A token economy refers to a strategy commonly deployed by teachers in learning institutions to manage classes. This system has been in existence prior to it being used in an educational setting. For instance, in early 1980’s, this system of management was deployed as a tool for motivation and behavior management. Regarding the education milieu, a token economy is a structure that generates a positive reinforcement among children. This positive reinforcement is attained by rewarding children (tokens) for behaving in a desired manner or for successively finishing a given activity. Tokens are the best way children can get “paid” for finishing certain tasks, and in exchange, children can use these tokens to purchase their preferred items or activities. Therefore, token economies are meant to enhancing performance or increasing its occurrence. The primary principle is that children are paid a given amount of tokens for participating in a positive behavior (target behaviors) and in turn, the children can use the tokens effectively to obtain access to backup reinforcers (Miltenberger, 2008). Target behaviors can be anything ranging from academics to curriculum activities. Therefore, thorough these activities, token economies successively implement aspects of conditioned reinforcement. The striking feature of a token economy is flexibility. Owing to this feature, the system can be applied with ease in a diverse group of individuals and settings. Token economies have successfully been used in enhancing academic skills, solving drug addiction issues, speech, and self-care among others. Broadly speaking, this system is designed to create an environment that fosters positive classroom behavior. It uses a reinforcing approach to enhance learners’ extrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic motivation, in this case, refers to a motivation that is externally derived such as rewards or incentives. Various researchers support this notion by suggesting that children are easily influenced by extrinsic motivation in an education setting. Under this system, a teacher is required to award a student with token following a demonstration of the desirable norm. In so doing, other students will borrow desirable behavior from the awarded student, and that would modify their behavior. The another merit of this system is the fact that the tokens have an immediate impact in the reinforcement of behaviors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Notably, the gained tokens, in this case, can be redeemed by rewarding a student as a way of reinforcing particular norms. As such, this system provides teachers with a chance to motivate or reward learners with tokens to indicate the actual or rather real reinforcement that the affected learner will get in time to come. The rewards are not given immediately to ensure that the delivery of instructions is not interfered that would later interrupt with the student’s learning. Different mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that token economies are implemented successfully (Mahmood, Mahmood, & Narges, 2013). Most of these mechanisms ensure that this system works in tandem with other strategies that are usually used in the classroom program.
Literature Review
Doll, McLaughlin & Barretto, (2013) conducted a review of literature materials to ascertain the impact and the implementation on token economies. In their review, they were able to show that token economies can be used to manage behaviors in various settings. The authors indicated that three conditions ought to be understood to successfully implement token economies. First, institutions need to have insight on behavioral principles. Second, it is imperative to comprehend the different types of token systems. Third, schools need to know how they can play around with various conditions so as to achieve the best outcome from the token economies.
Behavior is largely a product of its environment. This means the environment that one is brought up in greatly influences the way they conduct themselves. The consequences of behavior also contribute a lot to its strength or weakness. If a certain behavior yields good results, then it is highly probable that one would stick to that behavior. Understanding this and other principles of behavior is a great way of bringing on the use of token economies successfully. There are also different types of token systems. This applies differently across the academic divide. Tokens that can highly motivate a young one in primary school cannot probably have the same effect to a high scholar. Also, understanding how well to apply the aspect of token economies in an educational set up is paramount. Giving the same token always could be monotonous and no longer have the same effect on the students and could thus call for a far much-advanced token. In other occasions, the token is just fine and can play the motivational role that it is intended for and is, therefore, maintained.
A lot of case studies have been conducted by various specialists with the aim of proving the efficacy of token economies in the education system. One such study was done by Klinas and McLaughlin (2007) and was aimed at evaluating how efficient the use of token economy was to a young child with severe disorders. They used only one participant who was a young girl named Tasha. Being six years old, Tasha was a kindergarten student but was in a developmentally impaired classroom which was purposely to serve children with special needs (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). Tasha had certain disruptive behaviors while in class. She could scream and run around the class, fail to do work, and also refuse to participate academically (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007).
Tasha was given three assignments which she was supposed to partake as per instructions that were given. In case she failed to do work or did not follow the given instructions, she was penalized by being stripped of some privileges (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). These assignments were done for 30 mins or until she had fully completed them. They also used the three token system where she was given three assignments to do and was rewarded upon the successful completion of the three by earning a 5-minute break doing what she wanted (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). To get the break again, she had to complete another three assignments successfully. This was followed by a five-token system in which she was supposed to do five assignments successfully and would earn a 5-minute break (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007).
At the end of the study, it was found that Tasha took a very limited time to complete her assignments (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). She also increased her ability to complete assignments, and her inappropriate classroom behaviors became less experienced (Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). The application of a token economy on Tasha reformed her behaviors in the classroom, and she was no longer the problematic girl she used to be. Even though no elaborate measure indicated whether her academic performance improved, it is clear that she became more academically involved than before which could as well result in good performance.
Further, the effectiveness of token economies in improving the academic performance of students has also been supported by the research conducted by Mahmood, Mahmood, & Narges, (2013). These researchers carried out an experiment to study the impact that token and social economies reinforcements had on the academic performance of male students in the 9th grade. The students were victims of intellectual impairment. The experiment was conducted in Tehran Province in a science experimental class. The study used an experimental method using a pre and post-test as well as the group that was used as control for the experiment.
The male learners with intellectual impairment were selected from three different learning institutions. Thirty students in 9th grade were selected for this study. During the selection process, a multi-stage cluster design was deployed. In order to determine the performance of the students in the class, the instructor administered a test. Afterward, the IQ of the groups was determined using the Wechsler intelligence assessment (Mahmood, Mahmood, & Narges, 2013). On the other hand, the experiment used Lashe design and teachers’ verdict to establish content validity of the results (Mahmood, Mahmood, & Narges, 2013). This means that it was the teacher’s decision to decide whether the given results were cogent. The research also used relevant tests to ascertain the reliability of the results. The main purpose of the research was to evaluate the outcome of token economy on academic accomplishment of learners with intellectual disabilities. They were thus given rewards for every good performance they recorded in every single class activity.
The findings from the experiment indicated that the academic performance of the boys with intellectual disabilities improved when the token economy approach was used compared to when social reinforcement was deployed strategies or control group (Mahmood, Mahmood, & Narges, 2013). From these results, it is apparent that both the token economy as well as the social reinforcement strategies proved to be more effective than the control group in relation to the improvement of academic achievement. As such, it is true to state that the use of the social strategy in conjunction with token economy strategy improved the academic performance of the study population (Mahmood, Mahmood and Narges, 2013). However, the effects of a token economy in achieving the same purpose exceeded that of the social reinforcement approach.
In support of the effectiveness of token economies in improving students’ behavior, the idea of the system pairing up with other reinforcement strategies is apparent. For instance, Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli (2011) indicated that token economy could be used together with self-monitoring to ensure that students are not only responsible but also self-managed. The researchers define self-monitoring as a process in which the students are able to judge their own behaviors. As such, they are able to tell whether their behavior was positive or negative. The authors asserted that once the students have identified their behavior, they verifying their responses with the help of the teacher. Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli (2011) noted that self-monitoring behavior was one of the best strategies of making the learners be involved actively in regulating their own behavior. The sole drawback of self-monitoring is the fact that intellectually impaired students may not be able to respond positively to such approaches.
Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli, (2011), were conducting a research to establish the most effective strategy between token economy and self-management in ensuring classroom rules are followed. The study used two male students aged five years old. These boys were diagnosed with Asperger’s. notably, the research was conducted in a school that had already embraced the token economy program. Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli, (2011), indicated that the program was not effective in improving the adherence to rules potential of the two boys who were enrolled in an all inclusive class.
Notably, three main classroom rules existed and they were the main areas of focus for this study. These rules were maintaining your original space, maintain your arms to yourself, and act as per the teacher's instructions. The students were evaluated for their adherence to these rules for about forty-five minutes. After the end of the baseline condition and prior to the commencement of the taken economy, these two students were taken to a room with the researchers so that they can review the rules using examples and videotaped examples which the students identified. The token economy session lasted for ten minutes. During the research process, the researchers credited and discredited the learners each time they followed or did not adhere to the instructions respectively. Therefore, if a student gets three credits, he earned a selected reinforcement.
