Behavioral Education

Pragmatic Answers to Questions about Novelty and Efficiency
  • Philip N. Chase


Behavioral education is one example of work on socially significant problems that illustrates the consistency among philosophical, experimental, interpretive, and applied behavior analyses. Behavioral education is concerned with studying how the environment, particularly the social environment, affects long-lasting changes in behavior (Skinner, 1968; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Successful instructional programs and curricula have been developed by behavior analysts for a wide range of populations including people with developmental disabilities (e.g., Cuvo,1978), children who have trouble with language arts skills and quantitative skills (e.g., Carnine & Silbert, 1979; Silbert, Carnine, & Stein, 1981), college students and other normally developing learners (e.g., Johnson & Ruskin, 1977), and employees, staff, and managers in organizational settings (e.g., Ford, 1984).


Verbal Behavior Stimulus Control Behavior Analysis Conditional Discrimination Applied Behavior Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andronis, P. (1983). Symbolic aggression by pigeons: Contingency adduction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Antonitis, J. J. (1951). Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 273–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkins, J. M. (1969). Behavioral objectives in curriculum design: A cautionary note. In R. C. Anderson, G. W. Faust, M. C. Roderick, D. J. Cunningham, & T. Andre (Eds.), Current research on instruction (pp. 60–65 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Balsam, P. D., Deich, J. D., Ohyama, T., & Stokes, P. D. (1998). Origins of new behavior. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.), Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 403–420 ). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S. E., & Thomas, D. R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction. Palo Alto: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Birch, H. G. (1945). The role of motivational factors in insightful problem-solving. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 38, 295–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnine, D., Jones, E., & Dixon, R. (1994). Mathematics: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 406–427.Google Scholar
  10. Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. (1979). Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–116.Google Scholar
  12. Catania, A. C. (1998). The taxonomy of verbal behavior. In K. A. Lattai & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior (pp. 405–433 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  13. Chase, P. N., & Danforth, J. S. (1991). The role of rules in concept learning. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 205–225 ). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1959). Verbal Behavior. By B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuvo, A. J. (1978). Validating task analyses of community living skills. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 11, 13–21.Google Scholar
  16. Donahoe, J. W. (1991). The Selectionist approach to verbal behavior: Potential contributions of neuropsychology and connectionism. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 119–145 ). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  17. Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and complex behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Ebel, R. L. (1969). Some limitations of basic research in education. In R. C. Anderson, G. W. Faust, M. C. Roderick, D. J. Cunningham, & T. Andre (Eds.), Current research on instruction (pp. 15–21 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Engelmann, S. E., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, R. (1983). Resurgence of previously reinforced behavior during extinction. Behavior Analysis Letters, 3, 391–397.Google Scholar
  21. Epstein, R. (1985). Extinction-induced resurgence: Preliminary investigations and possible applications. The Psychological Record, 35, 143–153.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, R. (1987). The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon (Columbia livia). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford, J. E. (1984). Applications of a personalized system of instruction to a large personnel training program. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5 (3/4), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland, J. G., & Kemp, F. D. (1965). A measure of programming in teaching machine material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 264–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, K. R., & Chase, P. N. (1981). Behavior analysis in instructional design. A functional typology of verbal tasks. The Behavior Analyst, 4, 103–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, K. R., & Ruskin, R. S. (1977). Behavioral instruction: An evaluative review. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnston, J. M. (2000). Behavior analysis and the R & D paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 141–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Keller, F. S. (1968). “Goodbye teacherchrw(133). ”Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89. Layng, T. V. J. ( 1991 ). A selectionist approach to verbal behavior: Sources of Variation. InGoogle Scholar
  31. L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 146–150). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  32. Layng, M., & Chase, P. N. (2001). Stimulus-stimulus pairing, matching-to-sample testing, and emergent relations. The Psychological Record, 51, 605–628.Google Scholar
  33. MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomskÿ s review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Machado, A. (1997). Increasing the variability of response sequences in pigeons by adjusting the frequency of switching between two keys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Markle, S. M.. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction (pp. 104–138 ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marr, M. J. (1993). Contextualistic mechanism or mechanistic contextualism? The straw machine as tar baby. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McDonagh, E. C., Mcllvane, W. J., & Stoddard, L. T. (1984). Teaching coin equivalences via matching to sample. Applied research in mental retardation, 5, 177–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmer, D. C. (1986). Chomskÿ s nativism: A critical review. In P. N. Chase & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Psychological aspects of language: The West Virginia Lectures (pp. 44–60 ). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  41. Popham, W. J. (1969). Probing the validity of arguments against behavioral goals. In R. C. Anderson, G. W. Faust, M. C. Roderick, D. J. Cunningham, & T. Andre (Eds.), Current research on instruction (pp. 66–76 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 653–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoenfeld, W. N., Harris, A. H., & Farmer, J. (1966). Conditioning response variability. Psychological Reports, 19, 551–557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shahan, T. A., & Chase, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 175–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1981). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Reflections on a decade of teaching machines. Teachers College Record, 65, 168–177.Google Scholar
  54. Skinner, B. F. (1968). Technology of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  57. Wetherby, B., & Striefel, S. (1978). Application of miniature linguistic systems or matrix training procedures. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.) Language intervention strategies (pp. 318–356 ). Baltimore: University Park.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip N. Chase
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations