
0
0
ci


1-- N C 0


















Table 1

DEFINITION OF TERMS


Definition


Reinforcement
















Punishment








Discriminative Stimulus


There are two types of
reinforcement: positive
reinforcement and neg-
ative reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement
refers to the presen-
tation of a positive
stimulus whereas neg-
ative reinforcement
refers to the with-
drawal of an aversive
stimulus. Both in-
crease the frequency
of the behavior they
follow.

Punishment represents
the application of an
aversive stimulus or
the withdrawal of a
positive stimulus re-
sulting in a deceleration
of the frequency of the
behavior it follows.

Discriminative Stimulus
refers to the particular
stimulus which is con-
sistently present when
responses are reinforced.


Term


















Table 2

REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT PARADIGM





Positive Result:
Stimulus Positive Reinforcement


Aversive Result:
Stimulus Punishment











Positive Result:
Stimulus Punishment



Aversive Result:
Stimulus Negative Reinforcement


A

P

P

L

Y





W

I

T

H

D

R

A









the behavior being measured, and results in an increase in

that behavior (see Figure 1).

Another function that self-recording serves is that

of a punisher (see Figure 1). As noted in Tables 1 and 2,

the application of an aversive stimulus and the withdrawal

of a positive stimulus are both defined as punishment. Self-

recording can act as a decelerator or punisher upon behavior

if the stimuli associated with the self-recording response

are aversive (La Croix, 1973; Strong, Sulzacher, &

Kirkpatrick, 1974). It is this reactivity of the self-

recording response, acting as a reinforcer or a punisher,

that is reviewed in this study.

The third function of self-recording may be labeled as

a discriminative stimulus (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Knowledge alone of the stimuli that signal certain perfor-

mances may alter that performance. In this example, self-

recording can act as a cue or signal of various behaviors to

be measured and modified. Although this function of self-

recording remains a logical possibility, the key feature

of this study will center upon the punishing and reinforcing

aspects of self-recording.

Statement of Intent

Self-recording, considered to be one aspect of precision

teaching, will be the method of feedback that will receive

primary attention in this research project. Two separate

applications of self-recording techniques have been chosen

in an attempt to provide simple feedback measures operating

within a classroom environment.






8

The first method of self-recording to be studied in-

volves the Standard Behavior Chart. This chart constitutes

the basis upon which the precision teaching framework is

designed. The structure of this chart allows for the elimi-

nation of the excessive time and complication usually asso-

ciated with traditional recording techniques. Similarly,

this system of measurement affords an advantage in that it

can help teachers to evaluate pupil performance with both

efficiency and economy (Gaasholt, 1974).

The other method of self-recording to be researched

involves the simple task of a student writing down his or

her raw scores obtained during academic sessions with the

experimenter. The student will daily record these scores

on a Raw Score Record sheet enabling him or her to observe

the raw scores obtained from previous performances.

It is the writer's general hypothesis that both the mere

recording of raw scores and self-recording on the Standard

Behavior Chart will in themselves improve performance. It

is also hypothesized that a differential effect between the

two treatments will emerge.

To test this hypothesis, the following research questions

have been developed: Does self-recording of performance

contribute to an increase or decrease in the performance of

that task? Additionally, if there is an increase or decrease

in performance, is this directly attributed to the charting

techniques employed and/or to the direct recording of each

student's raw scores?















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE



The purpose of this chapter will be to examine the

literature which is of particular relevance to this study.

The chapter is divided among many sections so as to clarify

the material reviewed. These subsections include: precision

teaching; the reactivity of self-recording; self-management

in the school environment, including management approaches

using self-recording with and without additional contingen-

cies; self-management in the clinical environment; and the

knowledge of results. Finally, a brief compendium of all

topics reviewed will appear at the end of this chapter.

Precision Teaching

There is an abundance of information concerning pre-

cision teaching and self-recording in an educational setting.

When considering evaluation systems for teachers, especially

those systems which involve self-recording, emphasis may be

placed upon precision teaching techniques as suggested by

many experimenters (Gardner, 1974; MacMillan, 1973; White &

Haring, 1976).

A few quotes from the work of Lindsley (1972), a well-

known researcher of precision teaching, will suffice to

facilitate a brief understanding of the background and evolu-

tion of precision teaching as it relates to this study.






10

The use of precision teaching for teachers as it builds

upon operant conditioning techniques is described by Lindsley

(1974) in the following way:

Precision teaching uses the management
procedures that operant conditioning
originally used but relies more on
traditional change procedures that
teachers and students invent and
select. . .Precision teaching in-
volves daily recording of the
frequencies of different classroom
performances on a standard chart.
This permits teachers and students to
project the outcome of procedures they
are using. Standard charts facilitate
sharing data. (p. 388)

Daily recording of frequencies of performance, as Lindsley

stated, involves counting the number of instances a behavior

is emitted and then dividing that number by the time involved

in emitting the behavior. This procedure is very practical

and it also allows the teacher to encourage his or her

students to share their data via charting techniques.

Other researchers have emphasized the practicality of

precision techniques in the management of child behaviors.

Gaasholt (1974) stated five basic components of the precision

teaching paradigm. They are

1. Pinpointing a pupil behavior.

2. Recording this behavior daily, computing
the rate (numbers of responses over
elapsed time), and charting it on a 6
cycle behavior chart.

3. Recording teacher behavior in relation
to pupil behavior.

4. Analyzing data to decide what changes
in teacher performance might affect
pupil performance, if a pupil perfor-
mance rate needs to be changed.








5. Making only one change in teacher
performance at a time and then re-
evaluating. (p. 129)

When carefully implemented, this analytical paradigm affords

one in the educational profession a broad range of applicable

methods for the improvement of behaviors.

Different Types of Standard Behavior Charts

The standard charts referred to in the preceding quotes

have taken many forms. In addition to Lindsley's (1974) six-

cycle behavior chart, which is based upon a ratio scale, a

standard chart using an arithmetic scale has been developed

by Wolking (1976) (see Figure 2). This chart allows one to

continuously record daily measurement on an arithmetic fre-

quency scale. Inspection of Figure 2 reveals two different

graphed areas on the chart. The area labeled "speed" pin-

points the behavior movement as the total number of defined

behaviors per minute. The area labeled "accuracy" is defined

as percent correct (Wolking & Hodgson, 1976). The distinc-

tions apparent between these two measurements permit one to

analyze the movement cycle in great detail (Wolking, 1976).

An additional finding as accomplished by the research of

Wolking and Hodgson (1976) concerns linear regression lines

and their fit to frequency dots on six-cycle, semi-log

behavior charts and arithmetic charts. A review of their

findings indicates a better linear fit for the arithmetic

charts as compared to the semi-log charts (Wolking & Hodgson,

1976) (see Table 3).


















>, O-
.0 0

o 0
O -H
U m
0 -U)

a 4






















SI i i ! i i . i i



ii i i i I i













tl IT l i T t" l i ii t
I 71 I 4
i 3 n H Ij 1 o : '.jd
4djpm




























3inNIW d~j NnO3 Gi jJdS


S::~Ij~~i I i i






.ii!
7s -
































. .1. .3...0.3. .. ..V..
: H '
[ i : : '






I :3a o i : a n)a


II 1 Iti~ L"IY~~-'I'I(I """" 'I''~"^Oi"Il''M ii M ~ihlO


*I' l 1 c


~I ;f
I'
:L
I; ii ii Ii





14

Table 3

LINEAR REGRESSION LINES AND THEIR
FIT PERTAINING TO STANDARD BEHAVIOR CHARTS


Type of Standard Percentage of the total cases
Behavior Chart that had a line of better fit


Arithmetic 61

Six-Cycle Semi-Log 39


Note. There was a total of 140 cases.



Although it has been established that self-recording

within the precision teaching paradigm allows one to use

direct measures in the classroom (Starlin, 1971), teachers

are concerned about the inconvenience associated with teaching

children to chart. Starlin (1972) demonstrated a facility

with which children can be taught to chart their own be-

haviors. She found that "self-charting permits students to

exercise more responsibility and control over their own

learning" (p. 139). A study involving precision teaching of

visually impaired students, as cited by Douglass and Mangold

(1975), further endorses the ease of learning and use of the

chart. Subjects were taught to daily record their behavior

on Braille graphs which use an arithmetic scale. Additionally,

Wolking and Hodgson (1976) emphasized that the teachers and

supervisors in their study almost unanimously endorsed the

arithmetic chart that they were instructed to use. Evidence

of this endorsement was expressed in a questionnaire that

was answered by teachers using this chart.








The Reactivity of Self-Recording

Before discussing the literature relevant to self-record-

ing in both school and clinical environments, an explanation

of the reactivity of self-recording is essential so as to

demonstrate the basic premise upon which many of the relevant

research studies were based.

Nelson, Lipinski, and Black (1975) defined self-record-

ing as a reactive process by stating that "self-recorders'

behavior changes as a function of self-recording" (p. 337).

Other researchers also acknowledge the reactivity of monitor-

ing one's own behavior (Frederiksen, Epstein, & Kosevsky,

1975; Kazdin, 1974; Lipinski & Nelson, 1974; Orne, 1970).

It has also been shown that the reactive nature of self-

recording has usually resulted in beneficial behavioral

changes (Lipinski & Nelson, 1974). A more detailed analysis

of the studies which addressed themselves to specific

environments in which self-recording was reactive follows.

