The Effects of a Peer-Yoked Contingency on Observational

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 2
453
The Effects of a Peer-Yoked Contingency on Observational
Learning and the Collateral Emergence of Naming
Mindy Bunya Rothstein & Grant Gerard Gautreaux

Abstract

We tested the effects of a Peer-Yoked Contingency on students’ acquisition of observational
learning repertoires and collateral effects on naming. Three male middle school participants, diagnosed
with emotional and behavioral disabilities, were selected for this study. The three participants did not
have naming repertoires, and two of the three participants did not have observational learning repertoires
prior to the study. A delayed multiple probe design across participants was used to determine whether
naming and observational learning would emerge as a function of a peer-yoked contingency involving
training in observational learning. Naming was tested following each session of observational learning
instruction. Results demonstrated that naming emerged as a function of the peer-yoked contingency and
correct responses to observed learn units increased during probe sessions.

Humans learn from other human beings via observation. Learning as a function of observation
occurs in many different types of situations and is a significant part of human learning. Humans can learn
social behavior, cultural behavior, and academic behavior by observing another (Gautreaux, 2005).
Catania (2007) defined observational learning as “learning based on observing the behaviors of another
organism.” More specifically, observational learning occurs when an observer observes the direct
contingencies received by another and subsequently emits the target behavior observed (Davies-Lackey,
2004; Gautreaux, 2005; Pereira-Delgado, 2005; Greer & Ross, 2007; Greer, Singer, & Gautreaux, 2006;
Stolfi, 2005; Yuan, 2005). In other words, one learns new operants from observing others without
receiving direct contact with the reinforcement or corrections.

Greer et al. (2006) suggested that there are five different types of learning or changes in
performance that can be learned via observation: (a) a behavior that is already in one’s repertoire, or a
performance task can be emitted as a function of observation, (b) a new operant can be learned by
observation, (c) higher order operants can be learned by observation, (d) reinforcers can be conditioned
by means of observing another, and (e) a complete observational learning repertoire can be acquired via
observation.

Greer et al. (2006) distinguished between the maintenance of performance behaviors, or
behaviors already in one’s repertoire, and the learning new behaviors, not previously found in one’s
repertoire, as a function of observation. Much of the prior literature in the effects of observation were
devoted to performance rather than learning; hence we address only those studies devoted to learning of
new operants as a function of observation or observation as the dependent variable. For example, Brody,
Lahey, & Combs (1978) compared modeling of adjectives to describe pictures to no modeling. In each of
the control (no modeling) and experimental groups (modeling) there was no direct reinforcement
delivered following the emission of target responses. The authors found, that the modeling group’s correct
responses increased while the no modeling group’s responses were consistent with baseline responses.

The acquisition of new operants as a function of children with disabilities observing typically
developing peers has been demonstrated in some studies. In such studies the typically developing peer
was considered a “model” for the target participants. Egel, Richman, and Koegel (1981) demonstrated the
emission of new types of discrimination after participants diagnosed with autism observed a typically
developing peer. Goldstein and Mousetis (1989) found that participants with language delays emitted new
social behavior that they observed typically developing peers emit. Similarly, Schoen and Ogden (1995)
demonstrated the acquisition of new sight words in at risk students after observing typically developing
peers learn these sight words. Rehfeldt, Latimore, and Stromer (2003) found that by teaching their
participants, who were diagnosed with developmental disabilities, one set of stimuli in the same stimulus
class as the target stimuli to be observed, could after observing their typically developing peers learn the
second set of stimuli, emit the correct responses. By teaching the participants one set of stimuli, the
experience functioned to equate the instructional histories of both the participants and their peers.

In order to learn new operants by observing, one must possess an observational learning
repertoire. An observational learning repertoire is significant because there are inadequate numbers of
learn units in most classrooms for students to learn from direct contact with the contingencies of
instruction (Greer et al., 2006). Some have reported that observational learning repertoires may be
evoked, when it is missing, in three ways, including using peer tutoring, monitoring, and the use of peeryoked
contingencies. More recently, these three procedures have been combined to provide extensive
classroom instruction using observational learning. These instructional procedures are described as an
observational system of instruction and the procedures are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Observational System of Instruction

Peer tutoring is a research based instructional tactic that has one of the strongest records of
effectiveness in the literature. Mohan (1971) tested the effects of peer tutoring on responses of both the
tutors and tutees. Results indicated that correct responses and approvals increased for most participants.
Similarly, Harris and Sherman (1973) tested the effects of peer-tutoring on student correct responses to
math problems. They found, that correct responses increased for all participants as a result of the peer
tutoring. Greer and Polirstok (1982) found strong benefits for tutors as well as tutees. This study was
replicated in 1986 (Polirstok & Greer). In a series of five experiments devoted to identifying the effective
component of tutoring, Greer, Keohane, Meincke, Gautreaux, Pereira, Chavez-Brown, and Yuan (2004)
showed it was the presence of learn units rather than whether a peer or tutor taught, and that the use of
learn units was the strongest predictor for learning for either the tutee or tutor. They also found that the
tutors’ acquired observational learning repertoires as a function of delivering learn units. This led to
subsequent research which identified components of tutoring that involved monitoring and yoked
contingencies were the likely sources for the emergence observational learning repertoires (Gautreaux,
2005; Greer & Keohane, 2004).

Individuals with developmental disabilities and students who have fewer language interactions in
their homes than their same age peers prior to schooling were found to have received fewer numbers of
language interactions than their same age peers by the time they reached school age (Hart & Risley,
1980). In fact, these economically disenfranchised children may also fail to acquire observational learning
as Gautreaux (2005) found. Conceivably, students who lack observational learning repertoires may have
difficulties in traditionally designed classrooms. In such cases, monitoring has been used as a tactic to
induce observational learning repertoires. Recent studies have identified some procedures that have
occasioned observational learning in children with disabilities (Pereira-Delgado, 2005; Yuan, 2005) who
were missing that repertoire and in middle school aged students (Gautreaux, 2005). Specifically, these
experimenters found that providing various forms monitoring training resulted in the target students
acquiring an observational learning repertoire.

Another successful tactic that has induced observational learning repertoires involves a peeryoked
contingency. This arrangement, which combines monitoring one’s peers responses while yoking
the peer’s correct responses to observed learn units to reinforcement for both the observing and the
observed students led to the emergence of observational learning. That is, the target student monitored a
peer receiving direct learn units in order to receive points and/or move up on a game board. If the target
student emitted an incorrect response, the teacher moved up the game board while the target student
stayed at the same location on the game board. This procedure provided motivation for the target student
to attend to his/her peer’s responses and subsequently advance the students’ team. This peer-yoked
contingency allowed for the acquisition of new operants by observing others (Greer & Ross, 2007).

Stolfi (2005) tested the effects of the peer-yoked contingency on students with disabilities who
did not have observational learning in their repertoire. Stolfi used a game board with two action figures,
each with a corresponding path to the winning space that displayed pictures of preferred items. She used
“The Incredible Hulk” as her action figure and her participants’ action figure was chosen from a selection
of “Spiderman”, “Batman”, and “Superman”. The game board was a large picture of a building with two
parallel paths, one for the experimenter and one for the participants. In order for the participants to move
up on the game board as a team, the target participant needed to emit a correct response for an observed
learn unit (a learn unit taught as a direct learn unit to his/her peer earlier in the session). This was the
“yoked” component of the experiment. If the participant emitted an incorrect response for an observed
learn unit, the experimenter moved up on the game board, while the participant team stayed in the same
position on the board. The object of the game was for the participants to emit correct responses to the
observed learn units and move to the top of the game board. Similar results were shown with other
elementary age students who possessed a variety of disabling conditions by Davies-Lackey (2005). In
both of these experiments, when students were provided intervention involving a yoked contingency,
observational learning was acquired and students who could not learn by observation prior to the
intervention learned new operants after the intervention.

