Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 123–149 | Cite as

Psychological and educational characteristics of instruction for people with severe disabilities: Interacting systems of responding

  • Thomas G. Haring
Tom Haring Memorial Issue: Part II
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a behavioral model which proposes that operants are organized and regulated into systems of responding. Multi-operant theory proposes that operants are organized into response systems that interact to adapt behavior to the complexities of the environment. The operant is the interaction between behavior and the environment which includes the conditions under which responses may occur, the class of behavior that is likely to be effective in producing outcomes, and the antecedent conditions that define the context of behavior. A central feature of this theory is that operants within a repertoire are organized into regulated systems of responding. The mechanisms of regulation are themselves operants that are learned and controlled by processes that are the same as those that govern more overt behavior. Operants stand in relationship to each other in coordinated response systems with some operants directly affecting and organizing the performance of other operants. An important implication of the systemic nature of behavioral repertoires is that bringing some aspect of a behavior class under control of new variables may demonstrate a spread throughout the entire operant system depending on past histories linking the classes.

Key words

behavior analysis multi-operant theory regulated systems of responding self-regulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse.American Educational Research Journal, 15, 433–440.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M. (1982). The role of current pragmatics in the future analysis of generalization technology. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.)Adherence, compliance, and generalization in behavioral medicine (pp. 192–212). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. D. (1988). Mead and Skinner: Agency and determinism.Behaviorism, 16, 109–127.Google Scholar
  4. Bellamy, G. T., Horner, R. H., & Inman, D. P. (1979).Vocational habilitation of severely retarded adults. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, E. G., (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism in response generalization. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.)Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle Changes in applied settings (pp. 221–241). Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, L. A. & McKenzie, H. S. (1989). Effects of self-evaluation training of seriously emotionally disturbed children on the generalization of their classroom rule following and work behaviors across settings and teachers.Behavior Disorders, 14, 89–98.Google Scholar
  8. Day, H. M. & Horner, R. H. (1986). Response variation and the generalization of dressing skills.Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 101–112.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, B. E. (1990).Less than zero. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, E., Baer, D. M., & Firestone, I. (1971). The development of generalized imitation within topographically determined boundaries.Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 89–98.Google Scholar
  11. Gaylord-Ross, R. J., Haring, T. G., Breen, C., & Pitts-Conway, V. (1984). The training and generalization of social interaction skills with autistic youth.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 229–247.Google Scholar
  12. Gewirtz, J. L. (1972). Some contextual determinants of stimulus potency. In R. D. Parke (Ed.),Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 7–33). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, H. (1985). Enhancing language generalization using matrix and stimulus equivalence training. In S. F. Warren, & A. K. Rogers-Warren (Eds.)Teaching functional language (pp. 225–249). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, H. & Mousetis, I., (1989). Generalized language learning by children with severe mental retardation: Effects of peers' expressive modeling.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 245–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, C. L. & Eaton, M. D. (1989). Reading. In Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (Eds.),The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 41–92), Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Haring, T. G. (1985). Teaching between-class generalization of toy play behavior to handicapped children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 127–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haring, T. G., Breen, C., Pitts-Conway, V., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1982). The effects of teacher-generated and self-generated reinforcement on the functional task performance of severely handicapped students. In R. Gaylord-Ross, T. Haring, C. Breen & V. Pitts-Conway (Eds.)The social integration of autistic and severely handicapped students (pp. 1–22). San Francisco State University.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, K. R. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity: Effects on on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 417–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes, S. C. (1989).Rule-governed behavior. Cognition. contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, S. C. & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis.American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes, S. C. & Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed behavior from schedule control.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobson, D. (1987). The cultural context of social support and support networks.Medical Anthropology, Quarterly, 1, 42–67.Google Scholar
  23. Kamps, D. M., Leonard, B. R., Vernon, S., Dugan, E. P., Delquadri, J. C., Gershon, B., Wade, L., & Folk, L. (1992). Teaching social skills to students with autism to increase peer interactions in an integrated first-grade classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 281–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Koegel, R. L. & Covert, A. (1972). The relationship of self-stimulation to learning in autism children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 381–387.Google Scholar
  25. Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1996). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students with autism through a self-management treatment package.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 119–127.Google Scholar
  26. Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C. & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and disruptive behavior in children with autism through self-management.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 341–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: A possible method of social stereotyping.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505–518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lagomarcino, T. R. & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Utilizing self-management procedures to teach independent performance.Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 297–305.Google Scholar
  29. Mead, M. (1934).Kinship in the Admiralty Islands. New York: American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, L., Agran, M., & Foder-Davis, J. (1989). Using self-management strategies to increase the production rates of workers with severe handicaps.Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 324–332.Google Scholar
  31. Parsonson, B. S. & Baer, D. M. (1978). Teaching generalized improvisation of tool use.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 67–74.Google Scholar
  32. Piaget, J. (1980).Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selection and phenocopy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenfarb, I. S., Newland, C. M., Brannon, S. E., & Howey, D. S. (1992). Effects of self generated rules on the development of schedule controlled behavior.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 107–122.Google Scholar
  34. Sasso, G. M., Melloy, K. J., & Kavale, K. A. (1990). Generalization maintenance and behavioral covariation associated with social skills training through structured learning.Behavioral Disorders, 16, 9–22.Google Scholar
  35. Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay in teaching site words to elementary students with moderate retardation.Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner, B. F. (1938).The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton Century.Google Scholar
  37. Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response.Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–63.Google Scholar
  38. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.)Units of analysis and integration of behavior (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, T., & Lubinski, D. (1986). Units of analysis and kinetic structure of behavior repertoires.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 219–242.Google Scholar
  40. Thorndike, E. L. (1911).Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas G. Haring
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara

Personalised recommendations