Self-Management in the School Environment

Research on the use of the Standard Behavior Chart and

other self-recording techniques, when used within the school

environment, has been commented upon by several experimenters

(Berger, 1972; Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971; Johnson, 1971;

Johnson & White, 1971). Many of these researchers have

conducted studies involving the concomitant use of self-recording

with other modification techniques. Several others have

used self-recording without any added contingencies. For

this reason, this portion of the review of the literature

will be subdivided into categories involving independent








self-recording and concurrent self-recording. It may also

be noted that many of the self-recording techniques to be

discussed involve a variety of configurations, as exemplified

by charts, wrist counters, index cards, and paper slips.

Self-recording without concurrent modification procedures

As discussed above, many research studies which have

dealt with charting or other self-recording devices point out

that, when used to merely self-record, the chart serves to

modify the pinpointed behavior in question. A research

study completed by Berger (1972) involved self-counting and

also explored the Standard Behavior Chart as a self-recording

device to monitor school-related behaviors. This was done

without the use of any concurrent modification procedures.

Berger (1972) found that seventy-eight percent of all examined

behaviors changed in the desired direction. This suggests

that self-counting and charting may lead to successful

management of one's school environment.

Further evidence of the importance of self-monitoring

is provided by a study by Kazlo (1976), in which the effects

of self-monitoring were measured by observing study behavior.

Kazlo (1976) had students in an experimental group daily

record the number of study questions they answered. At the

same time, students in a control group were not instructed

to self-record their behavior. Results indicated that the

self-monitoring group wrote a significantly greater number

of answers to questions than the control group.

A similar study was conducted by Johnson and White (1971).

Undergraduate students were asked to observe and record their






17

studying behavior for one of their college courses. An

analysis of the results demonstrated that the experimental

group achieved better grades than the control group. These

findings further solidify the hypothesis that self-recording

procedures are reactive and may be successfully used as a

vehicle by which behavior change takes place in a school

setting.

The therapeutic effects of self-management within the

classroom were also tested in a study involving "potential

high school dropouts" (Gottman & McFall, 1972). Subjects

were given pink and green index cards and told to record any

instance of oral participation in class. There was an

increase in the self-monitored response of oral participation,

which accentuates the potentially therapeutic aspects of the

reactivity of self-recording.

In another investigation of the effects of self-recording

upon classroom behavior, Broden, Hall, and Mitts (1971) found

that self-monitoring brought about an increase in the pin-

pointed behavior being emitted. In their first experiment,

Broden et al. modified the studying behavior of an eighth-

grade girl. Paper slips were provided so that the girl could

record whether or not she studied in history class. The

procedure resulted in an increase in the studying behavior

of the student. Interestingly enough, studying behavior de-

creased when the slips were withdrawn. In the second experiment,

number of talk-outs emitted by an eighth-grade boy were recorded

on paper slips. Results showed that talk-outs decreased when

self-recording was in effect.






1.8

A research study conducted by Johnson (1971) employed

the Standard Behavior Chart as a method of helping two

students learn. In order to increase correct math responses

in one of the first grade students, correct and incorrect

responses to addition combinations were directly recorded.

Results showed that the student's math progress increased

substantially over a period of one month using this technique.

In describing one of her students, Johnson (1971) stated:

Charting also acted as a motivator, and as
she progressed and increased her performance
she gained more self-confidence . . It
provides the continuous records which make
it possible to individualize instruction,
to motivate students, and to help teachers
evaluate their own teaching effects. (p. 110)

This finding combines with the others mentioned to suggest

the reactive process of independent self-recording.

Concurrent self-recording

Self-recording when used contemporaneously with other

modification procedures has shown to be effective in produc-

ing behavior changes. The following studies exemplify

patterns of the reactivity of self-recording.

A study done by Bolstad and Johnson (1972) focused on

modifying the disruptive behavior of four elementary school

children. Two of the three experimental subjects were in-

structed to observe their own behavior. Additionally, they

were allowed to control the dispensation of reinforcers to

themselves based on their self-collected data. Other sub-

jects received reinforcement on an externally managed basis.

The results of this study demonstrated that the self-

regulation procedures were slightly more effective than the








externally managed procedures. Although additional contin-

gencies such as specific reinforcement were added to the study,

the practicality and power that self-recording may wield is

evident.

Another study utilizing behavior management and self-

recording addressed itself to the effects of cueing on the

rate of teacher praise given to students (Houten & Sullivan,

1975). Two teachers were instructed to count and graph their

daily praise rate. In a second phase of the experiment, all

teachers received auditory cues so that teacher praise

might be prompted. Results showed that self-recording elevated

behavior minimally and that cueing can work in environments

where self-recording is not effective. It is also conceivable

that the cueing in this experiment acted as a potent discrimi-

native stimulus which signalled the attention of the teachers.

In an attempt to increase the reading performance of

thirteen special education students, Knapczyk and Livingston

(1973) used self-recording and a token reinforcement system

as one of their experimental conditions. Each individual

was presented with a work record book in which he or she

entered his or her correct responses to a reading assignment.

An additional contingency was added which consisted of earning

a particular amount of money based upon one's reading perfor-

mance. Knapczyk and Livingston (1973) found a statistically

significant difference (p < .05) between baseline performance

and the self-recording and token phase resulting in an increase

in the accuracy with which students responded to their reading

assignments.






20

Glynn and Thomas (1974) used a combination of behavioral

self-control procedures to modify on-task behavior of elemen-

tray school students. Although self-recording was only

one component of the project, Glynn and Thomas (1974) stated

the advantages of their behavior specification chart in the

following way:

However, reports from all observers indicated
that the chart eliminated much of the indecision
and confusion that subjects had about assessing
their behavior. The chart could have functioned
as a discriminative stimulus. (p. 305)

Finally, with regard to specific interventions in which

self-monitoring may be used as a reinforcer, Clement (1973)

stated, "Observing and systematically counting each

occurrence of the behavior is . [another method] of

modification" (p. 617). Taking this one step further,

Bandura and Perloff (1973) stated that ". . self-monitored

reinforcement possesses considerable behavior maintenance

value" (p. 615). These statements provide substantial support

for the contention that the direct counting and recording

of raw scores is a potent reinforcer. As was noted earlier,

self-monitored reinforcement in the form of the arithmetic

Standard Behavior Chart and students' direct recording of

raw scores will serve as the focal point for this study.

Self Management in the Clinical Environment

An abundance of literature relating to self-management

is available to those considering studies within a clinical

milieu. These studies are not conducted within the school

environment and usually have a small sample size. A





21

selected number of studies will be reviewed to explicate

the concept of the reactivity of self-recording. These

studies employ self-recording along with other interventions

and address themselves to behaviors within the clinical

areas of obsessional thoughts, obesity, stuttering, smoking,

grimacing, and verbal behavior. Regarding the reactivity

of self-recording techniques used within a clinical setting,

McFall (1970) stated:

The Ss in behavior modification research are
sometimes required to monitor and record their
own behavior. Such self-monitoring may be pro-
ducing its own behavior changes. (p. 135)

The subjects in the study conducted by McFall (1970) self-

monitored the frequency of their smoking and non-smoking

behavior. An analysis of the results indicates that smoking-

related behaviors changed in the desired direction when the

self-monitoring phase of the experiment was in effect.

An interesting study representing an application of

self-management techniques in the modification of covert

behaviors was done by Mahoney (1971). The client in the

study was a twenty-two-year-old male complaining of uncon-

trollable obsessional ruminations about being brain damaged.

The client was told to daily record when he engaged in these

obsessional thoughts. An additional intervention was added

whereby punishment was made contingent upon the emission of

these thoughts. A combination of these two techniques resulted

in a substantial decline in the frequency of these undesirable

thoughts.

A research study by Duncan (1971) utilized the Standard

Behavior Chart as a self-recording device with a three-and-









a-half-year-old girl. Duncan had the child count and record

her selfish acts and thoughts (labeled outer and inner

behaviors respectively). At one point in the experiment,

contingencies were added to decrease the occurrence of these

undesirable behaviors. This phase was then followed by the

institution of a "recording only" phase. Results conclusively

showed that the mere counting and recording of the behavior

in question served as a decelerator of that behavior.

In another study involving recording techniques as a

reinforcer, Jens and Shores (1969) worked with three

trainable mentally retarded adolescents in an effort to

accelerate typical workshop tasks. They showed that the use

of behavioral graphs served as a controlling influence on

the rate of behaviors under study.

A number of researchers have suggested the significance

of self-monitoring in the treatment of obesity (Bellack,

Rozensky, & Schwartz, 1973; Romanczyk, Tracey, Wilson, &

Thorpe, 1973; Stunkard, 1975). Bellack et al. (1973) found

that self-monitoring prior to the eating response in obese

patients showed a larger reduction in body weight of these

patients. Similarly, Romanczyk et al. (1973) demonstrated

that self-monitoring of daily caloric intake was an effective

method of producing weight loss in obese individuals.

In a study concerning covert behaviors, Zimmerman (1975)

instructed three clients to self-record the frequency with

which they experienced aversive feelings. A wrist counter

was used to facilitate the self-recording process.









Consequences involving self-implosion techniques were made

contingent upon the undesirable behaviors. Results suggested

that clients can modify covert behaviors using both con-

tingency management techniques and self-recording.