The most related study that tested the effects of any component of the observational system of
instruction on observational learning with students like those in the present study was done by Gautreaux
(2005). In this experiment, the author tested the component effects of monitoring training on the
acquisition of observational learning repertoires with middle school students. Gautreaux reported that
intensive monitoring training led to both observational learning and other collateral behaviors. Here, we
extended that research with additional students.

In our efforts to investigate the effects of a peer-yoked contingency’s effects on observational
learning repertoires, we considered the possibility that the capacity for naming might also emerge from
observational learning interventions. Naming as defined by Horne and Lowe (1996) is “a higher order
bidirectional behavioral relation” which includes both listener and speaker behavior. The individual who
possesses naming can respond to novel stimuli in a myriad of ways beyond those accounted for by direct
instruction. It is considered a “behavioral cusp” which marks the time when the expansion of the child’s
repertoire is likely to expand exponentially, and when the deliberate instruction of the child becomes
pragmatically different than before (Greer & Ross, 2007; Rosales-Ruiz and Baer, 1996). Naming is a
verbal capability where novel vocabulary is exponentially acquired without direct instruction experiences.
It is present when an individual acquires both speaker and listener responses from observing another tact
stimuli in the environment. Therefore, in addition to testing the effects of a peer-yoked contingency on
observational learning repertoires, we considered whether a peer-yoked contingency package would
induce naming for individuals who were previously missing a naming repertoire.

Method

Participants

Three male adolescents participated in this study. All participants were diagnosed with emotional
and behavioral disabilities and were members of a middle school classroom for sixth to eighth graders
with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Participants 1, 2, and 3 were selected as target students for this
study because they were among the few in the school who did not have naming for academic responses
prior to the study. All participants did have observational learning repertoires for social behavior; that is,
they could emit performance behavior as a function of observation; however, two of the students could
not learn academic repertoires from observation. Participants 1 and 3 did not emit observational learning
for academic responding. Table 1 shows the participants’ standardized achievement test scores (Terra
Nova, 1996) and The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV, 2003) or
Stanford Binet IQ (2003) scores.

Participant 1 was a 13-year-old male with functional listener-speaker and reader-writer/emergent
self-editor levels of verbal behavior. Participant 1’s current instructional programs included: math
fluency, Saxon 87 math (1997), self-monitoring his own behavior (Greer, 2002), textual responding
across academic subjects, and New York state Grade 7 science and social studies curriculum (New York
State Education Department, 2007). During baseline conditions, Participant 1 had no evidence of naming
or observational learning repertoires for academic responses.

Participant 2 was a 13-year-old male with listener-speaker and early reader–writer levels of
verbal behavior. Participant 2’s instructional programs included: math fluency, Saxon 54 math (Hake &
Saxon, 2001), self-monitoring his own behavior, textual responding across academic subjects, and New
York state Grade 7 science and social studies curriculum (New York State Education Department).
Participant 2 did not have a naming repertoire for academic responses. However, observational learning
repertoire was not determined prior to the study.

Participant 3 was a 13-year-old male His levels of verbal behavior were in a similar range as
participant 1. Participant 3’s instructional programs at the time of the study included: math fluency, Saxon
54 math (Hake & Saxon, 2001), self-monitoring his own behavior (Greer, 2002), textual responding
across academic subjects, and New York state grade 7 science and social studies curriculum (New York
State Education Department). During baseline conditions, Participant 3 did not show evidence of naming
or observational learning repertoires for academic responses.

Setting

The study took place in a publicly middle school for students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities. The classroom used a Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling
(CABAS) model for grades 6 – 8 in a classroom with an 9:1:2, nine students: one teacher: and two teacher
assistants ratio at the time of baseline measures. The school was located in a suburb of a large
metropolitan area. Data were collected during instructional sessions in the classroom where instructional
programs were conducted throughout the day. The study was conducted in both group sessions and
individual 1:1 tutorial sessions by the teacher and teaching assistants throughout the day and across
academic subjects. During 1:1 sessions, the students sat at their individual rectangular desks while their
teacher sat beside them to instruct them in various subjects. The peer-yoked contingency sessions were
conducted in classroom, the school library, or in a small multipurpose center. The students earned points
for correct responses and appropriate behavior. Points were exchanged twice during the course of the day
for a variety of backup reinforcers.

Materials

Materials used for this study included pictures of target items as tacts. The pictures were glued
onto 3 X 5 index cards, a child-sized basketball hoop which hung over a door post, a small basketball, a
small magnetic white board with two columns of 7 spaces for the students and the teacher, a small
audiocassette recorder, an audiocassette, a pen, and a data sheet for recording the data.

Definition of Behaviors – Independent Variables

Correct and Incorrect Responses (Pure Tact) to an Observed Learn Unit
A correct response to an observed learn unit was defined as emitting the target response
to an antecedent which was run as a learn unit to a student other than the target student. For example, a
correct response to tacting a president learn unit – Woodrow Wilson, occurred when presented with a
picture of the president, the student emitted “Woodrow Wilson” as a vocal verbal response. Any response
other than the target response was considered an incorrect response. Responses not emitted within a 5-
second intraresponse period were recorded as incorrect.

Definition of Behaviors – Dependent Variable

Correct and Incorrect Responses to Novel Stimuli

Following each session of the peer-yoked contingency, all participants were tested for the
presence of naming. This was done by having the students’ match 3 Greek and 3 Japanese characters
while hearing the experimenter say the tact for the stimuli. Once they mastered the matching responses by
learn unit instruction, they were assessed on the listener and speaker components of naming using probes
with no feedback. That is the students were probed for the listener responses where they were asked to
point to the tacted stimulus when the target and a non-target stimulus was displayed. Subsequently they
were asked to emit the pure and intraverbal tact/textual response for the stimuli as a test of the speaker
repertoire.

A correct response to novel stimuli was defined as emitting a match, point, tact, or intraverbal
response that corresponded with the vocal verbal antecedent (or nonverbal antecedent for pure tacts) for
naming probes. The responses were considered correct only if they matched the Greek or Japanese letter
stimuli.

Data Collection

Data were collected as responses to learn units across all phases. A correct response was recorded
as a plus (+) and an incorrect response was recorded as a minus (-).

Interobserver Agreement

Interobserver agreement was calculated for the peer-yoked contingency sessions by tape
recording each session. An independent observer was provided with a data sheet with the target responses
for each learn unit written on it. The observer listened to the tape following each session and recorded
behaviors on the data sheet. Scores were then compared between the observer and experimenter to
determine point-to-point agreement. Total agreements were then divided by the total number of
opportunities for agreement to calculate interobserver agreement.

Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated using 2 independent observers for the naming
probes. IOA was calculated for 16% of Participant 1’s naming probes with 100% agreement, 25% of
Participant 2’s naming probes with 100% agreement, and 25% of Participant 3’s naming probes with
100% agreement.

Interobserver agreement was calculated for 20% of Participant 1’s direct learn units and 16% of
Participant 1’s observed learn units. Interobserver agreement for Participant 1’s direct learn units yielded
a mean of 100% agreement and 90% agreement for Participant 1’s observed learn units. 50% of
Participant 2’s direct learn units were measured for agreement and 25% of Participant 2’s observed learn
units were measured for agreement. Interobserver agreement for Participant 2’s direct learn units yielded
a mean of 95% agreement and 95% agreement for Participant 2’s observed learn units. Interobserver
agreement was calculated for 80% of Participant 3’s direct learn units and 80% of Participant 3’s
observed learn units. Interobserver agreement for Participant 3’s direct learn units yielded a mean of
100% agreement and 100% agreement for Participant 3’s observed learn units.

Independent Variable/Tactic: Observational System of Instruction

The intervention implemented during the treatment phase was a peer-yoked contingency. The
peer-yoked contingency used during this study was derived from Greer and Ross’s (2007) Observational
System of Instruction protocol and adapted for middle school students. The peer-yoked contingency was
used as an element of the larger structure of the Observational System of Instruction (OSI) and designed
to test its effects on observational learning and naming repertoires. The peer-yoked contingency consisted
of direct and observed learn units presented to participants. Two different sets of 5 stimuli were selected
for both participants that were not in their repertoire prior to the study. Sets of stimuli included: types of
trees, presidents, and musical instruments. One set of 5 stimuli was taught to Participant 1 while
Participant 3 observed. Participant 3 was presented a direct learn unit prior to an observed learn unit. The
sequence of instruction for all participants is shown table 1. Direct and observed learn units were
presented until each participant emitted 20 direct learn units and 20 observed learn units. During the
course of this instruction, a game board was designed incorporating a peer-yoked contingency where one
row of seven spaces was set for the teacher and one row of seven spaces was set for the students. During
the last phase of the peer-yoked contingency for Participants 2 and 3 a game board with twenty spaces
was used instead of the seven spaces. The object of the game was for the students to win to take a shot on
a mini basketball hoop. The game’s contingency required the observing student, regardless of the direct
student’s responses, to emit a correct response in order for the student team to move up on the game
board. If the observing student did not emit a correct response the teacher moved up on the game board.
Upon the completion of seven spaces on the student side of the game board, each student on the student
team was given the opportunity to take a shot on the basketball hoop. Student team members earned 15
points per completed shot on the basketball hoop.

When the individual reached criterion levels of responding on both direct and observed learn
units (90% accuracy across one session), each participant was probed with a new set of stimuli for the
presence of observational learning. Observational learning was considered in the target participants’
repertoires if they emitted 80% correct responses during probe conditions. This procedure deviated from
the original protocol as described by Greer and Ross (2007) due to the students’ level of verbal behavior
in this study. Despite the lack of feedback during probe sessions, the participants learned the target
responses from the probe sessions. Therefore, the original stimuli were not presented as they may have
been learned by a single exposure. Rather, new target stimuli were selected for a post probe to determine
the presence of observational learning. To explain, new stimuli were selected for each probe to insure that
the participants had actually acquired the capability without prior learning of the stimuli from previous
exposures. Criteria set for the presence of naming was 90% accuracy during probe conditions.

Design

This experimental design illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 was a delayed multiple-probe design
across participants to test for the acquisition of naming and observational learning repertoires as a
function of the intervention. The independent variable was the peer-yoked contingency and the dependent
variables were the naming repertoires and correct responses to observed learn units.

Results

As compared with baseline naming probes, Participant 1’s correct responses to unconsequated
naming probes increased as follows: pointing increased by 1 correct response, 1 correct response, 1
correct response, 1 correct response, and 1 correct response (5 cumulative correct responses) for each
respective phase; tacting increased by 1 correct response, 3 correct responses, 3 correct responses, 2
correct responses, and 3 correct responses (12 cumulative correct responses) for each respective phase;
and the intraverbal responses increased by 0 correct responses, 4 correct responses, 4 correct responses, 4
correct responses, and 4 correct responses (16 cumulative correct responses). Similarly, as compared
with baseline probes Participant 2’s correct responses increased by the fourth phase as such: pointing
increased by 0 correct responses, tacting increased by 3 correct responses, 3 correct responses (6
cumulative correct responses) and the intraverbal responses increased by 2 correct responses. Moreover,
Participant 3’s responses increased from baseline as follows: pointing remained the same, except for
phase 3 where it decreased by 1 correct response; tacting increased by 0 correct responses, 2 correct
responses, and 6 correct responses for each respective phase; and the intraverbal responses increased by 0
correct responses, 1 correct response, and 5 correct responses.

Though participant 1 did not acquire observational learning, his correct responses to observed
learn units increased by 5, or 50% from baseline. Participant 2’s baseline was not measured, though
following the peer-yoked contingency he emitted 14 correct responses to observed learn units. Participant
3 emitted an increase in 7 responses from the baseline probe of 10 correct responses to observed learn
units.

Discussion

A functional relationship between the peer-yoked contingency as a component of the
observational system of instruction and naming was demonstrated for all participants. Moreover, for
Participant 3 a functional relationship was shown between a peer-yoked contingency and the acquisition
of observational learning. Even though Participant 1 did not yet meet our 80% criterion that we consider
as evidence of the observational learning repertoire, his responses to observed learn units increased from
baseline conditions. In instructional settings, this typically results in additional yoked contingency
interventions until the student meets the criterion for having an observational learning repertoire.