On the other hand, in the self-monitoring session, the same sheets were used. Nevertheless, the students were provided with a marker, and they maintained so that they would mark their sheets on their own based on the nature of their activities. The researchers told the students that each time they would submit an accurately completed sheet they would be given a reinforcement after the time of the center. After three days with the sheets, they would recall the forms and complete them appropriately.
The outcomes obtained by Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli, (2011) showed that the learners adhered more to the rules under the token phase compared to the baseline. However, more effect was felt during the self-monitoring phase. Notably, the return to the baseline phase caused a significant reduction in the following the set regulations. As such, the teacher recommended the baseline to be reduced since it caused disruptions. As such, this experiment also demonstrates that token economy could improve the behavior of the learners. However, more positive effects can be realized when learning institutions use it in conjunction with self-monitoring programs. Machalicek, Shogren, Lang, O'Reilly, and Rispoli (2011) stated that this is particularly true for students with intellectual disabilities.
The self-monitoring program is one of the approaches that can be used together with a token economy to ensure that the system operates more effectively. This was confirmed by Zlomke & Zlomke who conducted research to determine the effectiveness of token economies in reducing the behavioral problems in the student (2003). The study also evaluated the impact of utilizing token economies approach together with the self-monitoring program. The study used a thirteen-year-old male strident who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The study took place in a special education room where the student was confined. During the research, the researchers gathered data from the study institution sixteen times daily with a data collection interval of fifteen minutes. Notably, the information collected was used to identify three distinct types of behaviors namely aggressive, disruptive and minor. The researchers gave the student three points each time he did not demonstrate any of the above-mentioned inappropriate behavior.
The hybrid program comprising of a token economy and self-management approach was initiated after studying the token economy as a sole entity during the research. During self-monitoring, the student was provided with a card to record his inappropriate or rather bad behavior. As such, the student was awarded one additional point whenever his record was similar to that of the teacher. Afterward, the token economy was implemented alone after being used in conjunction with the self-monitoring program. The results from the experiment established that the token economy was effective in curbing inappropriate behavior. Promising results were evident where the system was used in tandem with self-monitoring. As such, this study explicitly indicated that token economy is an integral strategy when addressing inappropriate behaviors in an educational setting. However, better results can be obtained when the approach is used together with other methodologies such as self-monitoring programs.
The information obtained from the articles reviewed herein show that the implementation of the token economy has been very instrumental at curbing disruptive as well as off-task behaviors. The findings from both the pre and protest experiments have shown that adoption of the token economy has significantly led to a decline in disruptive behaviors in classrooms. This is an implication that token economy is essential in the management of classroom and behaviors. Therefore, to decrease disruptive as well as off-task behavior, there is the need for an external form of motivation to be implemented in institutions. Many scholars suggest that one of the ways in which such motivation can be achieved is through the implementation of a token economy. However, research shows that for better results to be obtained, token economy ought to be combined with other strategies such as self-monitoring and praise so as to enable the student to understand why they have been awarded.
References
Doll, C., McLaughlin & Barretto, A. (2013). The Token Economy: A Recent Review and Evaluation. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science , 2(1):131-149.
Klimas, A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2007). The effects of a token economy system to improve social and academic behavior with a rural primary aged child with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education , 22(3): 72-77.
Machalicek, W., Shrogen, K. A., Lang, R., O'Reilly, M., & Rispoli, M. J. (2011). Self-versus teacher management of behavior for elementary school students with Asperger syndrome: Impact on classroom behavior. Journal Of Positive Behavior Interventions , 13 (2):87-96.
Mahmood, M., Mahmood, A., & Narges, A. S. (2011). The Effect of Social and Token Economy Reinforcements on Academic Achievements of Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry , 6:25-30.
Miltenberger, R. (2008). Behaviour Modification . Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Publishing
Zlomke, K., & Zlomke, L. (2003). Token economy plus self -monitoring to reduce disruptive classroom behaviors. Behavior Analyst Today , 4 (2), 177-182.