A documented study by Herbert and Baer (1972) involved

the use of wrist counters as self-monitoring devices to

measure attending behavior. Several mothers of children

with deviant behaviors were told to count on the wrist counter

the number of episodes of attention given to their children.

Episodes of attention increased despite inaccurate parent

self-recording. The simple counting of attention episodes

was effective in producing changes in both parent and child

and for two of the three parents that were instructed to

use the self-recording device.

Robertshaw, Kelly, and Hiebert (1973) presented a

technique aimed at increasing verbal behavior. The subject

involved was instructed to record his verbal behavior. A

verification of the subject's recording was accomplished by

having an adult check for discrepancies between the subject's

self-recording behavior and the recorded behavior completed

by a staff member. During the treatment involving self-

recording alone, the subject's verbal behavior increased

over baseline frequencies.

More recently, McKenzie and Rushall (1974) demonstrated

the effects of self-recording on performance and attendance

for members of a competitive swimming team. Although this

did not take place in a strict clinical environment, the









similarities between this study and the ones previously

mentioned are obvious. In this experiment, a display board

was furnished in which each swimmer indicated his or her

attendance record at swimming practice. As expected,

absentees, late arrivals, and early departures were con-

siderably reduced (45%, 63%, and 100% respectively).

Additionally, work rates in swimmers were elevated by an

average of 27% when display boards indicating swimmers' per-

formance were used. The results of both of these experiments

definitively show that the public self-recording of one's

performance generates an appropriate change of behavior.

This serves to further endorse the hypothesis that self-

recording is a durable reinforcer.

As in the acceleration of desirable responses, decelera-

tion of undesirable responses may result in an overall

improvement of behavior. Data summarizing the deceleration

of undesirable behaviors are presented by La Croix (1973)

in a study concerning the reduction of stuttering in two

clients. A counter was given to the subjects with instructions

to depress the counter each time a verbal disfluency was

emitted. Results significantly showed the reduction of

undesirable behaviors once the treatment condition was

instituted. Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, the attention

paid to the behavior as afforded by self-recording results

in desired changes of the behavior in question.

Finally, another example of deceleration was examined

in a study surveying the effects of self-recording coupled









with teacher praise related to "grimacing" behavior in

students (Strong, Sulzbacher, & Kirkpatrick, 1974). It was

clearly demonstrated that the counting techniques used in

conjunction with teacher praise were effective in reducing

the frequency of grimacing. Emphasis here may be placed

upon the positive effect as well as the minimum expenditure

of energy needed to self-record one's own behavior.

Knowledge of Results

One last category of consideration in this study is the

category dealing with the general reinforcing value of the

concept of "knowledge of results." The reader is reminded

of the position taken earlier in this report that self-

recording used as a data collection technique may be

appropriately labeled as the operation by which "knowledge

of results" is carried out.

Although many researchers have successfully demonstrated

the positive motivational effects of self-recording or

"knowledge of results," several issues should be taken into

consideration before more research in this area is completed.

Among these issues are the controversies involving the

automatic assumption that feedback, in this case self-

recording, always acts as a reinforcer. Geis and Chapman

(1971) warned that feedback techniques particular to any

monitoring system cannot be automatically assumed to be

reinforcing. Specific factors involving varied schedules

and delay of reinforcement can also cause effects contrary

to the expected results if knowledge of results were









considered to be a reinforcer. Results of a study regarding

delay of reinforcement, as cited by Geis and Chapman (1971),

conclusively showed that delayed reinforcement has a

reduced effect upon the behavior to which it has been made

contingent.

Another methodological issue to be carefully considered

before assuming the reinforcing value of "knowledge of results"

pertains to the reliability with which self-recording is

carried out. Self-recording carried out in the absence of

reliability estimates can lead to the inaccurate reporting

of results, which in turn may affect the knowledge of these

results (Simkins, 1971). Other studies which address this

issue have discussed the possibility of successfully

evaluating and controlling covert behavior changes without

first computing reliability measures (Hall, 1971; Herbert &

Baer, 1972; Lindsley, 1971; Nelson & McReynolds, 1971).

Again, the proper design of an experiment which utilizes

self-recording and "knowledge of results" can best be

achieved after consideration of these issues.

Summary

Discussion in this chapter has centered on the following

areas: precision teaching; the reactivity of self-recording;

self-management in the school environment, both independently

and concurrently with other modification techniques; and

self-management in the clinical environment.

Review of the literature pertaining to precision teaching

focused upon the use of the Standard Behavior Chart as a






27

self-recording device. Most of the studies that were

mentioned reiterated the benefits and ease of acquisition

pertaining to the learning of the self-charting response.

Defining reactivity as the process by which measurement

techniques alters the behavior one is attending to helped

present a foundation upon which studies within school and

clinical environments were formulated. In appraising the

various studies reviewed, one notes the positive effects

of self-recording in many behavioral settings. As McFall

(1970) stated:

Something that has long been suspected by
psychologists and laymen alike: When an
individual begins paying unusually close
attention to one aspect of his behavior,
that behavior is likely to change, even
though no change may be intended or
desired. (p. 140)

Although many of the studies involved self-recording and

the concomitant use of other behavioral contingencies, the

positive effects of self-recording alone were evident

throughout the analyses contained in this chapter.


~















CHAPTER III

METHODS AND HYPOTHESIS



A presentation of the procedures that were used and

hypothesis that was tested will constitute the focus of this

chapter. Specifically, the topics to be discussed are: sub-

jects and sampling, instrumentation, procedures, data collec-

tion, design, and the major hypothesis.

Methods

Subjects and Sampling

The students selected for this study were chosen from a

population of fourth and fifth graders at P. K. Yonge Laboratory

School located in Gainesville, Florida. A table of random

numbers was applied to the fourth and fifth grade rosters in

order to select the sample. The sample was comprised of

thirty subjects so as to yield a power of 1-8 (beta) = .49

at the p < .05 level of significance (Kirk, 1968) as calculated

by utilizing the formula for D (phi). Included in this sample

were fourteen females and sixteen males. Eighteen students

were fifth graders and twelve were fourth graders. The mean

age for all students was ten years and three months.

The sample of students was randomly assigned to each of

the experimental treatment groups resulting in an equal

number of students in each treatment. Each student received









only one experimental treatment. In addition, there was

random assignment of experimental treatments to each group.

It was anticipated that the randomization process utilized

would eliminate any demographic biases that might have

existed.

Instrumentation

The instrument that was used to assess the nonverbal

reasoning performance of the students participating in this

study was the Coding Subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence

Scale for Children Revised (WISC-R). During the adminis-

tration of this task, the examiner allowed for a two minute

timed sample in which the subjects marked empty boxes with

appropriate symbols. The administrator of the task recorded

the correct and incorrect responses and awarded one point

for each item marked correctly (Wechsler, 1974). This pro-

cedure allows for computation of both speed and accuracy.

The desirability of this instrument is validated by one's

review of the statistical procedures used in the development

of this test. The WISC-R was standardized on a sample of

2,200 subjects, representative of the United States population

of children, ranging from ages six through sixteen years

eleven months. The standardized sample for each age was

stratified according to variables such as geographic area,

urban-rural population, and parental occupation. Additionally,

reliability coefficients of the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R

have been computed for ages 6 1/2 to 16 1/2 at one year inter-

vals. The reliability coefficients obtained for this test were








computed by the test-retest method. The split-half procedure,

which was used for other subtests of the WISC-R, was not used

for the Coding Subtest. This is because it is a speeded test

and the reliability coefficient obtained in this manner would

be an inappropriate measure of consistency. Illustration of

the reliability for the subtest appears in Table 4 (Wechsler,

1974). The age group labeled as 10 1/2 years closely approx-

imates the one used in this study. The reliability coefficient

presented for this age group is r = .76 which is considered

to be an accurate indicator of reliability for this test.

The advantages of this instrument are further recognized

upon reviewing the scaled score equivalents for raw scores that

are provided for each subtest of the WISC-R. Puthermore,

these scores are categorized by successive four-month

intervals (Wechsler, 1974).

Procedures

Prior to the commencement of this experiment, permission

to work with these students was granted by the University of

Florida's Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects; Dr.

Catherine Longstreth, Assistant Director of P. K. Yonge; the

two teachers involved; and the parents, as covered by a blan-

ket agreement signed by them when entering their children

in this school.

Thirty students chosen from a population of fourth and

fifth graders at P. K. Yonge Laboratory School were taken out

of their respective classrooms and brought to a common room
































II
\i -- r r-- ~i r?~'- 10 = r( nI -r c <








-cr. 0 cr C C e-iiroi C C in
c r co I- c l I- a-

u 7 ,f r^ C. r'' n-O-" r* n-(C* ooc'2 c^o


-c i- c- I i-i cC': r *- I3 x r^ 10 <^ c




-cI~ -I rl >~- l C- icc r- I-. 0cm > r




r- r - c i- -. jf rl -o ct c i ln 0 iC
n 1"1 r-- Cc oj I ri-- l3 1 I ci a-i >r f>



r` t~~ -Dra i ~ ii C. l ri-i iO-i
cwcc-2crc,0 I i-i--cc'. I- Ci a-iO N




c3 -, c cc 0 i- m r'- cc I- I- r- cc c- a
r c' sm co I r co r- s c I-' Ir- ci ama'



C -. 'o -t -- -- c-3 rC -I mc c- I n r- c ai



o C r-r i ;C I- rC i i/c r < CI co ic
^n c\ o e 'c c^ -1; .-Y o c *-' 'J "








0~~~ 'n m;.0C D)c r ci C, Oi


-' C1o c3 r~I-- [-- *y2 c r'~ o f'- '3 oo c\ cr> I;
r^,"" ". . . . .


C- i~- ~'i -t S -0
-c I ~- -c i i -0 i


-t C- C. -C in ci .--
C- C- on3 0- '0 cm' ci Ci .




02 c
cu E
L~00
2 m 2


0 c al C,
a n c ~ .a


:i Il T~
: ,
0;3
";
~. "" ~
3-
-r
I;
i, c

J
r.-






`i u :
i"l~


-,c~ ,i
CZ
r,
e r ~~ rE
:L"L ~J~:O
r _, o


::- i
4
-1
c ,

~~~c

r~il. L_;~y-j
o;o~ i;-
-' ~n ; *


,,

,i:

3
"IE :?
: ;
-n
1 - -;
LI~


:1:
i-'~'


j YL :IC
rrr
YE
C i
~ I'
:j
.-i.
c~~;F L~-

;~-=

'' '-
,,
.j V






c
~ Il J-









where the experimenter instructed the subjects on the use of

the Standard Behavior Chart (SBC) (Figure 2) and the direct

recording of raw scores on the Raw Score Record (RSR) sheet

(see Figure 3). Following this initial explanation, students

were instructed to attend the experimental sessions daily

for a period of three weeks. The basic determinants of the

length of the experimental treatment depends upon the

stability, sensitivity, and the control of undesirable

behavioral processes that were examined during a pilot study

completed prior to this research study (Sidman, 1960).

Reinforcement was awarded to each student on a variable-

interval schedule (VI 2.3 days) so as to insure 100% atten-

dance throughout this experiment. Clarification of the issues

involved in computing the variable-interval value can be

found in Holland and Skinner (1961). The reinforcements used

in this experiment were quarters and thank-you notes for each

student. Conditions under this schedule of reinforcement were

such that each student received the quarter and thank-you note

on an average of every 2.3 days. Table 5 shows the schedule

upon which reinforcement was delivered. The delivery of

reinforcement occurred immediately after the student presented

himself or herself at the testing location, thereby obviating

any effects the reinforcement may have had on any subsequent

testing performance. During each session, the experimenter

gave a timed administration of the Coding Subtest of the WISC-P.

After the administration of the test, the experimenter and an

assistant graded the tests according to the procedures out-













































m
0O

a
Q) u



0
U
























































U
H





2

















U
2






















HI H
0 :4
H H
H 2 U~


HO > oo Z


<*r< f 21-
________ ? 2!
; . >,r ,
< ro *- H





































H
2 H0



























2
o l




















H.
*-, 2
2i






















XNIH
_______________- n S ___

s









______* :n
'* 2













*-11
<















52 D 2^
Hc






HK











HO :4
3H











______________ mn H



_____________ ____ LO

0 ^ ^'

"`"'







^s mN
H c> >, Cc
K (^ (T3T ^"

_________S : i __
i*N i
H CO >
K -j o -^



















Table 5

SCHEDULE OF REINFORCEMENT
DELIVERED TO ALL STUDENTS


Data Session


Reinforcement delivery
Yes No

X

X









lined in the section of this report entitled instrumentation.

The two experimental treatment groups received immediate feed-

back as to their performance on the test. This feedback was

considered to be ancillary to the typical feedback which is

afforded by viewing one's progress on the test. The two

groups recorded their scores for the day according to the

particular procedural treatment assigned to that group.

Elaboration of the treatment phases will be discussed in the

design section of this report. There was no feedback given

to the control group during this experiment except for that

feedback which naturally consequates performance, such as

the visual inspection of the finished task. At the completion

of the experiment, questionnaires were distributed to each

student. This questionnaire was constructed so as to elicit

brief subjective opinions from the students concerning their

perceptions of the study's particularities.

The Hawthorne Effect would not confound the experimental

results since all subjects were operating under this effect

and any unwanted variation would be eliminated via the

randomization process. Additionally, students at P. K. Yonge

Laboratory School have probably been heavily experimented upon

and, as a result, have become more resistant to the Hawthorne

Effect in experimentation. As expected, the children chosen for

this study were naive to the charting procedures employed.

Data Collection

Data collection was accomplished on a daily basis with

the use of the Standard Behavior Chart (Wolking, 1976). The








experimenter daily recorded on this chart the scores obtained

for each individual's performance on the Coding Subtest of the

WISC-R. The response unit that comprised the daily score

was the number of responses emitted by each individual

according to the specified time as described in the WISC-R

Manual (Wechsler, 1974). The experimenter then converted these

scores into frequency measures appropriate to the Standard

Behavior Chart. This was accomplished by dividing the

defined movement by the designated time. Throughout the

study, speed and performance measures were calculated and

compared and, at the end of the experiment, celebration values

were obtained for each student's display of dots on the chart.

This measure of behavioral change is expressed in terms of the

unit of frequency referred to as movements per minute per

week (Pennypacker, Koenig, & Lindsley, 1972). To reiterate,

the total number of defined behaviors per minute constitutes

the speed measure, and the percent of correct behaviors

establishes the accuracy measure. Of noteworthy consideration

is the celebration measure which provides the primary means by

which expression of the amount of behavioral change or im-

provement has taken place. Concomitantly, a productivity

measure was computed and is defined by Wolking and Hodgson

(1976) as "the percent of change in the speed and accuracy of

a performance during the instructional life [of that perfor-

mance]" (p. 156).

Design

The intent of this study was to assess the effects of
both the Standard Behavior Chart and the direct recording of









raw scores on nonverbal reasoning performance. Nonverbal

reasoning as measured on the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R

was selected as the variable for performance so that outside

influences in the school could be controlled. The teachers

associated with the particular students would at no time

incorporate the administration of the coding test into their

daily curriculum.

Since there were three treatment levels, random assignment

of subjects designated to receive only one level, and an equal

number of students receiving each level, a completely random-

ized design was used (Kirk, 1968). The three treatment levels

consisted of the following groups:

1. A group of ten students which did not keep any

record relating to their daily test performance.

2. A group of ten students recording measures on

the SBC.

3. A group of ten students recording their daily

test performance on the RSR sheet.

The first group served as a control to provide a means of

comparison for the two types of feedback techniques employed.

It may be noted that the layout of the RSR sheet was inten-

tionally designed to resemble the SBC so as to help facilitate

isolation of the individual stimuli specific to each method.

Assuming that the layout of the RSR sheet is similar to the

SBC, the procedures inherent in finding the day and frequency

line, and in plotting a daily score, will be the only con-

ditions which differ from writing a raw score on the RSR sheet.





39


Table 6 presents a schematic representation of the design

used in this experiment. The random assignment of subjects

designated to receive one level and an equal number receiving

each level are observed under conditions specific to each

treatment. Ultimately, this design provided for assessment

of the reliability of differences among groups.

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis that was tested in this study is

stated as follows: There is no statistically significant

difference in nonverbal reasoning performance among students

in a control, charting, and raw score group.













Table 6

DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT


Treatment conditions

Ta b c
12 3


S1 S11 S21
S2 S12 S22
S3 S13 S23
S4 S14 S24

S5 S15 S25
S6 S16 S26
S7 S17 S27
Sg S18 S28
S9 S19 S29
S10 S20 S30


S = Subject.
Control condition.
Standard Behavior Chart condition.
Raw Score Record condition.


Note.
aT =
b1
T2 =
T3 =
















CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSES


This chapter will focus upon three major areas of

analysis. These areas include an analysis of grouped data,

selected individual data, and specific supplementary data.

Analysis of Grouped Data

As mentioned above, the effects of charting and the direct

recording of raw scores upon nonverbal reasoning performance

were the active variables studied in this experiment. The

dependent variable was nonverbal reasoning performance as

measured on the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R, and the levels

of the independent variable were a control, standard behavior

charting, and raw score recording group. This is represented

in Table 7. As indicated in this table, average daily gain

scores comprise the measure for nonverbal reasoning performance.

These scores were arrived at by adding each student's daily

gain score and then dividing by the total number of gains.

Several issues were considered before choosing the average

daily gain scores as the dependent variable. There was no