The lack of naming repertoire in children as old as these is curious. As demonstrated by Gillic
(2005), naming emerges between the ages 2 and 3. Thus, why was it missing for these students? We
suspect that their lack of naming is tied to the act that these were students who were probably very much
like the low SES students identified in Hart and Risley (1980). Hart and Risley found that children who
have fewer language interactions are likely to have smaller vocabularies than their peers with regular
language interactions. Over time, the discrepancies in vocabularies between these two populations grow.
The participants of our study emitted less vocabulary than their typical peers. Moreover, it is not unlikely
that not only were they lacking in tact experiences but they also missed the necessary experiences for
acquiring naming, as it needs to occur in academic settings. We also suspect that there are different types
of naming involving different types of stimuli. That is naming for 3-dimensional stimuli may be different
than naming for 2-dimensional stimuli to name just two of many different possibilities (Greer & Ross,
2007).

There are several limitations to our study. An obvious limitation was that Participant 2 was not
tested systematically for the presence of observational learning prior to the study, although it was
apparent that he did not meet the observational learning criteria of 80% correct responses. However,
during the first session of the peer-yoked contingency his observed responses were low, his preexperimental
data were not available. Therefore, his responses during the post-intervention do not have
comparison data. While our hunch is that Participant 2 acquired observational learning from the peeryoked
contingency, this assumption cannot be supported because of the lack of pre-experimental probes
for the observational repertoire. He did, however acquire naming from the OSI package.

Clearly, more research is needed. However, the observational learning effects have been
documented in three prior experiments, so we believe these findings are solid. Additional research is
needed to test for the generality of the naming findings. The development of protocols that expand or
induce either observational learning or naming may prove critical to the advancement of a more effective
science of instruction.

References

Brody, G. H., Lahey, B. B., & Combs, M. L. (1978). Effects of intermittent modeling on
observational learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 87-90.
Catania, C. A. (2007). Learning. (Interim 4th Ed.). New York: Sloan Publishing.
Davies-Lackey, A. J. (2005). Yoked peer contingences and the acquisition of observational
learning repertoires in young children with autism. (Doctoral Dissertation, 2005,
Columbia University). Abstract from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations [on-line].
Dissertations Abstracts Item: AAT 3159730.
Egel, A. L., Richman, G. S., & Koegel, R. L. (1981). Normal peer models and autistic children’s
learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 3-12.
Gautreaux, G. (2005). The effects of monitoring on the acquisition of observational learning by
middle-school students. (Doctoral Dissertation, 2005, Columbia University). Abstract
JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 2
468
from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations [on-line]. Dissertations Abstracts Item: AAT
3174795.
Gillic. L. (2005). Development of naming in two-year-old children. (Doctoral Dissertation,
Columbia University, 2005). Abstract from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations [online].
Dissertations Abstract Item: AAT 3188740.
Goldstein, H., & Mousetis, L. (1989). Generalized language learning by children with severe
mental retardation: Effects of peers’ expressive modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 22, 245-259.
Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies. An applied behavior analysis systems
approach. San Diego, CA. Academic Press.
Greer, R. D., & Keohane, D. (2004). A real science and technology of teaching. In J. Moran & R. Malott,
(Eds.), Evidence-Based Educational Practices. New York: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., Meincke, K., Gautreaux, G., Pereira, J. A., Chavez-Brown, M., &
Yuan, L. (2004). Key components of effective tutoring, In J. Moran & R. Malott, (Eds.).
Evidence-Based Educational Practices. New York: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Greer, R. D., & Polirstok, S. R. (1982). Collateral gains and short-term maintenance in reading
and on-task responses by inner-city adolescents as a function of their use of social
reinforcement while tutoring. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 123-139.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2007). Verbal behavior analysis: inducing and expanding new
verbal capabilities in children with language delays. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Greer, R. D., & Singer, J. (2007). A new type of observational learning. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Greer, R. D., Singer, J., & Gautreaux, G. (2006). Observational learning. International
Journal of Psychology.
Hake, J., & Saxon, J. (1997). Saxon Math 87: An Incremental Development. (2nd ed.). Norman,
OK. Saxon Publishers, Inc.
Hake, J., & Saxon, J. (2001). Saxon Math 54: An Incremental Development. (2nd ed.). Norman,
OK. Saxon Publishers, Inc.
Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Effects of peer tutoring and consequences on the math
performance of elementary classroom students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6,
587-597.
Hart B., & Risley T.R. (1980). In vivo language intervention: unanticipated general effects.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 407–432.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). The origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185-241.
Mohan, M. (1971). Peer tutoring as a technique for teaching the unmotivated. Child Study
JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 2
469
Journal, 1, 217-225.
New York State Education Department (2007). Core curriculum. Retrieved January 29, 2007,
from: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/cores.htm#3ela
Pereira-Delgado, J. A. (2005). Effects of teaching peer monitoring on the acquisition of
observational learning. (Doctoral Dissertation, 2005, Columbia University). Abstract
from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations [on-line]. Dissertations Abstracts Item: AAT
3174775.
Polirstok, S. R., & Greer, R. D. (1977). Remediation of mutually aversive interactions between a
problem student and four teachers by training the student in reinforcement techniques.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 707-716.
Polirstok, S. R., & Greer, R. D. (1986). A replication of collateral effects and a component
analysis of a successful tutoring package for inner-city children. Educational Treatment
of Children, 9, 101-121.
Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of
classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333-358.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1996). Behavior analytic view of development. In S. W. Bijou
& E. Ribes (Eds.), New directions in behavior development (pp. 155-180). Reno, NV:
Context Press.
Roid, G. H.(2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational learning and attention
cueing upon word recognition during integrated small-group instruction. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 509-519.
Stolfi, L. (2005). The effects of yoked contingencies on the acquisition of observational learning
by preschoolers. (Doctoral Dissertation, 2005, Columbia University). Abstract
from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations [on-line]. Dissertations Abstracts Item: AAT
3174899.
Terra Nova. (1996). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—4th Edition (WISC-IV®). San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Yuan, L. (2005). The effects of observational learning on the emergence of higher order operants
for first grade tutoring pairs with and without developmental disabilities. Unpublished
dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Author Contact Information:
Mindy Bunya Rothstein
JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 2
470
C/O R. Douglas Greer
Teachers College
525 West 120th Street, Box 76
New York, NY 10027
Phone:(212) 678-3282
Email: mbr2105@columbia.edu
Grant Gerard Gautreaux
GGautreaux@thechicagoschool.edu
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
325 N. Wells Street Room 433
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: (312) 410-8978
Email: GGautreaux@thechicagoschool.edu
Advertising in the Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention
Advertising is available in JEIBI. All advertising must be paid for in advance. Make
your check payable to Joseph Cautilli. The ad copy should be in our hands at least 3 weeks
prior to publication. Copy should be in MS Word or Word Perfect, RTF format and
advertiser should include graphics or logos with ad copy.
The prices for advertising in one issue are as follows:
1/4 Page: $50.00 1/2 Page: $100.00 Full Page: $200.00
If you wish to run the same ad in both issues for the year, you are eligible for the
following discount:
1/4 Page: $40 - per issue 1/2 Page: $75 - per issue Full Page: $150.00 - per issue.
An additional one-time layout/composition fee of $25.00 is applicable
For more information, or place an ad, contact Halina Dziewolska by phone at (215)
462-6737 or e-mail at: halinadz@hotmail.com

 

setting ratio suburb conducted througnout rectangular appropriate backup

 

 materials glued

 

variables

 

run presented intraresponse

 

novel presence experimenter assessed

 

corresponded

 

phases

 

introbserver calculated

 

derived presented incorporating phase object (take a shot) regardless completion spaces hoop deviated therefore exposure insure criteria