reason to suspect that the initial performance for each subject

was in any way related to the dependent variable. Therefore,

covariance of the first data day for each subject was not

needed. This contention is supported by inspection of the indi-

vidual student charts included in Appendix B. These charts show
























Table 7

DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES


Treatment Levels
Independent T1 T2 T3
variable1 2
(Control) (Charting) (Raw Score
Recording)


Dependent
variables Nonverbal reasoning performance
(Average daily gain scores)






43

that the general pattern of the rate of change remained the same

for all children throughout the study, for as the children

achieved high scores on the task, their rate did not decrease.

This demonstrates the absence of a ceiling effect upon performance

which may have necessitated a covariance procedure. In addition,

the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R was specifically chosen so as

to allow a high ceiling effect for all subjects. This task

would allow enough room for improvement for those subjects who

started at a high level of performance.

Another issue which addresses the selection of the depen-

dent variable concerns the possibility of computing a single

gain score derived from the first and last data points. In

this study, average daily gain scores for the fourteen data

days were computed so as to permit greater sensitivity of the

analysis of the data. If pre and post measures had been used,

several historical as well as other extraneous variables would

not have been observed. These extraneous variables may have

occurred during the study, thereby affecting the post scores.

More specifically, by using a pre-post design, intermediate

data would have been omitted which could have influenced this

study.

An examination of Appendix A reveals individual data sum-

maries from which individual gain scores can be obtained. Appen-

dix A includes a compilation of data divided into the following

categories: number correct, number incorrect, total number

attempted, accuracy, and speed. Computation of the gain scores

can be achieved after scanning the column labeled total number








attempted. Other references to these data will be made in

the section of this report entitled analysis of individual

data.

After all the assumptions for the design were carefully

met, an analysis of variance was computed on the average daily

gain scores for the thirty subjects. Regarding the use of

special analytical tools, the experimenter ran this analysis

of variance program on the IBM 370/165 computer using the

Statistical Package For The Social Sciences computer program

labeled 22.3 (Nie, N. J., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G.,

Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H., 1975). Computing was done

utilizing the facilities of the NE Regional Data Center of

the State University System of Florida located on the campus

of the University of Florida in Gainesville. The summary of

the analysis of variance that was performed is presented in

Table 8. As may be seen by this table, the obtained F ratio

was shown to be statistically significant (p < .05) when tested

against the critical F ratio. Moreover, there was a significant

difference between the SBC group and the C group as illustrated

in Tables 9 and 10 using the Tukey's honestly significant

difference post hoc procedure (Kirk, 1968).

The design used in this study was specifically chosen so

as to maximize the reliability and generality of the grouped

data. Sidman (1960) describes this design as an example of

intergroup replication and stated its relationship to

reliability in the following way:

























Table 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR AVERAGE DAILY GAIN SCORES


Degrees of Sum of Mean
Source Freedom Squares Squares F


Between Groups 2 16.0400 8.0200 5.169*

Within Groups 27 41.8948 1.5517

Total 29 57.9348


* p < .05


























Table 9

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR C GROUP,
SBC GROUP, AND RSR GROUP FOR AVERAGE
DAILY GAIN SCORES


Group Count Mean Standard deviation


C 10 3.0276 1.0321

SBC 10 4.8065 1.5674
SBC 10

RSR 10 3.7367 1.0644

TOTAL 30 3.8569 1.4134
TOTAL 30






























H- 00
0) 01 I
o C O I
N. 0 I













03 I
01
O I



























C) m
r- I





























o 03
n Co CO
rn


cr) U











to to
t-o o









Intergroup replication provides an indicator
or reliability insofar as it demonstrates that
changes in central tendency for a group can be
repeated. (p. 75)

Once changes in central tendency for a group are repeated,

and reliability is shown, generality can be considered. With

respect to this generality, the sample was chosen so that

the external validity will be applicable to fourth and fifth

grade students.

Analysis of Individual Data

Analysis of individual data is presented in this chapter

to provide a more extensive framework within which one may

analyze trends that are not made particularly apparent in the

grouped data. Individual data are presented in both tabular

and graphic form (see Tables 12, 13, and 14, and Figures 4, 5,

and 6). The Standard Behavior Chart used in this study was

developed by Wolking (1976) and served as a graphic represen-

tation showing the effects of the experimental treatment.

After viewing the tables and graphic representations that will

be specifically identified in this section, one will be able

to recognize the rate of improvement of performance per week

as evidenced by the celebration values and the percent of change

in the speed and accuracy of the performance during the entire

study, as indicated by the productivity measures (Wolking and

Hodgson, 1976). Table 11 reveals these measures for each

subject. As shown in this table, students in the SBC group

produced behavior (speed productivity) at a much greater rate

than both the C and RSR groups. Additionally, the celebration






















OQ

4C
00





UcJ


U0 -




U H
4 U

















0












>
u0












SU
Ur
>i









0

0
O/ -


m W-,cnmr m v
Hi H- iH H H-A H Hi- H-A H H









0 H -H 00000 (N

0 0 0 0000000










0000000000










H ) 0) 10Ho0 m
Smr- m) H o r-i 0







mU m (NHm H mn H



H-A -q r-i Hn iL cc t N N r-H
V co o n co V00 c m









U U U UUU U U
Im r I I I I I I
f-1


S03
0 E
U)



Sn



O <

00
H F




q
UE
M r

U



z

M




r m
40
H


0000000000










OOlOOOOOHO









CD NC' cc -A HN cc C) (N CD
I I





















mrmoorn~moo

CN'n moLnnLn co C










ImmHHmI I








mmmmmmmmmm
Io IV i0 i- IT i o





r-A r-A r-q r-A r-l l-A r-l l-A r-i rN





















(C 1
CO



0

'U
m H






-I


,o0




4-1
0 H








>
C)



S0




04
0 H-

c00
r0
0 0




o U
00














4-I
0
0
01





C H
S'0
















a
00

OH










0

0


00
0(U
01-1
X0
c0.


(N ,T M m M N 'l m





r-H OOO H r-OO -H r-H Hr-






OOHo000000o












000 o 000000









OOON OO Ll OOO N



m (N (N (NN m m HN '











'. n) L M Nr- 1 0










m(N (N (oN N (N N (N m N (N c
(NP ~ a~PslfNr;P;P r
rcmmmmmormmma
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11uuru


0 0

0 0



a 0




4-) 4J 4-) 41
U 0 0


c) i CU (
00 0a 0


0 0 0
a0 a a0 0
0. a .
000! 0 l
H H H


0000l rlr


z zz om









values for this group were higher than any other group. This

trend was observed for both speed and accuracy measures.

Subjects 10-C, 18-SBC, and 27-RSR were selected for individual

consideration so as to reflect varying measures of both

productivity and celebration. The first display of data per-

tains to subject number eight in the Standard Behavior Chart

group (subject 18-SBC) (see Table 11 and Figure 4). As may

be seen in Table 11 and graphically in Figure 4, speed celebration

and speed productivity were 54.94% per week and 141% respectively.

This individual's accuracy measures were consistently in the

range of ninety-eight to one-hundred percent correct (see

Table 12).

Figure 5 graphically summarizes the progress of subject

number seven in the Raw Score Record group (subject 27-RSR).

This subject progressed at a moderate to high rate which can

be further emphasized after examination of Table 11. Subject

27-RSR's percent of speed celebration and speed productivity

were 30.62% per week and 74% respectively. This individual's

accuracy measures were calculated at 100% throughout the

entire study (see Table 13).

A different representation of data can be seen in Figure

6. This student, labeled as number ten in the control group

(subject 10-C), emitted responses at a fairly low rate.

Examination of Table 11 shows this subject's speed productivity

and speed celebration to be 31% and 12.18% per week. These

figures appear to be the lowest among all data presented in

Table 11. Accuracy measures, as reflected in Table 14, reveal






























S 'fri ,. T ;! i : r. r i
S i : : IPITi i .T
MI -r ii:i ..






~nNMI 83] iNno3


S; i : ; : : ;i i I:



!i _:::~



i ^il,4 i' i 'i ,i" i.
: ::C L :g :
-. 1





T I



J-i l~l-_ lilili: l i-U^?^ ;
, :l I- : -: :' 1 :;: ^ ^ c
'C



:i '"Hiii J J c
CCC' C. 0 C C


44o
clld


c -n C -c' 0
1D]iO %, I~io :sAJndlJ






















,)
0
0
a









0
S 7
0


0
Ci




(0





'HW0


04
E^Za


EO



U
Z



U




H

n


U
00

rn











M K
u



am
>Z















2M
m
SZH
0

U)






SP<
am










u1



u
Mc


Lt 0 Lrt L L c LUt rI Lnt Ut 0- rU

N 0m Nmmm m' r U Ln t r






00000000000000

00000000000000
00000000000HOO












'H r-'H r-'










0000000000 0H 00











I Io NII MI 00 lH M 0 N
SLt Ur- N N 00moo na o N









'H Nq m IT UtD r-Ut N t i 00 'H N Ut







Ut N OD00 U 0 Ut Utr- C r-N N (1)
NNN N CC00000 'H '- -H H

' A' 0 0' 0' L Ut LU t LU r LU i Utf L


41


S 0
4 24





0 4 .4







4j >
420









4- '











O -H



00
ao a




rd






4J m
>0
0 H :I


>n 0









0 U)
fO 4J










C H 0
4l
In a)




























-H 0 42
01m
0 0











kt C





Sca



















I' i \' ,IH i~W JI .i^



s 1 i i i Ti i i i '" "

i xllj, ji !ii ^

{ 'fpi j i h i I l i i i i ; I ^i : ^
i^ i i : T *









,, TT~ r ^ ";:, ^ '
4-- I
-i *
| ji t
sCC










S~~~~~~~~~ ' ; i : : i- : :
ii o ii' i CI i























O ot c o or ci oj o o:
I *I : C -




3, a3 i o : 3
-'i




TI .
F' i-



I -: 4
24rII i ~ d I:nD fid


i ~Mllm;i~lB _
,,.,,,, ,,.~~ ,.~.~~ ..~~~~,.~... i ~,.~~,,~~; ; F
1'9)1141 ~111 Irnn 1I(I~ u
1 ~


s m Ii o s :F A3V I;:)Jv


I.!
, i i : i : l
I.

i

ii:-- -t-^-^.l d j
_ i iI _:. :: I

^ 1 2 -
* : ; c




-:- - ^.,J ,



: ; : "



S: : > i


^___ ^. _____ ____ .~ C j; ii
, : : j l
4'-



C-,


i )A






I i I




II.'
















0

0







0


04










-
0
M










HO

0 0 4-a
&I: 1 K


EN




U
O0











rt
0z














u
S0
W




O a













ur
urn
U
0

M

















E3
0 U







u
0 0

EN




















EN

04Q
a 4
04<
0-


o N co t r- M Ln M r-
ONmoo m 0 n ooo
0 0mmmmm m 0 0 n 0 I





00000 0 0000000
0000000000000
0000000000000

- -i o o r- iH H H H I










o i-nr0 in mLn r-i O N i in I
S0000000 r 00000 I
.Hr-. H- H









0000000000000 I













t^ ro co em to oor--aio (o LA |-i








Dr- CC))Cm ' H H HN








NNN moooooN00000 --H

T IV In Ln In Ln Ln in L iLn Ln


d




*d

S4-
1)








4J H
.fa







4* 0 -




00
0 -
o >




w Q

4. .0 0
3 0
U C) IQ



0 a t
J0 4I

00
(D ra 4-4


4 o
4l 4J


O00


0 0
>O 0









0 0 4-4
E
00
A u cl







0 H m0
o o









04 0 -r












i J


Ii
'' i i i if









z |! i i r i ii Z i








\ o o1

3i N ,
s j ii |l ;j\\ \' 1^ 1^ :; _









~i v l / ~iiij]ii iLL
s s I fi N !: H i _
"^' T ; ~ p i :~ : ''

1 'I 1 1 *" -
Bi~ l]a^i NO ;i 3d


'Ij


31







S1 I


c-~ o o o o
o m to 9 N
137~~03 ~ ;h3~~n33~
'
















,Q

u0
0
a







ir
0


u










0 ;J

HOc
0.0
+204

HZia)


U
0

U








0
H











E-
u
0E


m


















0
ou






Im
[H








c













aI
wo



C u







M


oou")oooou ioo cou )Ln

cN (N (N (N (N r (n N 0 (N N (Nm






OOOOOOOOOmOOOOL
0000000000000N
co00000000rco o c0













,r o Ln Lin o1- -zis %,o Lnin m i Lor-











OOOOOOOOOCC C OOOCr-
000000000 0000




































o0 r N O. (N N ro M-
0 0 L000 U 0 0 0L L00 L 0) N









-i Nm (Ln r- 0 Co m-i0 M-
i-I I- I-1 r-i I-I






0 N r- 0 c 0 M' 0 ) L0 rND 0- LN 0
(N C(N (N ( oN 00DCD0000 HH


0)

411

O
aH
4) 41
Q4

4-J
4 '
0



OO




CJ >4
_i 0
CD ,
42 CJ
rO








0 40 QH
Cm





4
O


004


>





U rU
0 -H 42






















.>t


( 42
0 0
zca) I f










0C nr '0







m ma
[' 0 -
0,
CDVa
.00a
000~
420









the percentage correct to be between ninety-eight and one-

hundred percent.

For the three cases reviewed and other cases illustrated

in both Appendices A and B, one observes consistently high

percentages for accuracy throughout the fourteen data sessions.

One might have expected a decline in accuracy measures as

speed increased. Such was not the case in this studyfor

as speed increased, accuracy did not drop.

Specific Supplementary Data

Supplemental data that was collected should not be

ignored, for its inclusion may serve to explicate notable

characteristics of the data. These data consist of information

regarding the acquisition phase of this study, the question-

naire administered at the completion of the experiment, and

a brief reference to the complete summaries of individual

data. These individual data are included in Appendices A

and B.

Consideration of the data that appear in Appendices A

and B permits one to observe a trend during the acquisition

phase for the first eight sessions of the experiment. With

this in mind, an analyses of variance was run (Nie, N. H. et

al., 1975) on the average daily gain scores for the first eight

data days (see Appendix C). Inspection of Tables C-l, C-2, and

C-3 shows the treatment levels to be statistically significant

with a significant difference between the C group and the SBC

group, and between the SBC group and RSR group. Perhaps, it

may be concluded that the significance during acquisition









for the RSR group slowly dissipated during the maintenance

part of the study.

Appendix D contains the questionnaire that was ad-

ministered at the end of the experiment, and Appendix E

includes the corresponding tabulated results for all groups.

A review of Tables E-l, E-2, E-3, and E-4 enables one to

observe the greater percentage of positive comments con-

cerning the coding task among the students in the SBC and

RSR treatment groups as compared to the C group. Question

number one on the questionnaire (see Appendix D) asks: How

interesting do you think the coding task is after taking it

everyday? In answering this, 30% of the responses in the C

group indicated very interesting or slightly interesting.

In contrast, 70% of the responses in the SBC group and 100%

of the responses in the RSR group indicated the same responses.

Moreover, one-hundred percent of the students in the SBC

group stated that charting made them want to improve their

score each day (see Appendix E, Table E-2). Similarly, 100%

of the students in the RSR group responded favorably to the

effects of using the RSR sheet (see Table E-3). When asked

if they thought they would have done better charting or re-

cording their scores, fifty percent of the C group replied

"yes" (see Table E-1). Again, the favorable responses emitted

by the SBC and RSR groups are readily observed in Table E-4.

A tangential issue emerges when one attends to the

responses given to the question: Did the quarters make you

want to come each day? Corresponding percentages for groups









C, SBC, and RSR responding "yes" were 90%, 70%, and 87.5%

respectively. These comments, along with a review of the

attendance records that were kept during the study, reveal

commendable attendance rates once the reinforcement schedule

was in effect (see Table 15).

Summary

Grouped data, selected individual data, and supplemental

data were analyzed in an attempt to present a complete de-

scription of the results of this experiment.

The grouped data showed significant treatment effects

with a significant difference between the SBC and C groups.

Individual data analyses were done to clarify trends and to

focus upon individual productivity and celebration measures

for speed and accuracy pertaining to three different subjects.

Again, the superiority of the treatment intervention is

observable in these data and in the data of the individual

tabulations and charts presented in Appendices A and B.

Interesting propositions concerning reinforcement,

acquisition of responding, and questionnaire results were ex-

plored in the analyses of supplemental data. These data

revealed overwhelmingly positive subjective responses concern-

ing the experiment on the part of the SBC and RSR groups as

compared to the C group. Also, the reinforcement used to

increase "attending" behavior proved to support the contention

that intermittent schedules, and particularly, variable

schedules may have been responsible for producing the moderate

to high rates of attending that prevailed in this experiment.
























Table 15

NUMBER OF ABSENCES FOR THE
C, SBC, AND RSR GROUPS


Group Total number of absences


C 3

SBC 3

RSR 5



Note. These totals reflect the total number of absences

for all students in each particular group.


--





62


In addition, an analysis of variance was run on the

first eight days of data. Admittedly, this analysis can

only be viewed as purely ancillary; but, nevertheless,

treatment levels were found significant during this

acquisition phase, with a significant difference between

Groups SBC and C, and between SBC and RSR.















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



This chapter will discuss the conclusions of the present

study and examine implications and recommendations for future

research. Also, a reference to significance of this

study will be noted.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects

of two different forms of feedback upon nonverbal reasoning

performance as measured on the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R.

In an attempt to expand upon the existing knowledge in this

area, this study dealt with two specific methods of student

self-recording.

The first type of self-recording involved the Standard

Behavior Chart. In the past, this chart has been usedcon-

currently with various modification programs in order to

bring about successful changes in behavior. The present

study focused upon the chart as a means of modifying be-

havior without any outside modification program.

The second self-recording method used in this experi-

ment was the direct recording of raw scores technique.

Students recorded their daily scores on a RSR sheet designed








by the experimenter. Any results obtained from this part of

the study were noteworthy in that they may serve as an

extension of the literature in existence to date.

The Ss in the study were divided among three groups and

were told to perform on the Coding Subtest of the WISC-R.

This was done daily for a total of fourteen data sessions.

Two of the treatment groups self-recorded according to the

methods previously described. The third group served as a

control group throughout the study.

Results showed a significant treatment effect with a

significant difference between the SBC and C groups. These

results confirm the importance of the reactivity of the

self-recording response on the SBC. In this study, self-

recording on this chart served as a reactive agent to change

the subjects' performance significantly throughout the four-

teen data sessions. In addition, supplemental data revealed

favorable responses regarding the treatment effects. These

supplemental data showed a significant treatment effect with

a significant difference between the RSR and SBC groups. This

treatment effect was not sustained at the completion of the

experiment.

These results, combined with the ease of learning to

use the two self-recording devices and the minimal expenditure

of time required to self-record, strongly suggest the power

that self-recording may wield in trying to modify behavior.

Further elaboration of these points may be found in the

section of this report entitled implications and recommenda-

tions.









Discussion

A review of the literature as it concurs or differs

from this study will focus on two major areas. These areas

include self-recording both with and without any concurrent

modification procedures. The former will represent areas

in which this study serves as an extension of present

literature and the latter represents areas of concurrence

with this study.

Self-Recording Without Modification Procedures

The results of this study concur with previous research

which has shown that self-recording in the form of various

charts and index cards serves to modify pinpointed behaviors

being measured (Berger, 1972; Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971;

Gottman & McFall, 1972; Johnson, 1971; Johnson & White, 1971;

Kazlo, 1976). This modification, also referred to as the

reactivity of the self-recording response, was clearly

demonstrated in this study. Children's performance on the

coding task in the SBC group improved at a more significant

rate than the comparable control group which did not use any

form of self-recording device. An analysis of the grouped

data revealed a significant difference between the SBC and

the C groups. It was shown that the chart used by the

students in the SBC group served as a reactive agent upon the

behavior being measured. This finding is in accordance with

a study completed by Berger (1972) in which school-related

behaviors changed in the desired direction after self-

counting was recorded. Other studies which are in agreement









with the present study were completed by Kazlo (1975) and

Johnson and White (1971). These studies focused upon the

daily self-recording of study behaviors. Results indicated

a significant change in the performance of the students that

self-recorded as compared to those that did not self-record.

Self-Recording With Concurrent Modification Procedures

Numerous researchers have reported favorable results

pertaining to self-recording when used contemporaneously

with other modification procedures (Bellack, Rozensky, &

Schwartz, 1973; Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Duncan, 1971; Glynn

& Thomas, 1974; Houton & Sullivan, 1975; Knapczyk & Livingston,

1973; Mahoney, 1971; Romanczyk, Tracey, Wilson, & Thorpe,

1973; Stunkard, 1975; Zimmerman, 1975). These studies

used several forms of behavior management techniques in

addition to the self-recording method. These procedures

included reinforcement, punishment, and stimulus control.

As may be seen in the present research study, the results

obtained served as an extension of the findings in this area

in that significant differences were observed without the

use of any concurrent modification procedures.

To recapitulate, the results of this study concurred

with the literature in existence to date. Furthermore, this

study isolated two types of self-recording techniques and

showed the significance of the SBC without the use of any

outside behavior management techniques.









Implications and Recommendations

A review of the results and particularities inherent in

this study will be presented in this section along with re-

commendations for further research. The four issues to be

considered involve different types of recording devices,

the length of the experiment, the importance of supplemental

data, and the functions of the self-recording response.

Several interesting considerations must be reviewed

concerning different types of recording devices. The format

of the RSR sheet was designed in order to isolate stimuli

particular to this sheet and at the same time, to be different

from the SBC. Although favorable results were obtained for

the SBC, other types of recording devices should be considered

in future experiments. Suggestions for other types of re-

cording instruments include index cards, notebooks, simple

behavioral graphs, or a variation of the RSR sheet. Also,

recommendations for another performance task and the appro-

priate allotment of time assigned to it should be considered

so as to provide greater generalizability for future research.

Although results were reported for fourteen data sessions,

a trend was noted for the RSR group during the first eight

days of the study. During the first eight days, a significant

difference was observed (p < .05, see Tables C-1, C-2, and

C-3) between the RSR and SBC groups. Apparently, the RSR acted

as a potent reinforcer during the first part of the experi-

ment, as demonstrated by the increase in performance noted

for the RSR group at this time. This finding suggests the








possibility of the greater effects of self-recording on a

simple RSR sheet during the acquisition phase of a task than

during the maintenance period. Additional research should

capitalize upon this effect in an attempt to incorporate

the proper feedback mechanism at the most significant time.

For example, simple raw score recording devices could be

used during the initial period of task acquisition with a

change to more elaborate self-recording devices during main-

tenance periods.

Another implication of this study concerns the results

obtained from the questionnaire that was administered to

the students. Results derived from this supplemental data

revealed favorable attitudes toward the Standard Behavior

Chart as a self-recording device. Wolf (1976) emphasized

the importance of positive attitudes held by subjects con-

cerning the treatments that are administered. If this is

the case, the favorable responses expressed by the students

about the Standard Behavior Chart may have contributed to

the significant results that were obtained. With this in

mind, future research in this area should give as much

consideration to subjects' attitudes about the treatments

in an experiment as well as to the treatments themselves.

One other implication of this study involves the three

functions that self-recording may serve. As mentioned

earlier, these functions involve self-recording as a rein-

forcer, punisher, and as a discriminative stimulus. In this

study, the reinforcing effects of self-recording on the SBC









were demonstrated. If, in this study, self-recording had

instead functioned as a punisher, the desirability of this

technique would have been questioned. For instance, if one

chooses a goal that is not obtainable, one will consistently

fail. To continuously record this failure on the SBC may

cause one to become apathetic and not try for improvement,

and thus, result in a deceleration of the behavior being

measured. Careful selection of goals with appropriate

small approximations to these goals would counter this

process. This accentuates the importance of individualizing

different behavioral goals for different subjects. Once an

acceleration or deceleration is observed on the self-record-

ing device, the proper changes should be instituted.

Additional research in this area should carefully consider

the powerful effects of this reactivity of the self-recording

response. Again, the particular use of feedback as a reactive

agent can serve to be a very valuable tool when used in both

school and clinical environments.

Significance

In addition to extending the existing knowledge in this

area, this research may have significance in that it suggests

new procedures for curriculum and behavior management in

classroom situations. It demonstrated that charting is a

reactive process and may serve to accelerate or decelerate

the behavior charted. Thus, teachers and other professionals

could utilize this knowledge and plan interventions which

use the potential power of charted feedback. Hopefully,








one outcome of this experiment may be to make professionals

particularly aware of charting techniques and to encourage

their successful use in academic environments. As Forness

(1973) stated:

Charting of behavioral data is of particular
value to teachers and psychologists, in which
one records the frequency of the occurrence of
particular data in a given period of time to
establish an estimate of their frequency.
Charting requires only clerical skills on the
part of the teacher or observer, particularly
when the target behavior is clearly defined.
(p. 130)

While Forness (1973) was referring primarily to charting

techniques for teachers in the foregoing discourse, one

can easily appreciate, and this research project success-

fully demonstrates, the essential function of self-recording

techniques in facilitating the improvement of future

educational endeavors.






































APPENDICES


































APPENDIX A

INDIVIDUAL DATA TABULATIONS

























>4
U









0
0u





O


0 U








DH
U0






M

SU
Q O
0 U







u <








M |
m









U0
3H
0

Q 0
U a

O z
Q 0

I cn

S0

>1


'0
0
0









0
a
















0'
.o










0
.oj
0











4 4
4m




r
0 1


-r)
S9 o

ZH







a

S00
a 0





O









S3
0
(U


LOO I Ioon o oco00 0 rLnI

0 -) I N0 CD MC 00 Cl In N







o I C00 ooooo00 oo

00 OOOOmCOOOOOO
0000O00 In000000
00 I 000cocomcoc000000












m r i m L on In D cr- r-I r- I N, N 0











00 I000 0O-H00000











-- N i V 000 co coI 0m 0 I











Loriim olr-i L-1






Soc c o 'r-wH H -n
I D c N 0 0 0 C l u ) In C I C D N 0 H N
SI I In I In In I I I I In


4-1j

04
a




4 -
ci




a

5 0

4 >
-r-1




3 0
U C ,H



4 >
OI 1
0 0



43 -0 -4-


>
4j 0
O a

a) aj

o 4'-)


4c 0
3C4-=



0 0 3




> r 0



C) rf +
Sa a




43
0 0C






-0 *C 4
0 3


C2 ] a




*Co
m Ci a



0m


Z fC ,Q
















.0Q


0

un





Ct
U






0
a
-U







o<
-i a
r-i cB ^ <
4-' 4-
0 3 4-


U
EM

al

H
0

O
EH

E-i

U)


0 z


Su



a n
EC




C-C








00
0Z
am







Um










U>


74








oo no In 00 IMnM iMIn 0 In

l 0 0> In 0 I n m00 C) CIn CDLn N








coooommrooocoo
ooooooomooooo
0000^000 (7l000000

S_ 000 r000 rI n r 0000 r










0 00cor- o r-o or -
0 In n Ln 10 M o ^o In u r- 01 0 rI rN -











0 NNNNm-00 OOOO 00











0 co r- rI -l i r H r- r- i r- N Ln
Ln Ln In w In 10 Ln 10 Inr- N 10r- r









r-H Cj Cro In M oN comOH- N m r







w0 N- co m3> 0 m 'T Mf 1D 3r- OH cN ml
N CN CN l 00 CC r-H H H Hr-

"al 11 u-M M ) MU)LI) MLI) .


























0
u








u


z
-H
O



03

SU














2
mI









U
H 0
S(J














mu





SE
*
















U
O m
* 00


2 M
' -



0


,.




-o

'04



0
0
0
0
o
0,
0









en


o
4-3












L,Q
0


















4;



S0
ZU





0

(0

mZ'


ul
-cH


o 0 t 0 u Lo o 0 Ll Lm 0oo









0000 N 00000000
0000 co000000co
000ooo0o00o000000oo
cooomoocoocooo










r-r -pT n r i, L r- L r- L rn Do r- r-
K' --i K' r-i E-,o r- 0 -v 00 Ln 000) 0N co










0000 'o00 OOOOo0





















-oN 0rl C I'D r 0 0 'HL C -Cl







.o r con m C Om-i c11Q
S(NN C Nm C OOOOO-'H-1 -HHH
K K' I I 0 L ) Ln Ln K 00 Ln Ln0


0





lal
43-

'do










'0




4 -1 0 4-
0 .









4-1


0 -0o
o :.


0 -0





- 0 n
S3 40
.0 0 H,













0 -H "

0 9
>l 0
E CO 4J
uO 0









0
t0 -l 4

Ea a)
r 4 0 0r-
0 'H 3












* t
H 0 43






&0 c

4l (U (B









i)0
040
*e 3 1























E
H


0
U
O E
E c


uo



OH
0
O a


U
r40









mu
OU
u 2







4H

00

0 U
aE



N
O 0

A0

*- O

0
Ur(
MM

M 00








U
m
Ej2


'0
0

U


















4 ia
a)



M
o



u


















4-)
u
0




0

4-)










k 4








HO



0 0
0 M







0H 0







Z)
Ok
0)










O u
4

0
.01




















0


outio I Lntanoomooom
I . . . . . .
S0L o I 0 -00 00 0000a

CNCN I Nmrrmmmmmm(-)vr






000 I c 00000000
ooo IDo omoowoco

000 0000oco000










0 H- W I MH r-n Mo WLno -0 m
0 00 I 0 0 0 0 H0 N- N 0 N.










000 0000o 0 000











I0 I I i0 H r o N 0 r-r r-




c 0 o I TL m m D r-- CN rm





H H -I H H-






or- 000 C rT L r-- (N
(NNNN M(N ( OOO 00000 rH
I I I I I I I I I I Il I I
z -' -,r -,' to 0 0 0 L0 0 m L-n m


-J










4 -H
4-3
a


4a 4a







CuW




0 10
oo









HO
0 u -H
i>



4-


H '0
a O



O H0

> 0
O -'H 4


) 0 r
300





04





U)
rl *0 r


a 4-1 (









0 0 C

H 0 43
cJ m









(U U 4U





'0 to
430 C3
Cuc

40 a



u .





a flX
















n I 00ommn oooo00U0M


N NNNNNNM MM N


-c



u



Q)

0










'0
o

a 4

0 l 4J
1 2 <
024


U












xO
0






UH







KE
m
H


Hr


o





















D K
m
mu

O H

2 M
CC



H









Uk)


S0000 m 00000000
oooomooooooo
loocoo ooocoo
S0000 0000000
oloooooooooo


v i T LLn 0 Un m n Un Un Uo Ln uo











0 I 000 co0000000oo











m I nm NCromCoom c
rI m Un 10m Ln 1n mn Un Uo un 10 Uo









H m -N r Ln 10 n cc o n 0 H N m IV







N cc~ on m 0 m Cor m' Un N 0H CN Cr
SN N Nm C 00o000 - -
I I I1 I I I1 I I I1 I I I1 I


-rH


4a





4-








4r
4
a





























0 a
0






o aH
43






C o

o 43












U I
0 0
4J a

0 ~
>c 43

UO
043









Co





-a m
Co 43


1 0


u H








o aC
o S
Co0
tt
Ul ^;















.0
0
a

in



rzE


0
uD
o3


U




CEo
'O
0

S4J


0 4-i
El z

U
E;

Ou

0
U
ZH

-HI
J


H m
w )

iac
0 z

U


0
O
OU

4
ri- 0


I
mU



0W
0U



*2
CO U

am
Q-

Sa














1
u-i
CO
U










to


I oLn Dcoo in i 0000 in

I N on oco mm c or- rn o
I 0 N0N N N CD CD 0 C,0 0 00






ooooo0000000000000
0000000000000
) 0000000000000
I0000000000000











j Tro I 0 inoiin i oin No No coc D ccr4










































NNNNMCO00000HHH

00 0 in i ln Ln L in Lin Ln Ln


0

0 0
u a

Mo
riC Ci
0.0 ^







79








o in i I i 0000ooooo o 0
H in in I r- In -- H -N H 0 'z
N N N INN N mmr rmmmmm


0oo
000
ooo

000
H H) H
0 C) C)


0 r00000000
01 00000000
S0000000000


>1
0u



U
u







4-

H0 l 1


E12 c


0
u




H U


O M
0












OH0
0
Z-i





SE





U 3
O
U H









u







K a
Urn
0 4
- z

0i


- 0

U 01

3














(0


C)' In I InL m In mO Ine I nn n n I










000lOlOOOOOOOO





























In N 0m3 v Ln O rI- I N H N n
S(N (N mN 00oCoo HH

I 'I ) -'r I Iln n LI m In Ln ILn n Ln


-,-
4a





m0



a
11 43










e >
0 C

0,
4J1












0 0 C
4J










0 4 >






O O
E) C )


O .3
OC 0






>
S- o


4Z 0,




0 0

4-l ) r





a a
* 0 0







Sa)


cn 4 4
3 C


) a4


SO -H
*ri4200,
0 3 (0 *















.0
to
0
0
a
U)




0
r-)

u






O
03
--4


U


O
U

0
0








OZ
-H
HO
-0



OU
. a
M




a
>o
mUl
Emu
UH
Z





0 O



U Iu)
3H


0
O ;








U


coo o ocouooco o n








000 0000000000
en e N F enn 0 3 0001 H e 00
N 0N 0 1 i 0 0n 0 0 (D en C)0







oo I D oooCoocooO
ooo Iooooooooo






000 I 00-0 0M 00- 0




H H I co HC ro uH H r- c c HH











000 I 0000000000

























ti N e ll co o o H N en '




NNN NMnOOO000H-HH H
' ve < on Lr Ln LD L0 L0 0 L0 L0 0


a




0
to
















4-J 0 4
a







4-)-
0)



> ()
ctn












O -0 4-3
4w


0 0










> Oc
OH 4
a t








S0











0
0 03










a (a


0 -H
o I-l













S0
000

4- 0



t t







o cH





10 Hl t

















ro
')
0U

a




cI



41










00
a




ka
Oi-i
4284o2
Q )
tFZ<^


Hm
0
u
M

0



0


0

No
ON
UH
0
Na


uo
mU



ON



EO

SH
z s



a
O








M
- 0

















m

IC


81








oo I L) mo L Ln oo Ln oo

H H- Nl N CL I CN CLN C'q Ml M M0



m000 I 0 C O0 0 00
HHN IN(NNNNmmmm






000 I ONm00000O
000 (OI 0 00 o000o
000 OI OOOm OOOOO












00 I0I0I00000I











000 I 0CHOO0000











SCl mN I r-H CN 0 Hi H ClN Hi H 00 Clr
rin m ^ i in T r tn Ln >j uc o >j r-
0 0 0 I 0000IOOOOON









HI I I I I 0 I I I CI NI 0 H I C 0 0








C C C C nC000000 H -- -i

' 0 0 o ' 00 0 '


'0
0u
O


a 44


0 0
4




4Jt

a

E H
43


0 o


0I 0



S(1 a
a0

o H 4J
O *-i i-

u) .0
O 0U
4-) C



3 O D

H 0 C
0 0
















U, 4

au
H 0 4











CU 104
00 )






(m 0



SU Hr







82








I, I L 0 n In In a a io a Io o
LC 2 (N I 0 0 NNLO J J IlO

H N-j I (NJm Nnm mm In


000
000
000
000

D HD H
HHH 0C


0000000000
0000000000
S0000000000
I0000000000


0
E
U
z
HE-I


urn


0 U
U

O
0 0
H

U


u
01



a M










u
%3
H

a
U




Un





* 0
U

0





)11


E-


o
>1
0
a)
0r




4 4

Ci
0



p <
34J .4

00434


m r n I CI r-n 0n 0 0 cor- Lno 0
ro r, I i Ln Ln 0 ioD o r- co w m
















INI I 0NN n0202 0





mmI In I o r In 0m2 2o- N 0 2I









iNmerm~orcoolOi






Hto co(( o '0T Ln 0 r-o r- I rIn
N(NN(NMIOOOOO--0000 iHH
II In In In In In In In In


43
34 U

E 2
O 0
ZU




c

r. a)
0 4








Q1
a-
0
0


a)

4J
(

.. ..
a a0
0.

0) M.
481

.0
4a

O >




-0
m m

a) a.
HQ






10 -a
a a


a a) H4-
o .0

S OJ



OrO
40


u Q


0 *^ 4l
0 a-








:> O
4 r
~ml
















m H -4
a)
U] 4 4
U) C41)
1 0








4OC
*0 0-

























0 0 0
> 4
4 0

0)


na a
V c



0 4-1



H 0 -rH
13
3
(U 00
c- u
0 < W
a r j







83










0r0nm i rnI 0000 n i m
m . iL i L L


E





H

ro





O

0
U:
H

O
E-i










Sim
E- (
0 3
E

H



42
0





u
0
m n













D;















o
Sin












U
H
a0
n o


.Q










'0
0
0
a




rl

0



u





'0













CQ







0



ZU

40
42
a

r-1
0

0
cO



ZH






(u )






E -P
z u


I 00
00
I 00
I 00
C1 C
C) C


m D I -cc N xooo '- I o00
M Ln o I N m 00000 I 0
H H H I H H










000 I 0000000 I 00












0 I r-wwoooo00Cooi OIH
CN ID r- oH I cN
















orNco mCo mn m oC oC -1Nm

0 N 00 0irn 0'in0oLN0Hi4Lin


0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
Orloo O rl
oo OC OC O
Coo D OOO
Coo oc CCD0CC)D
* * **; * r


000
000oo
000 I
000

1-1 1 1 1-


4 1 4J


r-



4 4








4J
Bl 3






-0 O 0
Ol -











0 H
4 4 1 -P




I 0











424
mca
r i E
0>
O (a -

m 4
0) ,














O
> < O
0 *r 42
m 4 4





-H 0 0











H 2 .4
0 I4
U 0




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs