1

Impact of Token Reward Systems on Academic Achievement and on Task Behavior

[Student Name]

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

School of Graduate and Professional Programs

EDSE-698/699

Dr. Judith Nagel

December 2018

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts in Special Education

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

2

Topic Selection…………………………………….............................................................. 4

Research Questions of the Literature Review………………………………………………5

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………...6

Token Economy Systems…………………………………………………………...6

Benefits of Token Economy Systems………………………………………………7

Procedure……………………………………………………………………………9

Contingent Reinforcement………………………………………………….12

Noncontingent Reinforcement……………………………………………...13

Response Cost………………………………………………………………15

Self-Determination………………………………………………………………….17

Intrinsic Motivation…………………………………………………………18

Extrinsic Motivation………………………………………………………...20

Amotivation…………………………………………………………………21

Motivation and Autism Spectrum Disorders………………………………………..23

Motivation and Intellectual Exceptionalities………………………………………..24

Creating a Motivating Token Reward System……………………………………....25

Type of Token……………………………………………………………….26

Type of Reward……………………………………………………………...27

Behavior and Token Reward Systems………………………………………………29

Academic Performance and Token Reward Systems ………………………………32

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..34

Action Research Plan………………………………………………………………………..36

Background Information and Purpose of the Action Research Project……………..36

3

Research Questions of the Action Research Project………………………………..37

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………..37

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………38

Research Design…………………………………………………………………….39

Sample ………………………………………………………………………………

39

Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………...44

Procedures…………………………………………………………………………...45

Validity and Reliability……………………………………………………………...46

Assumptions and Limitations……………………………………………………….47

Cultural Competence/Bias…………………………………………………………..48

Ethical Consideration……………………………………………………………….49

Results………………………………………………………………………………………50

Interpretation of Results…………………………………………………………………….61

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..66

Impact on Practice, Special Needs Students, Families, and Colleagues……………66

Further Reflection and Continuing Questions about My Action Research Journey..69

References…………………………………………………………………………………..71

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….77

4

Topic Selection

Teachers are always looking for new and effective ways to motivate their students. In

special education, this can be even more challenging. A most basic and utilized way to increase

student motivation is by using reinforcements. Alberto and Troutman (as cited in Diamond, Da

Fonte & Boesch, 2015defined reinforcement as “preferred items or activities (stimuli) that a

student receives after the completion of a desired behavior, which increases the likelihood that the

student will engage in the same desired behavior in the future” (p. 73). Fortunately, there are

endless ways to utilize reinforcements. One way to use reinforcements is through implementation

of a token economy system or sometimes referred to as token reward system. Ivy, Meindl,

Overley, and Robson (2017) stated that “a token economy is a complex system of reinforcement

in which some medium of exchange (i.e., a token) is used to purchase various goods, services, or

privileges” (p. 709).

Research has suggested that “token economies have been utilized in education and

treatment since the early 19th century” (Ivy et al., 2017, p. 709) and since then has become an

evidence-based practice. Overall, the use of token systems is very flexible. Due to its flexible

nature, it has become widely administered in “treatment, rehabilitation, education, and community

settings with participants of varying age, race, gender, disabilities, and disorders” (Maggin,

Chafouleas, Goddard & Johnson, 2011, p. 530). Studies have also shown its effectiveness in

school settings for low and high incidence special needs. Token systems have been shown to

improve student achievement in the areas of academics, social skills, behavior, and attention

(Maggin et al., 2011).

Token systems are designed to be modified and adapted to the individual student or client,

giving reason to its success and notoriety. Within a classroom, the idea is to design reinforcers

5

that are desired by the student for motivation of the target behavior. Diamond et al. (2015), stated

that “with token reward systems, students earn tokens (e.g., poker chips, check marks, stickers,

coins) when they engage in desired behaviors” (p. 73). Alberto and Troutman (as cited in

Diamond et al., 2015) stated that “as students learn that they can earn tokens that can be

exchanged for a reinforcing stimulus, the tokens themselves become reinforcing” (p. 74).

Specifically, in special education, reinforcers are useful in teaching students new skills and

helping students make progress on their Individual Educational Plan (IEP) goals (Diamond et al.,

2015, p. 73). Overall, there are numerous studies suggesting the effectiveness of token systems in

the classroom; however, proving their effectiveness is the next step.

The purpose of this study is to understand how to meet the needs of students in a diverse

elementary setting. With the ever-changing world of special education, no two students are alike,

and no two classrooms are alike. Depending on district and state regulations, students with

various special needs may be placed within the same class setting. This can make it difficult for a

special educator to reach the needs of his or her students at once. By discovering appropriate and

evidence-based practices that have demonstrated success among wide ranges of populations, an

educator may begin to navigate this difficult process. Understanding the ways in which students

learn, and finding methods that have brought positive outcomes to many students of all different

ages and exceptionalities, is part of being an effective educator and reflective practitioner. The

information gathered from this study will be utilized to support several students and ideally

provide them with further classroom success.

Research Questions of the Literature Review

1. During a thirty-minute small group instructional lesson, do token economy systems

improve student time on task in an elementary special needs classroom?

6

2. Do token economy systems improve math and reading scores in an elementary special

needs classroom when students are paired with an adult for one-to-one individualized

support?

Literature Review

Token Economy Systems

Token economy systems, also referred to as token reward systems, are a type of

intervention strategy that has been utilized since the beginning of the 19th century (Ivy et al.,

2017). In brief terms, rewards are given to individuals when they perform a certain behavior,

response, or task that is desired by the intervention administrator. These rewards are intended to

reinforce that the behavior, response, or task will happen again. In psychology terminology, this

type of reinforcement is also known as operant conditioning. Throughout history, reward-based

interventions have been used among humans and animals. More specifically, Ivy et al. (2017)

said that:

token economies have been developed for use in classrooms, psychiatric inpatient

programs, community-based rehabilitation group homes, vocational settings, college

courses, and in sport training, also, token economies have been found to be effective

across the life span, from young children to geriatric adults, and across both typically

developing and clinical populations. (p. 709-710)

An important addition to the token reward system is the introduction of the token. As

Doll, McLaughlin and Barretto (2013) explained, in token economy systems, a token, or neutral

stimulus, is given to individuals immediately following a desired behavior or response. This may

be in the form of points or tangible small items like poker chips or tickets. Individuals can then

exchange their tokens for desired rewards which are considered the reinforcing stimulus.

7

Reinforcing stimuli may be items such as edibles, privileges, or various incentives (p. 133).

According to Doll et al. (2013), “By performing this process of repeating presentations of neutral

tokens before the reinforcing stimulus, the neutral token becomes the reinforcing entity” (p. 133).

In a token reward system, the reward can be given to the participant as a choice prior to

beginning to the intervention. Choice has been seen a positive addition to behavior modification.

Researchers Frielink, Schuengle and Embregts (2018) reiterated the effects of choice by

describing the physiological need for autonomy support as an imperative human function. They

wrote that “the need for autonomy refers to having the feeling one has a sense of choice and

volition” (p. 34). Allowing for choice in an intervention gives individuals a sense of power and

control over their behavior. In addition, when a person can choose their own rewards, it ensures

the student is working for something that they truly enjoy. When the reward is of interest or

preference, it can make the intervention motivating and more likely to see positive results

(Frielink et al., 2018).

To keep token economy systems reinforcing, it is important to vary the rewards frequently

and provide immediate feedback. Especially when first implementing this intervention,

exchanges of tokens for rewards should be conducted more often to ensure this system works

effectively (Doll et al., 2013, p. 135). Token economy systems have been widely used and

deemed as an effective intervention method for classroom teachers. This type of intervention has

proven success among general education and special education populations alike. In addition, this

is also a reliable and effective strategy to use for whole-class interventions (Doll et al., 2013).

Benefits of Token Economy Systems

When beginning any new intervention, understanding its benefits is vital to determining if

it may produce successful results for a particular study. For example, in special education, it can

8

be important to keep lessons moving and attempt to diminish interruptions as much as possible.

Diamond et al. (2016) stated that “token reward systems are beneficial for students, including

those with severe disabilities who may have difficulty attending to teacher instruction by relying

solely on intrinsic motivation” (p. 75). The use of rewards in token systems allow for the

implementation of extrinsic motivation which may be just as effective. Motivation will be

discussed further later in this paper.

In the classroom, maintaining student attention can also be difficult. However, token

reward systems also provide benefits in this area as well. Diamond et al. (2016) said “these

systems are valuable in that they allow teachers to reinforce correct behaviors/skills without

impeding the flow of instruction by delivering backup reinforcers after a specified number of

tokens are earned” (p. 75). If a teacher must stop a lesson to provide feedback, students may lose

attention and it can be difficult to gain it back. The ability to give tokens quickly and quietly

decreasing the likelihood of disruptions to teaching.

Students with special needs are often transitioning among several settings (e.g., special

education classroom, general education classroom, speech office, gym, music, recess) so finding a

reward system that can be easily utilized in many settings is important. Another benefit described

by Ivy et al. (2017) is that tokens are easily portable allowing for their use across multiple settings

and times (p. 712). Token rewards systems’ ability to be easily portable can make them highly

appealing in a special education setting. Also, “a token can be used to maintain performance

during periods of time in which the backup reinforcer is not available” (Ivy et al., 2017, p. 712).

This creates advantages when students are in various environments throughout the day. The

token system can still be utilized and effective even if the reinforcer is not present.

9

Token reward systems may also provide flexibility in their use and implementation. There

is a typical set of procedures to follow to begin the intervention, but the methods can be

customizable to the population. Token reward systems have been successful with typically

developing individuals and those with special needs. Introduction or set up of the intervention

will look different depending on who the reward system is geared towards. In addition, not only

is this effective for individuals, but token systems have also been shown to be successful for

groups of people. The reinforcer or end “reward” does not need to remain consistent and can

change when desired or even daily. The change in reinforcement ensures boredom does not set in

and motivation will continue.

As previously mentioned, token economy systems allow for the use of choice in their

reward. This may be extremely useful when implementing to a group of individuals. Each

participant may choose a different reward rather one reward for the entire group. When each

student is allowed a reward of their choosing, the intervention is equally motivating for all

involved. This method can be much more successful than attempting to create a reward that will

reach the interests and provide the same level of motivation for all people in a group. In a

classroom, group size may include over twenty students, making finding a similar motivator even

more difficult.

Procedure

To attempt a research-based strategy and implement it, there should to be consistency in

its implementation to consider it valid. According to Ivy et al. (2017), there are six main

components to creating a successful token economy system. These components are the target

behavior, token conditioning, backup reinforcer selection, token production schedule, exchange-

production schedule, and token-exchange schedule (Ivy et al., 2017, p. 711). Depending on the

10

researchers, the amount and name of the components may vary but the procedure for beginning a

token reward system remains the same. Overall, when implementing this intervention, the target

behavior refers to the behavior intended to modify, which should be identified first. Token

conditioning refers to how a token will be given. Backup reinforcer selection means the method

for which someone will choose the reward. Token production schedules is defined as the

determination of how the token will be provided. Exchange-production schedule is the

determination of how tokens can be exchanged for rewards. The token-exchange schedule is used

to determine the cost of the rewards (Ivy et al., 2017).

In simpler terms, individuals are rewarded with tokens when engaging in the

predetermined positive behaviors. Once they obtain the set number of tokens, they may be

redeemed for the reward of their choice that is determined prior to beginning the session. What

makes token reward systems so great is that there is flexibility among all these components.

Depending on the target behavior (behavior hoping to change) the rest of the intervention may

look different. For instance, when hoping to eliminate disruptive behaviors, tokens may be given

to the individual when engaged in appropriate behavior or on a fixed time schedule (exchange-

production schedule). On the other hand, if attempting to target an academic skill, tokens may be

given to the individual after each correct response. These are solely examples and any target

behavior can be awarded a token in any way that makes sense for the situation and individual.

Once the target behavior and exchange-production schedule components have been

determined, the backup reinforcers nee to also be determined. This could be based upon the

decision of the teacher (e.g. extra recess time, no homework), or chosen by the student (e.g. toys,

Play Doh). Next, the administrator must determine how the token will be given to the individual,

also referred to as the token production schedule. This may be in many different formats (e.g.

11

check marks, stars, figurines). Lastly, the administrator needs to determine the number of tokens

required to exchange for the desired reward, also referred to as the token-exchange schedule.

These components can be broken down and discussed for further examination prior to

implementation. According to Diamond et al. (2016), there are four important steps to setting up

an effective token economy system. These are identifying the back-up reward, identifying the

cost of reinforcers, deciding on the type of token, and gradually increasing wait time (p. 74).

Each of these elements includes a variety of questions and tips to consider when designing a token

economy system. Diamond et al. (2016) said that preference assessments should be given prior to

beginning the intervention to determine interests and potential reinforcing rewards. They also

suggested that these assessments should be given frequently because student’s preferences can

change frequently. The goal is to ensure that the intervention does not lose its reinforcing value

(p. 74).

Diamond et al. (2016) suggested that in the beginning stages of the intervention, the cost

of tokens for reinforcers should be minimal. “By beginning with a few tokens and minimal

requirements for earning tokens,” they wrote, “students are introduced to the system and tokens

gain reinforcing value” (p. 74). Regarding deciding on the type of token, Diamond et al. (2016)

addressed the importance of knowing the individual and their ability level. For example,

someone with physical needs may find it difficult to place their tokens on their token board. They

suggested possibly using stickers or check marks that can be placed by the teacher or using the

removal of tokens with populations like this (p. 75). Also depending on the age of the individual

or skillset, tangible tokens may be enticing to put into mouths or play with rather than adding to

the token board (p. 74). Diamond et al. (2016) also suggested using tokens that are of interest to

the student (e.g. pictures of dogs or favorite television characters). However, this should be used

12

with caution because it could be distracting and take away from the effect of the token system (p.

75).

An important step in the procedure of token economy system is increasing wait time for

rewards. In the beginning, students should be given reinforcement immediately after desired

behaviors are performed. As they progress through the intervention, this time should be gradually

increased, and students should be required to wait longer periods of time for the rewards to be

presented (Diamond et al., 2016, p. 75). Alberto and Troutman (as cited in Diamond et al., 2016,

p. 75) stated that “the goal is increase the schedule of reinforcement delivery, so the student learns

to exhibit the behavior in the absence of immediate reinforcement.”

Contingent reinforcement. Contingent reinforcement refers to rewards given for a

positive behavior or response to ensure that it will happen again. In some contexts, this may also

be called positive reinforcement. Individuals are rewarded for good behavior rather than

reprimanded for negative behavior. Contingent reinforcement is intended to be given

immediately following a predetermined positive behavior or response. Researchers Adibsereshki,

Abkenar, Ashoori and Mirzamani (2015) referenced the work of psychologist B. F. Skinner by

stating “Skinner believed that positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment when

seeking to change or establish a behavior” (p. 85). Positive reinforcement can come in a variety

of ways such as food, praise, toys, attention, or stickers.

According to Korpershoek, Harms, de Boer, van Kuijk and Doolaard (2016), emphasis on

positive reinforcement may be because it can be viewed as a proactive classroom management

technique rather than reactive (p. 644). Within the classroom setting, reactive classroom

management strategies can also lead to stronger teacher and student relationships and better

13

classroom management (Korpershoek et al., 2016, p. 644). Research has shown that successful

classroom management improves student performance as well (Adibsereshki et al., 2015).

When beginning a contingent reinforcement intervention, determining the intended

behaviors or responses is the first step. Depending on the activity, this could be academically

driven, as in focused on correct responses, or behaviorally driven, focused on appropriate

behavior. In a contingent reinforcement schedule, when the student performs the intended

response (e.g. correct math answer, raising hand instead of shouting) the individual is be rewarded

with the token immediately.

Cameron, Banko and Pierce (as cited in Adibsereshki et al., 2015) conducted a study

looking for the effects of positive reinforcement on student motivation. They found that “rewards

produced positive effects on intrinsic motivation during low-interest tasks and during high-

interest tasks when they were explicitly tied to behavior and success” (p. 86). In addition,

Adibsereshki et al. (2015) also studied the effects of positive reinforcement in the classroom and

found that students who received rewards, especially tangible rewards, performed better than

those who did not receive rewards or received social reinforcement rewards (e.g. praise).

These studies demonstrate that students perform best when they receive rewards

immediately following an intended behavior or response. A similar study by Lee et al. (2016)

found that students performed equally well when the teacher used contingent reinforcement as

when the teacher used punishment. However, this study was conducted on groups of students

rather than individuals giving possible explanation for the difference in performance.

Noncontingent reinforcement. Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is another type of

positive reinforcement that follows the same principle of giving rewards but doing so on a fixed

or time-based schedule rather than directly preceding a desired behavior or response. According

14

to Coy and Kostewicz (2018), “NCR is effective for addressing relatively minor (e.g. disruption,

inappropriate speech, stereotypy) and more serious challenging behaviors (e.g. aggression)

making it an excellent intervention strategy for teachers (p. 303). Just like with contingent

reinforcement, prior to implementing a NCR intervention, the function of the student’s behavior

should first be determined. For example, if the function of the student’s behavior is teacher

attention, then during the NCR intervention, the teacher would provide the student with attention

on a fixed time schedule for positive behavior (e.g. sitting, listening) and withholding attention for

the identified target behaviors (Coy et al., 2018).

Noncontingent reinforcement is often considered a relatively easy intervention to

implement and non-intrusive. Due to the nature of NCR, it is typically an intervention that is

implemented first, especially for problem behaviors, before seeking more intensive therapy or

intervention strategies (Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, Dayton, & Kunnavatana, 2016). A study by

Noel and Rubow (2018) examined the effects of NCR on a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder

(ASD) to decrease perseverative speech and increase classroom engagement. The teacher

provided positive attention to the student upon a fixed time schedule. Results demonstrated that

NCR was successful in decreasing perseverative speech and increasing classroom engagement.

Similarly, Moore, Robinson, Coleman, Cihak, and Park (2016) also examined the effects

of NCR on disruptive behavior and classroom engagement but regarding a child with

developmental delays. The student in question engaged in escaping behaviors to avoid work. As

a NCR, the teacher allowed for “escape breaks” every two minutes of work, which were chosen

by the student (e.g. swing, walk). Results indicated that during the intervention procedure, the

student’s problem behaviors decreased, and their task engagement increased. In addition, they

also describe benefits to noncontingent reinforcement because it can be more easily implemented.

15

Moore et al. (2016) said that “it may be easier for a teacher to deliver escape breaks as a

reinforcer every 4-min regardless of the student’s behavior than to closely monitor the student’s

behavior and decide when to differentially reinforce alternative behavior (p. 642). In addition,

Vollmer, Marcus and Ringdahl (as cited in Moore et al., 2016) stated that noncontingent

reinforcement “may result in higher rates of reinforcement rather than differential reinforcement

procedures which require the student to exhibit appropriate behaviors” (p. 642). They argued that

this benefit of noncontingent is “particularly important for students who exhibit very low rates of

appropriate behavior and have low probabilities of accessing reinforces for appropriate behavior”

(p. 642).

These studies are significant because they demonstrate that reinforcement, either

contingent or noncontingent, can be delivered in a variety of methods. The examined studies

began by determining what the function of the behavior is and determining related and

appropriate rewards. In addition, the same studies provided positive results indicating that the

general process of reinforcement schedules is effective and demonstrating that the method in

which it is administered does not need to remain consistent among all populations. Training on

delivering reinforcements is relatively quick and easy, as suggested by Noel et al. (2018),

whostated that the staff administering the reinforcement had one hour of training beforehand (p.

162). When beginning interventions, those that are easier to understand and implement may be

more likely to be utilized and seen through to fidelity. If an intervention procedure is difficult to

understand, it may not be used according to its intention and could yield negative or no results

(Ivy et al., 2017, p. 713).

Response cost. Response cost refers to rewards that are taken away for behaviors

determined by the researcher or instructor. In some contexts, this may also be referred to as

16

punishment. According to Payne (2015), “Behaviourism suggests that by rewarding desirable

patterns of behaviour and punishing undesirable patterns, the undesirable ones will eventually

fade away and leave only those behaviours that are regarded as conducive to learning” (p. 484).

The method in which punishments are used varies in its effectiveness. Payne (2015) found that

punishments, which she refers to as “sanctions,” promoted positive behavior more than it

promoted an effective work ethic. In a secondary school in the U.K., Payne (2015) administered

a questionnaire to about 1100 students in grades 7 and 11 collectively. Payne (2015) found that

sanctions such as missing a break, receiving detention, verbal warnings, and missing school trips

were not effective in promoting hard work in students but were effective in promoting positive

behavior. However, sanctions like missing break and whole class admonishments were also seen

as unfair to students and perceived as damaging to teacher-student relationships. Damage to

student-teacher relationships may be a reason that in some cases, professionals prefer to not use

response cost or punishment as a form of reinforcement.

Within education, positive teacher-student relationships have proven time and again to be

one of the most important and successful tools a teacher can have that promotes student learning.

In a sense, this relates to the reason behind not using sanctions but solely focusing on providing

rewards for targeted behavior and/or responses. According to the findings of Payne (2015),

The single most successful strategy across behaviour and work and across pupils in Year 7

and Year 11 is contacting home with positive feedback. Not only does it promote good

behaviour and hard work, but it is also beneficial to the teacher-pupil relationship. (p. 500)

As discussed earlier in the work of Diamond et al. (2016), a response cost method may be

useful with populations that include students with severe special needs, the reason beingthat these

students may have physical difficulties that inhibit their ability to participate in the adding of

17

tokens to their token boards (p. 75). Using a response cost method may be an appropriate

accommodation to make so that the tokens can be removed by the teacher or administrator rather

than relying on the student for physical participation. In this case, response cost should not be

viewed as a negative reinforcement but as a way to make the intervention inclusive to students of

all exceptionalities. An accommodation like this could actually be seen as a positive teacher-

student relationship, an important factor according to Payne (2015).

Self-Determination

Self-determination is a relatively new concept in the psychology field. There is not one

definition that is widely used but rather several ideas that help others to understand what self-

determination means. Overall, self-determination involves human motivation as it relates to

personal and environmental factors. Researcher Saliga (2017) states that “due to substantial

interaction between personal and external factors, both must be analyzed when assessing human

experience in respect to its effect on tasks and goals” (p. 58). These factors are only important to

analyze at it relates to discovering the benefits of self-determination but also to determine what

factors a negatively influencing self-determination (Saliga, 2017).

O’Brien (2018) stated that “according to Self-determination theory (SDT), students’

motivation is affected by whether the development of these three basic needs of autonomy,

competence and relatedness are supported or hindered (p. 158). According to O’Brien (2018),

autonomy is viewed as the enthusiasm and implicit approval of an individual’s own learning.

Competence refers to one's feelings of personal competence towards a specific goal or task. The

last fundamental concept required for positive self-determination is relatedness, which refers to an

individual's feelings of belonging and social acceptance (O’Brien, 2018). The Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (as cited in O’Brien, 2018)) has “advocated

18

for the explicit teaching of self-determination skills in an educational context” and “this report

deems that the preparation of students with special education needs (SEN) to become more

autonomous and self-determined would constitute a core goal within school provision” (p. 156).

In addition, multiple research studies have proven that explicit teaching of self-determination

skills results in positive outcomes for individuals with behavioral needs, Autism, intellectual, and

developmental exceptionalities (O’Brien, 2018).

These authors concluded that one’s level of self-determination is related to one’s ability to

succeed in school and life. Educators are continually building the skills in children so that they

can learn and become productive adults. The core elements of self-determination theory, choice

making, decision making, problem solving, goal setting and attainment, self-regulation/self-

management skills, self-advocacy and leadership, and self-awareness and self-knowledge are all

crucial elements to succeeding in childhood and adulthood (O’Brien, 2018). Students with

special needs are no exception and because they are the leading population with the lowest level

of self-determination skills (O’Brien, 2018) proves that teaching these skills is crucial for these

students.

Intrinsic motivation. Daniel and Cooc (2018) stated “an individual’s innate desire to

engage in an activity has been referred to as their intrinsic motivation (IM)” (p. 101). This means

that a person will engage in an activity for internal motivators like satisfaction or pleasure. In

addition, Daniel and Cooc (2018) described that for a person to be intrinsically motivated, the two

concepts of autonomy and competence must be met, as described above (p. 102).

Earlier, autonomy was used to describe one doing something because they have a choice

in the matter. However, in Daniel and Cooc (2018) autonomy is used to describe someone

partaking in something of their own volition not due to external factors (p. 102). Regardless of

19

either definition, autonomy is an important piece of possessing valuable intrinsic motivation

(Daniel & Cooc, 2018, p. 102).

Intrinsic motivation is also influenced by a variety of contextual factors like parental and

teacher influence (Daniel & Cooc, 2018, p. 102). One of the most influential means a teacher has

on intrinsic motivation is how they manage their classroom environment. Brophy (as cited in

Daniel & Cooc, 2018, p. 102) stated that “in classrooms with diverse student backgrounds,

creating a welcoming classroom environment for students from different cultural or

socioeconomic backgrounds can play an important role in how students perceive their classroom

environment.” Daniel and Cooc (2018) described the importance of an open and accepting

classroom environment by saying “in short, the ability of teachers to create autonomous and

competence-supporting environments plays an important role in how intrinsically motivated their

students feel” (p. 102).

Parent involvement can also impact a child’s intrinsic motivation; however, too much

parental involvement or too little involvement can negatively influence a child’s motivation

(Daniel & Cooc, 2018, p. 102). In addition, parental perception of their child’s motivation also

impacts their ability to demonstrate adequate self-determination practices. A study by Carter,

Lane, Cooney, Weir, Moss and Machalicek (2013) assessed parental views of their child with

special needs sense of the seven aspects of self-determination (choice making, decision making,

problem solving, goal setting, self-advocacy and leadership, self-management and self-regulation,

self-awareness and self-knowledge) and their importance for their child. All parents felt it was

important for their child to foster these values; however, many felt that their child did not possess

all these skills. These researchers were not shocked to find that these children with special needs

lacked self-determination skills. However, more shockingly was the fact that “specifically, the

20

seven skills were considered somewhat less important by parents of children described as having

severe/profound disabilities or having a special education label of intellectual disability” (Carter

et al., 2013, p. 25). This notion coincides with findings that the more severe the exceptionality is,

the more likely the individual will lack intrinsic motivation (Elliott & Dillenburger, 2016).

Daniel and Cooc (2018), Carter et al. (2013), and Elliott and Dillenburger (2016) all agree

that individuals with special needs lack intrinsic motivation. Information from these studies

emphasizes that creating inclusive environments that reach the needs of all students and the

parental perceptions of their child’s ability to successfully possess self-determination skills may

provide some reason for the disconnect of intrinsic motivation. Nevertheless, these theories are

not fact and discovering ways in which to motivate students with exceptionalities should still be

viewed as a priority for teachers and parents.

Extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation involves completing a task or participating in

an activity due to external rewards rather than internal factors. Extrinsic motivation “occurs when

an individual takes action to obtain rewards, to obey to external requests or to avoid punishments”

(Frielink, Schuengel & Embregts, 2017, p. 626). A token economy system is a good example of

an intervention that provides extrinsic motivation. Individuals are rewarded with a preferred

activity or food item rather than solely praise or attention.

Students with special needs may lack the necessary skills to possess intrinsic motivation

(Carter et al., 2013; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; Elliott & Dillenburger 2016), so as an alternative to

promote growth and learning implementing extrinsic motivators can be successful. In addition,

extrinsic motivation can be paired with choice, which has been deemed as equally effective in

promoting motivation (Frielink et al., 2018). Furthermore, Frielink et al. (2017) stated that a

reason for lack of intrinsic motivation of individuals with special needs is their dependency upon

21

others. Frequently, students with special needs remain “more than people without ID [intellectual

disabilities], partly dependent of the support provided by support staff to enhance health and well-

being (Frielink et al., 2017, p. 627). Dependency on others is quite far from the definition of

autonomy, which has been linked to proper intrinsic motivation (Daniel & Cooc, 2018).

Extrinsic motivation has become widely used in special education and found effective in

promoting motivation (Frielink et al., 2017). Token economy systems allow for the use of

extrinsic motivation using the concept of rewards. In addition, it provides the presence of

autonomy through the students’ ability to choose, be in control, and practice independence in

learning. A study by Nelson (2010) found that students, when in the presence of a token economy

system combined with rewards, participated more in the classroom which led to higher academic

achievement (p. 55). When working with students who lack intrinsic motivation, a study like this

demonstrates that there are other ways in which to promote motivation to ensure student learning.

Amotivation. Amotivation refers to a total lack of motivation. Research has indicated

that levels of motivation are constantly changing. An individual can go through all levels of

motivation—intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation—even throughout a single day. The absence of

motivation is often linked to an individual’s feeling of incompetence (Maciu, 2011, p. 127). In

education, it is the teacher’s responsibility, as stated by Maciu (2011),

to continuously interact closely and effectively with their students, be alert to the feedback

provided by them, and constantly improve their methods of teaching [. . .] by staying

connected with all the innovations in the field, taking into consideration all the aspects of

the teaching process that can subtly in time or suddenly and perhaps irrevocably decrease

students’ motivation. (p. 128)

22

Cheon and Reeve (2015) argued that students experience amotivation when they also

experience psychological need frustration (p. 100).  As discussed earlier, autonomy and

competence are key components to self-determination (O’Brien, 2018).  Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-

Maymon and Roth (as cited in Cheon & Reeve, 2015) stated that “having one’s psychological

needs for autonomy and competence thwarted and frustrated generates immediate negative affect”

(p. 100). These negative effects could be in the form of emotions like anger or anxiety or

manifest into behaviors.  In addition, need frustration can occur when teachers are highly

controlling (i.e. intimidation tactics, asserting power, challenge student beliefs, refuse student

perspectives, etc.) which can result in amotivation of students (Cheon & Reeve, 2015, p. 100). 

On the other hand, it makes sense that students have greater motivation when teachers are more

autonomy supportive in nature.  This involves the practices of listening to student perspectives,

creating interesting learning activities, valuing their thoughts, feelings, and suggestions, and

acknowledging student complaints (Cheon & Reeve, 2015, p. 100). 

Maciu (2011) stated that for teachers to contribute to students’ motivation and avoid

amotivation, they must find positive incentives for their students and ensure that students feel

encouraged and praised for their work (p. 127).  With this thought in mind, the use of token

economy systems would provide motivation for students.  Not only does it emphasize the use of

extrinsic motivation through rewards, but it also provides the students with positive incentives for

their work.  It also allows for the teacher to give encouragement and praise in the form of verbal

and even tangible praise (i.e. tokens). 

Motivation and Autism Spectrum Disorders

Motivation can be difficult to measure, and little research has been conducted to

evaluation the level of motivation, or self-determination, in individuals with Autism Spectrum

23

Disorders (ASD). Chou, Wehmeyer, Palmer and Lee (2017) argued that one’s ability to interact

socially and demonstrate appropriate social skills has a direct correlation to their level of self-

determination. Within ASD, social constructs are difficult to navigate leading to hypothesize that

self-determination may be lacking or absent. Chou et al. (2017) also found that individuals who

participate often with their same age peers have a higher level of self-determination. This finding

creates speculation that in many cases, individuals with ASD participate less with their general

education classmates also leading to a decrease in self-determination. Overall, as the field of

special education has evolved over the years, teaching self-determination skills has been a key

focus. When students have an increased awareness of self-determination, they typically have

more success in school, academically and socially, which leads them to more productive and

meaningful adult lives (Chou et al., 2017).

On the other hand, Carter et al. (2013) described that the importance of teaching self-

determination skills does not rely solely on the education system but on the child’s parents as

well. Parents see their child interact in many settings that their teachers are not able to. In

addition, Carter et al. (2013) speculated that self-determination skills may be heavily influenced

by familiar factors such as socioeconomic status. When speaking with both parents and teachers,

Carter et al. (2013) and Chou et al. (2017) both found that self-determination skills lacked for

students with special needs; however, the most significant lack of skills was with students with

ASD.

In the study by Elliott and Dillenburger (2016), the effectiveness of choice on motivation

was evaluated on three students with ASD. Like token economy systems, when the student

provided the targeted response, they were able to choose their reward. Overall, this element of

choice proved effective for only one out of the three students. For two students, choice did not

24

increase their motivation or response. A study like this demonstrates that teaching and

understanding motivation, or self-determination, in those with ASD can be difficult and

inconsistent. In most cases, a child with any exceptionality and their ability to have appropriate

self-determination is reliant upon how much time they spend with their same age peers (Chou et

al., 2017). One’s ability to participate with their same age peers also relies heavily on their

academic, functional, and social skills. Students lacking these skills and requiring more support

tend to be included less with their typically developing peers. The study mentioned previously by

Elliott and Dillenburger (2016) included three boys all within preschool age. The one participant

in this study who showed the most success with choice and motivation had the highest level of

skills during baseline. This supports the understanding that individuals with a greater skill set

may be able to demonstrate higher motivation. These findings also conclude that self-

determination varies from person to person on the spectrum. This does not mean teaching these

skills should be ignored but rather that finding ways to improve motivation may be even more

vital.

Motivation and Intellectual Exceptionalities

As addressed previously, students with special needs may lack self-determination skills

across settings in school and home. In addition, it was reported that students are more likely to

have higher levels of self-determination if they spend more time with their general education

peers. Not all the time, but in many cases, students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) lack

academic and functional skills which inhibit their ability to participate with their same age peers.

It also may be more difficult for these children to participate in after school extracurricular

activities and they may be more socially isolated as well. These factors can lead to a negative

level of self-determination. Daniel and Cooc (2018) stated that “individuals with the most severe

25

intellectual disability were reported. . .to have the lowest levels of self-determination compared

with individuals with mild or moderate intellectual disability” (p. 103). Just like in the case of

ASD, the more severe the exceptionality is, the more difficult it can be to not only display

motivation but also measure it.

Daniel and Cooc (2018) repeatedly mentioned that individuals with special needs struggle

most with intrinsic motivation. This is the motivation that comes from within a person for their

own feeling of satisfaction and self-worth. They also described that higher teacher and parental

expectations increased student’s intrinsic motivation (Daniel & Cooc, 2018). Unfortunately, there

may be lower expectations put on students with severe exceptionalities giving explanation to

decreased intrinsic motivation. These studies provide valuable information into how to increase

motivation in not only students with ASD but also ID. If intrinsic motivation is lacking, it may be

important to implement interventions that utilize extrinsic motivation, like a token economy

system. As described earlier, this intervention relies on external rewards and provides the

influence of choice for students.

Creating a Motivating Token Reward System

Given the number studies and research relating to lack of motivation in students with

special needs, there has also been a plethora of interventions that support student motivation that

enhance academic, social, and/or functional skills. The benefit of implementing such an

intervention strategy as token economy systems is that it is flexible in nature and can be modified

depending on the student and the target behavior. As above mentioned, individuals with special

needs may struggle with intrinsic motivation. A reason for this struggle may be because these

individuals could have difficulty performing tasks because they lack internal factors like personal

satisfaction. In special education, finding ways to motivate students to gain the necessary skills to

26

live independently and become valuable members of society is the overall goal. With that being

said, turning to extrinsic means of motivation may be the most successful form.

In addition to extrinsic forms of motivation, including a level of choice to the reward has

been determined as successful as well. Elliott and Dillenburger (2016) stated that “studies have

shown that offering individuals with disabilities the opportunity to make choices can have

beneficial effects” (p. 188). They went on describe that this notion has been largely discussed in

the choice of activity and rather they set out to explore the value of choice in the reinforcer itself.

What they discovered that among three individuals with ASD, the value of choice of the

reinforcement highly increased only one child’s motivation and response. However, the reward-

based intervention, either chosen by the researcher or student, did yield positive results for all

three children (Elliott & Dillenburger, 2016).

In a similar study by Sran and Borrero (2010), they also found that the availability of a

choice in the reinforcer during an intervention promotes positive results. In fact, when

individuals were able to make a choice from multiple options, they demonstrated even greater

success. Elliott and Dillenburger (2016) stated that “for those individuals for whom choice

functions as a motivation operation, choice-making opportunities should routinely be included in

structured interventions” (p. 196). Providing choice for individuals allows them to feel somewhat

in control of the situation in addition to adding an extra element of motivation.

Type of token. Within an effective token economy system, there needs to be tokens.

These are what the intended individual earns during the intervention that they can then exchange

for the desired reward. Depending on the reinforcement schedule used in the token system,

noncontingent, contingent, or response cost, the type of token may differ. As mentioned earlier,

noncontingent reinforcement would involve a token given on a fixed time schedule provided the

27

intended response or behavior is occurring, contingent reinforcement means that tokens are given

immediately after a desired behavior or response is performed, and response cost would mean that

tokens are taken away when a certain behavior or response occurs. Regardless of reinforcement

schedule, ensuring that the tokens can be administered quickly and without disruption is the most

important step.

Tokens can be either abstract objects like points or check marks. Tokens can also be

tangible items like stickers, poker chips, tickets, etc. The type of token used may not only vary

based upon reinforcement schedule but also due to age of individual, interests, and environment.

A study by Carnett et al.(2014) studied the effects of using a high interest token on the success of

a token economy system. The student in question had a pervasive interest in puzzles. The

researchers created a token system that utilized puzzle pieces as the token. Overall, findings

suggested that the student engaged in more on-task behavior and less disruptive behaviors with

the implementation of the token reward system. However, the student had even higher on-task

performance and lower disruptive behavior when the token system with the puzzle pieces was

used (Carnett et al., 2014).

This study was one of the first of its kind to evaluate the effectiveness of the token itself

on the intervention method. In addition, this study was conducted on one student with ASD.

Individuals with ASD more often have pervasive interest in certain items or things. This should

be considered a valuable resource when working with individuals on the Autism Spectrum.

Type of reward. Rewards, or the reinforcers, should be determined prior to the

intervention at each session. Rewards can be based upon administrator choice, availability, or the

individual in question’s choice. As previously discussed regarding promoting motivation, choices

28

can yield better results. However, it is important that the choices given are also realistic and

readily available.

First, the administrator needs to determine how many tokens will be necessary for the

child to obtain before exchanging them for the reward. This should be determined prior to

implementation and relayed to the participant. In addition, the expectations for gaining rewards

should also be discussed and ensured of their understanding. If an individual is unsure of the

intervention process, this could skew any results or make it invalid. The participant may also be

missing out on the acquisition of valuable skills.

Within education, it is an effective tactic to provide choices that are already deemed

acceptable by the educator but while still allowing the students to feel that they have a voice in the

decision. Rewards can be many things depending on the situation like praise, edibles, preferred

toys or objects, movies, extra recess, etc. In some cases, the reward may be chosen or

predetermined prior to beginning the intervention. There are also benefits to providing multiple

options before the intervention and letting the individual decide when they exchange their tokens.

This may allow for the participant to vary their reward and eliminate the possibility of exhaustion

or boredom. When students were allowed choices in their reward, they had more success with the

learning or displaying the intended behavior or responses than when they did not get a choice in

reward (Sran & Borrero, 2010, p. 556).

With this thought of choice in mind, it may also be beneficial for the administrator to ask

questions to the individual or their parents and teachers about their preferences and already

discovered means of motivation. Ivy et al. (2017) reported that within its findings among

numerous studies relating to token economy systems that half of the them used formal means for

identifying reinforcers (i.e. surveys) and the other half used informal means (i.e. child, teacher, or

29

parent input) to identify suitable reinforcers (p. 723). Regardless of method, it is plain to see that

prior to beginning an intervention of this nature, understanding what the reinforcers are for the

individual is crucial to the success of the study.

Behavior and Token Reward Systems

Human behavior has been a topic of study and interest for centuries. Understanding why

someone behaves a certain way and discovering ways in which to mold or shape behavior to

desirable terms is essentially a fundamental aspect of life. As children, behavior is constantly

being monitored and controlled by rules of the adults around us. In the adult world, behavior

continues to be controlled by social constructs. Without realizing, behavior is consistently

rewarded or punished at home, school, work, etc.

Within the school environment, educators undergo the process of shaping behavior daily.

Whether this may be maintaining positive behavior or diminishing negative behavior, it is a daily

battle and one that requires immense training. It is not a new phenomenon that negative behavior

can greatly impact a child’s school performance in social and academic environments. Jones,

Brown and Aber (as cited in Wentzel, Muenks, McNeish & Russell, 2018) stated that

“interventions that teach children appropriate social behavioral repertoires have results in

significant and stable gains in academic achievement” (p. 612). In turn, a child’s behavior and

success in school has a monumental impact on their adult life.

There are essentially two ways to address behavior and that is either by being proactive or

reactive. Reactive teachers typically wait until a problem has arose and deal with it then.

Proactive teachers will change their environment or methods in attempt to ensure the behavior

will not occur. Coy et al. (2018) mentioned that reactive behavior management can lead to high

levels of teacher stress and burnout, as well as less on task behavior and lower achievement for

30

students (p. 302). An example of reactive behavior management would be using a response cost

method to intervention. Although this type of reinforcement has been successful, it may not

always be the best format for use when addressing behavior modification.

Token reward systems when used with contingent or noncontingent reinforcement will

provide an easy to use and effective method for introducing a behavior intervention. Also noted

by Coy et al. (2018) was that the most effective form of a behavior intervention is one that used

the noncontingent reinforcement model (p. 302). Noncontingent reinforcement within the

framework on token reward systems would involve giving an individual a token on a relatively

fixed time schedule but can be withheld if undesirable behavior is present. When aiming for

behavior modification, the first step is to understand the function of the behavior. This may take

time, observations, and data to discover.

For example, if a student is engaging in disruptive behavior (i.e. getting out of seat) to

gain teacher attention, reprimanding for this behavior is providing teaching attention even though

it may be negative. By using a noncontingent reinforcement token reward system, a teacher can

give a student a token every few minutes provided the student is in their seat. If it is time for a

token to be administered but the student is out of the seat, the token can be withheld, without

mentioning to the student, and once the student sits back down, the token can then be delivered to

them. The rest of the intervention would be carried out normally including the exchange of tokens

for desired rewards.

Behaviors can be displayed in a variety of ways. This may vary even more when working

with students with special needs. Depending on the exceptionality, behavior interventions can be

difficult if a student struggles to understand cause and effect relationships. In the above-

mentioned example, a typically developing student may immediately see the correlation between

31

sitting in their seat and receiving a token. However, someone with special needs might not

understand that relationship as quickly. For this reason, it is imperative that these interventions

continue for several weeks before determining its success.

Nonetheless, token economy systems for behavior intervention have been widely studied

and provided successful results for students with special needs. These studies have examined the

effects across various behaviors like inappropriate verbalizations, mild to aggressive behavior,

and on task behavior. For example. inappropriate verbalizations or vocalizations can be very

common in students with ASD. A study by Thompson, McLaughlin and Derby (2011) studied

the effects of using a noncontingent (referred to as differential reinforcement in this study) token

reward system on decreasing “talk-outs” of a student with ASD. The student was awarded tickets

for appropriate comments and hand raising and ignored for inappropriate comments or “talk-

outs”. Across three settings, this student’s participation in inappropriate verbalizations had

decreased. Thompson et al. (2011) stated, “overall, a correlation was demonstrated between the

number of talk-outs “Molly” emitted and the implementation of differential reinforcement and a

token economy” (pp. 190-191).

In a similar study by Moore et al. (2016), noncontingent reinforcement was utilized in a

behavior intervention focusing on disruptive and on task behavior for a child with developmental

delays. This child’s on task behavior percentage nearly doubled with the implementation of

noncontingent reinforcement and disruptive behavior decreased more than 30% (Moore et al.,

2016, p. 650). In addition, the teacher reported “that his academic performance improved during

the intervention phases, and that she would use the intervention with students who had similar

characteristics” (Moore et al., 2016, p. 651). Not only is increasing appropriate behavior

beneficial, but it shows that behavior directly correlated to academic performance as well.

32

In the case of researchers Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, Dayton and Kunnavatana (2016),

they also used noncontingent reinforcement for behavior modification on an individual with mild

aggression. In conjunction with other studies, it was also found that noncontingent reinforcement

was successful in decreasing aggressive behaviors. These studies have shown that many

behaviors can be shaped with the use of noncontingent reinforcement and with the added

implementation of token reward systems. When working with students with behavior difficulties,

it can be difficult and exhausting. There may also be several professionals working with one

student on a common behavioral goal. Due to the ease and flexibility in the use token reward

systems, it may be viewed as an intervention worth trying when working with students with

behavioral difficulties.

Academic Performance and Token Reward Systems

In education, there can be an immense pressure to ensure that all students are performing

on grade level. However, for a variety of circumstances, including differences in cultural

backgrounds, socioeconomic status, bilingual students, and those with exceptionalities, this can be

a difficult area for teachers. In addition to these factors, student motivation, or self-determination,

plays a pivotal role in their ability to excel in school. To repeat, Carter et al. (2013) and Chou et

al. (2017) both found that self-determination skills lacked for students with special needs,

however, the most significant lack of skills was with students with ASD.

The type of motivation that students with special needs may lack the most is intrinsic

motivation, or the motivation that comes from within a person to do well for their own

satisfaction. Token economy systems can help in providing a different means of motivation,

including extrinsic motivation, by giving rewards for good behavior or correct responses. It is no

surprise that when students are properly motivated, either extrinsically or intrinsically, they

33

perform better in school. In the same respect, students with special needs typically perform

poorer in school than their same age peers.

Students with special needs do not only struggle due to cognitive abilities, but also factors

like such as possible isolation, communication delays, social deficits, and behavioral concerns.

Before any student can excel academically, it is crucial that these are also addressed. In addition,

student and teacher relationships may be one of the biggest influences in a child’s academic

success. Creating interventions, taking time to get to know students, and setting high expectations

can also help build this relationship. A token economy system takes time to create, knowledge of

student interests and motivators, and involves positive teacher and student interaction. These

reasons lead to why this type of intervention has demonstrated success in student academic

achievement.

Adibsereshki et al. (2015) studied the effects of reinforcements on the academic

achievement of students with intellectual exceptionalities. They used two types of

reinforcements, tangible and social such as praise, attention, etc. Results indicated that the

individuals who received rewards, either social or tangible, attained higher academic achievement

(p. 88-89). “Another finding of the current study was that the group that received tangible

reinforcements achieved more than the group that received social reinforcements” (Adibsereshki

et al., 2015, p. 89). These results coincide with the fact that many students with special needs

perform better when they have extrinsic means of motivation.

To address academic achievement, token economy systems does not need to be the sole

intervention utilized. It may be beneficial to use token economy systems in conjunction with

another academic intervention. For instance, Solis, El Zein, Vaughn, McCulley and Falcomata

(2016) studied the effects of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) interventions, including token

34

economy, in conjunction with two reading comprehension interventions on four students with

ASD. “Our findings indicated that the addition of ABA techniques to question development and

anaphoric cueing improved the performance of students with ASD on CBM [Curriculum Based

Measurement] reading probes and increased the percentage of intervals of on-task behavior”

(Solis et al., 2016, p. 294). The ability to use token economy in addition to our intervention

methods allows for more flexibility in its nature and the possible of further success for academic

achievement.

Another benefit discussed by Solis et al. (2016) was that students continued to show

success after the ABA techniques were removed, indicating that “these results suggest that is may

be possible to thin and/or fad the use of the ABA-based techniques and enhance maintenance of

positive treatment effects during longer durations of instruction” (p. 294). The generalizations of

skills discovered from this study are monumental in achieving academic success for students

especially those with exceptionalities. Interventions and rewards are constantly used in school

settings and the ability to remove these and have the students continue to demonstrate the same

skills will positively impact their educational success. In addition, this allows students to

generalize these skills among various settings. The transfer of knowledge from environment to

environment will greatly influence their ability to lead positive adult lives.

Conclusion

Educators are continually researching effective ways to increase student performance and

modify behavior. Information collected in this paper demonstrates positive outcomes to

implementing interventions that focus on rewards. Understanding the ways in which students

learn can guide a teacher in their methods. The token economy system is not a new strategy, but

it is a powerful one. It is plain to see that the success of this type of intervention is backed by a

35

wealth of data and research. The principles that token reward systems are created upon align with

the fundamental ideas of human nature. This idea being that individuals are more likely to

perform certain tasks when properly motivated.

The examination of motivation in individuals with special needs is an interesting one. It

does give some barriers to the educational process but does not make it impossible. As much as it

would be great for every individual to be motivated by their own feelings of self-worth, it is

obvious that this is not always the case. Providing external means for motivation has been just as

effective in bringing students with special needs behavioral and academic achievement. In the

end the development and learning of new skills is the goal of education.

Token economy systems have proven they are an evidence-based strategy and can have

endless benefits. This type of reward system is extremely flexible allowing its use for a variety of

individuals and settings. It is easy to learn for the professional is relatively quick to develop. It

requires test subject knowledge by the administrator which correlates to the benefit that teacher

and student relationships have an advantage on student engagement and achievement. The

general process of using reward schedules, tokens, and reinforcers is the only aspect that must

remain the same. Type of reward, token, and reinforcement can be tailored to meet the needs of

the individual or group of individuals. Implementing token reward systems has allowed for

students to gain knowledge and skills necessary and eventually be able to perform these tasks in

the absence of rewards. Finding an intervention process that continues to benefit individuals as

they generalize skills in other settings is significant. After all, in education, the acquisition of

skills is what benefits the students after school and allows them to be contributing members of

society.

Action Research Plan

36

Background Information and Purpose of the Action Research Project

Token economy systems have been a widely utilized research-based intervention that has

shown success across various populations since the early 19th century (Ivy et al., 2017; Maggin et

al., 2011). This type of intervention is reinforcement based and can be tailored to fit the needs of

each participant. Token economy systems use reinforcements, or rewards, to increase motivation

to change an individual’s behavior. When reinforcements are used in an educational setting, they

can help to increase the engagement of students which can result in higher achievement.

Reinforcements have also helped students with exceptionalities make progress on their Individual

Education Plan (IEP) goals (Diamond et al., 2016).

This research aims to focus on using this intervention in an elementary special needs

classroom to determine its effectiveness on student academics and behavior. Research has also

suggested that students with exceptionalities, and those with the most significant needs, lack

motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, in school (Carter et al., 2013; Daniel & Cooc, 2018;

Elliott & Dillenburger, 2016; O’Brien, 2018). Without intrinsic motivation, it is difficult to

perform tasks for one’s own feeling of satisfaction. This notion has research explaining that

turning to extrinsic, or external, means of motivation may be more helpful when attempting to

motivate students to do well in school. In fact, research by Frielink et al. (2017) found that using

extrinsic motivation in schools, particularly with special needs populations, was effective for

student achievement.

The purpose of this study was to discover new ways to motivate students and promote

success. The students in this study range from having mild to moderate special needs to severe to

profound needs. The researcher has a working relationship with the students and has noticed a

lack of motivation within the classroom and low rates of progress. The students in this study are

37

some of the most underachieving students within the school and have the most needs. Due to the

curriculum which is too advanced for their cognitive abilities, these students are placed in

separate classroom where they spend most of their day receiving individualized support for

academics and functional skills. They are typically placed in separate settings due their struggle

to learn from their grade level general education curriculum which is too advanced for their

cognitive abilities.

The students in this study also range significantly in their abilities and are serviced from

the same classroom and teacher. Working with such a diverse population makes finding ways to

reach the needs of all students even more difficult. Token economy systems have proven to be

successful with numerous populations including students’ special needs, are highly customizable

for the individual, and use reinforcement as an effective means of motivation (Ivy et al., 2017).

Ideally this study would prove effective for the participating students and create a more successful

learning environment for them to achieve in school.

Research Question of the Action Research Project

1. During a thirty-minute small group instructional lesson, what impact do token economy

systems have on the on-task behavior of elementary students with special needs?

2. What effect do token economy systems have on reading and math scores of elementary

students with special needs when paired with one to one support?

Hypothesis

Upon the implementation of token economy systems, students with special needs will

improve their skills in mathematics and reading. In addition, they will also improve their time on

task and attention during small group activities.

38

Definition of Terms

On task behavior. For the purpose of this research, on task behavior will be defined as

student engaging in the lesson. This will include eye contact to the lesson or teacher, when

appropriate. In addition, the student will be following the directions of the teacher, whether that

be listening to the teacher or completing the work given to the student.

Paraprofessional. Non-licensed school staff member who works directly with students to

provide support given instruction and training from the special education teacher.

Individualized Education Plan (IEP). An IEP is a legal document created for all

students who qualify for special services. One piece of an IEP is annual measurable goals and

objectives that will facilitate growth in their education (Minnesota Department of Education,

2018).

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Minnesota Department of Education (2018) says

that “ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects how an individual process information

and interprets the world. Individuals may demonstrate deficits in social interaction and

communication and restricted, repetitive or stereotyped patterns of behavior, interest, or

activities” (para. 1)

Developmental Cognitive Delay-Mild/Moderate (DCD-M/M). DCD-M/M is a

Minnesota disability category that includes students who have an IQ that is two standard

deviations below the mean and accompanied with deficits in adaptive behavior (Minnesota

Department of Education, 2018).

Developmental Cognitive Disability-Severe/Profound (DCD-S/P). DCD-S/P is a

Minnesota disability category that includes students who have an IQ that is three standard

39

deviations below the mean and accompanied with deficits in adaptive behavior (Minnesota

Department of Education, 2018).

Severely Multiply Impaired (SMI). SMI is a Minnesota disability category that includes

students who qualify under for two of the following categories: deaf or hard of hearing, physically

impaired, developmental cognitive disability (severe/profound), visually impaired, emotional or

behavior disorders and autism spectrum disorders (Minnesota Department of Education, 2018).

In the instance of this study, this student qualifies under the categories of DCD-S/P and ASD.

Research Design

This was a quantitative research study examining the effectiveness of token economy

systems on student progress academically and behaviorally. Quantitative data was collected as a

baseline and then on a weekly basis for academic achievement and three times per week for on

task behavior. For academic achievement students were assessed on their reading and math

scores. Students have an opportunity during the day where they are paired with an adult for one

to one support to work on their IEP goals. The one to one support can be ideal as they get

focused attention and can work on their own academic goals. As mentioned previously, the needs

of the students vary as do their academic goals. During the whole group lesson, there was less

adult support and students may be working on integrated academic skills, but the focus was on

their on-task behavior. At this time period, students were assessed observationally in five-minute

intervals on their on-task behavior. In addition, notes were taken by the researcher on various

other observations seen throughout the study that may be relate to its results.

Sample

This study included six elementary students with special needs. The researcher is also the

students’ Case Manager and Special Education Teacher. The researcher holds a preexisting

40

relationship with all participants. This relationship ranges from three months to five school years.

During the academic assessment, data from four of the students was analyzed. During the on-task

behavior assessment, data from five of the students is analyzed. Each of these students qualifies

under Minnesota criteria to meet qualifications for special services in either the category of ASD,

DCD-M/M, DCD-S/P, or SMI. This intervention was administered in the Federal Setting III

classroom (students requiring 60% or more of special services) or referred to at this school as the

DCD classroom.

Student 1 is a first-grade African American male who has ASD. He is part of both studies,

academic and on task behavior. According to his IEP, his academic goals include matching

letters and numbers. Information to note is that this is the student’s first school experience and

first few months of living within the United States. He moved from Africa in the summer of

2018. He is a nonverbal communicator and has significant needs that require adult support

throughout his whole day to ensure his safety. Due to his mode of communication, he relies on

visuals or selection to display his knowledge. For instance, when matching letters and numbers,

he is given two choices and asked to pick the correct one. He can easily become overwhelmed by

numerous task demands and requires breaks throughout work sessions. He has sensory needs

which also require breaks to stimulate and calm his body including activities like swinging,

jumping, and playing with Kinetic sand.

Student 1 is very active and will run around the classroom, leave the classroom, and/or

climb on furniture if given the freedom. For work tasks, like group activities or academics, he is

seated in a wooden chair that has a locking tray. He is more focused when he does not have

ability to get up and leave an activity. If seated at a regular chair, he will begin to climb on the

chair, fall out of it, or get up and run away. If Student 1 needs assistance with focusing, allowing

41

him to play with PlayDoh or have a chewy (sensory tool that can bitten and placed in a student’s

mouth) give him extra support. He will engage in these activities with minimal disruption and

can do so while looking at the teacher.

Student 2 is a third grade Caucasian female who has DCD-S/P. She is part of both studies,

academic and on task behavior. According to her IEP, her academic goals include sight word

recognition and completing patterns. She also has fine motor and communication delays that

affect her ability to display her knowledge. She uses means of selection and matching to show

her answers. She can read sight words but due to language delays, it takes a familiar adult to

understand what she has read. She can be stubborn at times which affects her ability to remain on

task and continue her work. However, working one on one is motivating for her as she enjoys the

individualized attention. This student was absent an entire week which makes it difficult to track

her progress during this week. Figure 5 will show a break in data to demonstrate this absence.

Student 2 can become very stubborn and refuse to follow directions or complete work.

When this happens, it can take several prompts to get her attention and follow directions.

Bargaining or rewards are typically used when this happens. Highly motivating activities for her

include the iPad, food, or walks in the hallway. Due her to her desire for adult attention, giving

her a direction one time and then ignoring negative behavior is often successful. After several

minutes of not gaining attention, she will begin or return to the task.

Student 3 is a fifth grade Caucasian female who has SMI. She is also part of both studies,

academic and on task behavior. According to her IEP, her academic goals include sight word

recognition and ordering numbers 0-20. She is a nonverbal learner that uses visuals, selection,

and a personal communication device to communicate her needs and abilities. Her

communication device is an iPad set up with a voice-output application that is specialized for

42

communication. She needs consistent supervision to ensure her safety but has become much

more independent each school year. She also requires breaks during extended work times to meet

her sensory needs. She can become overwhelmed by noise and movement in the environment and

will engage in tasks that help her calm down like swinging, going for a walk, or listening to quiet

music. Through years of working with this student, the researcher knows that this student can

voluntarily get upset enough to the point where she requires time to calm down which in turn

allows her time away from completing work.

Student 3 is highly motivated by food and activities like the trampoline and swing. She

also enjoys adult attention if it is on her terms and there are no task demands. She also enjoys

being read to specifically when the books rhyme. She will request, by handing the adult the book,

to be read to. Once the story is done, she will gesture it back to the adult to read again. She

engages in this type of communication throughout her day. She will move adults towards objects

or bring items to them. She mostly engages in nonverbal types of communication to get her needs

met.

Student 4 is a first-grade African American male who has DCD-S/P. He is part of the

academic study only and his IEP goals include identifying letter sounds and ordering numbers 0-

10. He does have medical needs which keeps him for school often. Overall, he is a very timid

boy who does what he is supposed to do and follows requests of the teacher easily. He can work

for extended periods of time without needing breaks and does so happily. At times, he may

imitate other behaviors or repeat their answers. In group settings, this can make it difficult to

know what information is coming from his knowledge and what he heard from someone else.

Working one on one with an adult helps clarify his abilities.

43

Student 4 enjoys participating in most activities but performs best when they are of

interest to him. He likes activities like Legos, the toy kitchen, PlayDoh, and coloring. When

given options, these are typically his choices. He typically starts his day off rather quiet and then

begins to interact more socially as the day progresses. Due to his medical needs, he receives a lot

of assistance at home. At school he asks for help before he tries something on his own. He is

typically able to perform the tasks and is prompted to try it on his own first.

Student 5 is a fifth-grade Hispanic male who has DCD-M/M. He is part of the on-task

behavior study only. During group times, he will lay his head on the table and look away from

the instructor. He is highly motivated by animals and knows a great deal about them. If the topic

is of interest to him, he will participate more. He is often not paying attention and will not know

he was asked a question in group settings. He can be shy in groups but will perk up and talk

much more when he is engaged.

During group activities, Student 5 will lay his head on the table and gaze away from the

teacher. When prompted he will raise his head and look at the teacher, but this does not last long

before he needs another prompt to pay attention. He is often tired at school and his parents have

been reported that he wakes up in the middle of the night and will play in his room. Before

attempting a new task, his first response is typically “I can’t” or “I hate that.” Finding ways to

motivate him can be difficult because in the past when something does work the effect can wear

off quickly and a new tool needs to be used.

Student 6 is a third-grade African American male who has DCD-M/M and is of low

socioeconomic status. Student 6 is part of the on-task behavior study only. He has a twin sister

who has been identified with the same exceptionality but is part of a different class. He has

transferred schools several times throughout his educational experience. He can get distracted in

44

groups by watching other students. He also tends to laugh when not appropriate and get other

students to join in with him. Student 6 often does not understand when he has done something

wrong or how to fix it. If a teacher asks him to stop laughing, he sometimes does not even realize

he is doing it. Regardless, he does understand much of what is being taught, when at his

cognitive level, and can answer questions accurately when thought by his teacher that he is not

paying attention.

Student 6 is a great classroom helper and is always willing to do any job around the

classroom or help a classmate. When it is something he wants to do, he will follow directions

from the teacher very well. He is very motivated by food and physical activities like the swing

and trampoline. He likes to have independence in the classroom and is motivated by gaining trust

to go places within the school by himself. For instance, using the water fountain, delivering

something to another teacher, and going to the office.

Instrumentation

Baseline data was completed prior to implementation on the students’ academic

proficiency in math and reading. The students have different individualized IEP goals and each

student was assessed on their progress towards their academic goals. Baseline data was also

conducted during a small group instructional lesson on the student’s ability to remain attentive

and their time on task. This on task behavior data was taken in an observational format that

looked at the student’s behavior in five-minute intervals for a thirty-minute lesson.

Students in this study and the researcher have an ongoing relationship. The researcher

used knowledge of the students to determine motivating rewards. These rewards are visually

based and attached to a felt clipboard with Velcro for the students to choose prior to the academic

or small group lessons (see Appendix A). The rewards were then attached to a token board

45

consisting of five open spaces and one with the visual “all done” where the reward is attached

(see Appendix B). Throughout the lessons, the students are given stars with Velcro for good

behavior, correct answers, etc. and can place them on an open space on their token board (see

Appendix C). When the board is filled with five stars, the student can receive their chosen

reward.

Procedures

To begin, the administrator created the token boards, as described above, on a online

visual creation website called BoardMaker. The administrator also used visuals from this site for

the rewards or Google images for more specific ones (e.g. Ruffles chips, GoNoodle, YouTube).

In addition, the stars were also created using this website BoardMaker.

An introductory lesson was conducted prior to implementation to ensure student

understanding of the upcoming intervention and process. Also, the paraprofessionals who would

be helping in this intervention process were present for the introductory lesson so that they would

understand the process as well. Later in the day, without students present, the researcher also let

the paraprofessionals ask questions and gave any clarification requested to ensure that they

understood the intervention. Baseline data was also conducted of students’ academic

performance on their math and reading goals as well as their on-task behavior during a whole

group lesson.

Prior to beginning either the academic lesson or whole group lesson, the students were

given their token board and shown the clipboard which has the rewards presented on it attached

by Velcro. Some rewards are duplicated, and some are not depending on availability. For

instance, there is only one classroom swing, so this reward is only available once. However, it is

possible for two students to choose Ruffles chips. In the introductory lesson, the students were

46

informed if they chose a reward that is only available for one student, the next day they would

have to choose something else so that all students have a chance to get a reward they want. When

the researcher would provide the reward options to the students, she would present them to the

students in a different order than the previous days.

Students were told they need to put their reward on the “finished” sign and keep the board

set in front of them during the lesson. During the academic lesson with one to one support, each

paraprofessional who was working with a student was provided with five stars to give to the

students. During the whole group lesson, the teacher was in front of the class giving the lesson

and had the stars to pass out herself. However, there were a few students who required more

support and had a paraprofessional seated next to them. These paraprofessionals were given five

stars each to give to the students. This also helped so that the teacher did not have to spend extra

time giving stars to the whole group which would take away from the lesson.

Validity and Reliability

All data collection methods were consistent throughout the experimentation. The

academic data was collected on a weekly basis that included current IEP goals and objectives

relating to math and reading. The researcher used collection methods that were tailored to each

participants’ goals. This was also the same collection method used to report the progress made on

each student’s IEP. The on-task data collection method was also consistent throughout the

intervention. Data during the on-task behavior was also documented by the researcher. There

were times when academic progress data was collected by a paraprofessional for ease, but the

collection process remained consistent.

There is a possibility that during the academic data collection results may not be

considered completely reliable. This could have happened if the researcher or paraprofessional

47

gave too much support to a student which caused him or her to get a correct answer or the adult to

inaccurately record the data. Instructions prior to data collect did mention providing less support

and recording even incorrect answers but because of having a relationship with the students, there

may have been more support given even unknowingly. In addition, due to language delays in can

be difficult to always be certain the student said the correct answer, but due to relationships, the

recorder may have thought they understood the student accurately. There were also times during

data collection when students were showing behaviors that inhibited their ability to accurately

display their knowledge. This may have caused them to completely abandon the assignment and

were unable to complete it.

Assumptions and Limitations

This study’s limitations include sample size, length of study, school exposure, and

understanding of intervention process and purpose. The researcher was hoping to find that a

research-based reward intervention would improve the academic performance and on task

behavior of students with mild to moderate and severe to profound special needs. In addition, this

type of intervention would prove effective across a wide range of exceptionalities and be

considered a consistent intervention to use within a cross-categorical classroom.

There were initially ten students who were asked to participate in this study; however,

only six students returned consent forms. There were student absences during the study that may

have affected results. In addition, the researcher was also absent one day, so it is difficult to know

whether the study was conducted in the same manner on this day. This study was only

implemented over a six-week period which may also impact results. There was also a holiday

during this time period and students had only a two-day school week. Academic progress was still

48

collected but due to the shortened week the students had less exposure to academics this week. In

addition, on task behavior was only collected twice this week instead of three times.

Due to the range of exceptionalities, it is difficult to know which students fully understood

the intervention process and the meaning behind it. This will be discussed later in the paper. As

described earlier, students involved have a prior relationship with the researcher which could

create barriers during data collection and assessment measures. Prior to the study, all students

have had some exposure to reward-based interventions; however, none of the interventions had

been implemented with research-based methods. This is the first reward-based intervention that

was conducted to fidelity and with consistency. New processes take time within the classroom,

and from what the researcher knows from prior experience, it may take even longer with a

classroom of students of these needs.

Cultural Competence/Bias

A total of six students participated in this study. All the participants qualify to receive

special services under state criterion. The exceptionalities they qualify under has them receiving

these services mostly in a separate special education classroom with a licensed special educator,

who is also the researcher, and two to four paraprofessionals at a time. Two of the participants

identify as White, one participant identifies as Hispanic, and three identify as African American.

All students speak and understand English, but English is not the primary language spoken in the

homes of three of the students.

As stated previously, the researcher has a prior relationship with all participating students

for one to five years except Student 1, who is new this school year. Students are serviced in this

classroom from Kindergarten until they go to middle school, which is sixth grade. Unless

students move in or do not qualify special services until later, they have the potential to be with

49

this teacher for up to six years. It is the teacher’s job to understand the student’s strengths and

needs and how to help them reach their goals year after year. In addition, a major goal is for the

students to develop skills necessary that help them to be included more with their general

education peers. Academic and behavior skills are some of the ways in which these students can

achieve inclusion.

Due to ongoing knowledge and long relationships with the students, the teacher has high

expectations and increased involvement with the students. Long relationships like this may skew

perceptions of student success. After years of working with students who have more significant

needs, understanding how their skills vary from typically developing children can become more

skewed. The teacher works continuously on attempting to remain realistic about student needs

and how to help them achieve success within the school environment.

Ethical Consideration

The researcher was trained in ethics regarding action research and completed the

Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). This process was completed while being

overseen by Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. In addition, an Institutional Review Board

(IRB) application was completed outlining the process of the action research. The IRB also

granted approval to begin the research. Upon permission from the IRB, parental consent was

provided to all students in the study.

Confidentiality of students and data was taken seriously and using the requirements

outlined in CITI. In addition, the students have all remained anonymous and any identifying

information has been omitted from the study. Students will be identified as Student 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

and 6 throughout this research to adhere with confidentiality agreements. Information about

student progress during this intervention has been kept confidential and only used for the

50

purposes on this study and paper. Students were aware of their participation and given access to

their results per their request. Students were also allowed to withdraw from study if they so

wished. Upon completion of the study, the data collection will be securely stored and kept for five

years.

Results

Data was collected for six weeks on student academic and on task behavior success.

Students worked daily for 25-30 minutes paired with an adult for one on one support on their IEP

reading and math goals. Students were given five token stars during this work time for correct

answers and to keep students focused and motivated on the task. Baseline data was collected

prior to the intervention and students were assessed on their progress one time per week during

the intervention using a documentation sheet to keep records (see Appendix D).

During a 25-30-minute whole group lesson, observational data was collected three times

per week on student on task behavior in five-minute intervals. At each five-minute interval, the

researcher would observe the students for eye contact on the lesson or teacher, participation, or

working on the assignment depending on the expectation at this time and document on the

observation form (see Appendix E). When students were on task at these intervals, they were

given a star token.

51

25-Oct 29-Oct 5-Nov 12-Nov 19-Nov 26-Nov 3-Dec0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Reading Goal Math Goal

Date

Prog

ress

%

Figure 1. Student 1-Academic progress

25-Oct

29-Oct

30-Oct

1-Nov

5-Nov

6-Nov

8-Nov

12-Nov

13-Nov

15-Nov

19-Nov

20-Nov

26-Nov

27-Nov

29-Nov

3-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Date

% o

n ta

sk

Figure 2. Student 1-On task behavior

52

Student 1 was present for each school day during the six-week intervention process. He is

a first grader who has been identified as ASD. He also recently moved to the United States from

Africa this summer. Given the lack of school exposure of this student and his level of need, it is

difficult to determine exactly how much understanding he had of the intervention process. Figure

1 shows that academic progress was made during the intervention process in both reading and

math skills. It can be noticed that this student also had plateaus in his progress. Student 1

demonstrated an increase in reading skills of 10% and increase of 5% for math skills. This student

struggles with attention and remaining on task for long periods of times. Even ten minutes spent

on one topic can be difficult. At times, this affected his ability to finish the academic assignment

or assessment. When tasks became too difficult for Student 1, or he reached his work threshold,

he would often display behaviors like spitting, pulling hair, and/or throwing materials causing

disruption to the data collection process. Student 1 sits in a chair with a locking tray to eliminate

the ease of leaving the task. When upset, he can begin to rock forcefully in the chair and for

safety reasons, needs to be let out of the chair. When not in the chair, he has more difficulty

attending to tasks and results in total abandonment of the task.

During on task observations, Figure 2 shows an overall growth of 40% for on task

behavior. This student also sits in the chair with locking tray for this lesson. When comparing

the two figures, the student had more success during the on-task behavior intervention for a total

increase of 40%. During these lessons, the SmartBoard was utilized which seemed to hold his

gaze more frequently than academic work at his chair. Student 1 had various dips and rises in on-

task behavior which depended on the day. As discussed earlier, if he became disinterested, he

would display behaviors and some of which would result in abandonment of the activity. During

these lessons, he was much more on-task during the beginning and would then be unable to

53

participate for the rest of the lesson. Student 1 also had just returned from a physical education

class prior to this lesson. His increased attention and calm demeanor could be as a result of being

more physically tired and having his level of activity needs met.

In the beginning of the intervention process, Student 1 would attempt to grab all the

rewards off the clipboard while laughing. This led the researcher to question his understanding of

the intervention. He was prompted to pick just one but had difficulty with this direction. The

researcher then had to give him two options of things she knew he liked, he would touch one and

she would add it to his board. During week three of research, when given the clipboard of reward

options, Student 1 looked for a few seconds, grabbed the “Ruffles”, a food that he loves, and

independently placed it on the “finished” sign on his board. This demonstrates another success of

the study in that he began to understand the process of the intervention. He continued to

demonstrate this ability for the remainder of the study.

25-Oct 29-Oct 5-Nov 12-Nov 19-Nov 26-Nov 3-Dec0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Reading % Math %

Date

Pro

gres

s %

Figure 3. Student 2-Academic progress

54

25-Oct

29-Oct

30-Oct

1-Nov

5-Nov

6-Nov

8-Nov

12-Nov

13-Nov

15-Nov

19-Nov

20-Nov

26-Nov

27-Nov

29-Nov

3-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Date

% o

n ta

sk

Figure 4. Student 2-On task behavior

Student 2 is a Caucasian third-grade female who has been identified as DCD-S/P. She had

two absences that lead to the gap in data points on academic progress (see Figure 3) and on-task

behavior (see Figure 4). However, she was absent on the two-day school week which led up to

the holiday break resulting in a full week before returning to school. Upon returning to school,

Figure 3 shows a slight decline in academic success and then a rise the next week to where she

was performing before her absences from school. Overall, academic progress and on task

behavior increased through the course of this research. Student 2 performs much better when she

has one on one attention from an adult. This can be seen in a comparison of Figure 3 and Figure

4. Her academic performance increased steadily, except for the break which required some

relearning, for an overall progress of 15% in reading and 10% in math. Her on-task performance

had overall increase of 60% but did so at different rates. On the last day of the study, she was

showing on task behavior at a rate of 100%.

55

During group activities, Student 2 begins to worry about the other students, tells them

what to do, or repeats the teacher’s questions to other students. This can cause distraction to the

student or group. She can also get distracted by things in the room during lessons and get up to

go fix them (i.e. a book on the floor, open cupboard door, etc.). Most times, she will return to the

group but there are times that once she leaves, her attention is lost, and she will not participate.

She also used bathroom breaks to escape during group lessons. These behaviors vary based upon

the day and sometimes more present than others. Most often this is related to sleep issues in the

night.

25-Oct 29-Oct 5-Nov 12-Nov 19-Nov 26-Nov 3-Dec0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reading % Math %

Date

Prog

ress

(%

)

Figure 5. Student 3-Academic progress

56

25-Oct

29-Oct

30-Oct

1-Nov

5-Nov

6-Nov

8-Nov

12-Nov

13-Nov

15-Nov

19-Nov

20-Nov

26-Nov

27-Nov

29-Nov

3-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Date

% o

n ta

sk

Figure 6. Student 3-On task behavior

Student 3 is a Caucasian fifth-grade female identified as SMI. She was present each day

of the study and demonstrated overall progress in her academic (see Figure 5) and on task

behavior (Figure 6). She prefers group activities over one on one academic work. Student 3

struggles most with fine motor skills and is nonverbal which means her academic tasks utilize

matching and sorting. She is a fifth grader and has grown sick of these hands-on tasks, but due to

her unique skills it is difficult to find new ways for her to show her knowledge. Her academic

growth in both reading and math was 15%. She prefers to listen to the teacher and does so

nicely. The researcher has a five-year relationship with this student and has an assumption that

she knows much more than she can display which may give reason to her frustrations around

hands on academic skills and increased interest in whole group lessons. Overall, she had an

increase of 60% in on task behavior during this intervention.

57

As described earlier, during academic lessons, Student 3 can get physically upset (i.e.

hitting herself, spitting, screaming, etc.) in order to avoid the lesson. When she can sit and listen

to the teacher, this happens less often. Towards the end of group lessons there was always a small

task to assess learning but the demand of this was much smaller and more tolerable for her. Due

to the severity of this students’ exceptionality, the researcher was unsure how much she would

understand of the intervention process. However, she quickly learned how to receive rewards and

picked ones she liked.

At the end of week 2 in the intervention, during an academic lesson, the researcher was

working with student 3. After every correct answer she would look at the star tokens to see if

they would be added her board. At one point, after a correct answer, the student grabbed a token

herself and added it to her board. There was one day that she was spitting at the paraeducator to

get out of academic tasks. She ended up not being able to calm down to turn to her task. When

told she wasn’t going to get her “Skittles” she became physically upset, hitting herself and

screaming. Like with Student 1, this demonstrated that there was an understanding of the

intervention process.

25-Oct 29-Oct 5-Nov 12-Nov 19-Nov 26-Nov 3-Dec0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Student 4- Academic Progress

Reading % Math %

Date

Prog

ress

(%

)

58

Figure 7. Student 4-Academic progress

Student 4 is a first-grade African American male who is identified as DCD-S/P. He was

absent for five days of the study but not consecutive days. He participated in the academic study

only which is depicted in Figure 7. This student had several absences but was never gone for a

full week of school. Student 4 is a rule follower and pleaser by nature. He does not typically

engage in behaviors that get him off task but will struggle to remain attentive when things are

difficult for him. He was very motivated by the rewards and it was noticed that he used more

language during academic work times. Student 4 typically responds or speaks in two to three-

word sentences and requires prompting. However, during the intervention, possibly out of

excitement, used full sentences like “I want Legos as my reward” or “I am going to work for the

swing today.” He also had an increased number of full sentences using spontaneous language

during work times.

Student 4 had the greatest increase in his math skills. He began the intervention at being

able to order numbers 1-10 with 50% accuracy and by the end of the study, was able to do this

with 100% accuracy. Compared with the other students in the study, this is the greatest amount of

growth made within the six weeks for academic success.

59

25-Oct

29-Oct

30-Oct

1-Nov

5-Nov

6-Nov

8-Nov

12-Nov

13-Nov

15-Nov

19-Nov

20-Nov

26-Nov

27-Nov

29-Nov

3-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Student 5- On Task Behavior

Date

On

Tas

k %

Figure 8. Student 5-On task behavior

Student 5 is a fifth-grade Hispanic male identified as DCD-M/M. He was present each

day of the study and participated in the on-task behavior study only and had daily attendance.

Overall, Figure 8 shows that Student 5 had an increase of 40% in on task behavior throughout this

study. Student 5 has difficulty remaining engaged during school activities. If the subject is not of

interest to him, as in not relating to animals, he will rest his head on the table, gaze off into the

classroom, and not respond when spoken to or asked a question. The researcher also has a five-

year relationship with this student and this has been a continued behavior and has been difficult to

extinguish. Parents have also stated over the years that they consider their son “lazy.” Student 5

also found the token reward system highly motivating and would ask about it the moment he sat

down for group. He also began asking to do token system during other parts of the school day.

As seen in Figure 8, Student 5 did have fluctuation in his ability to display on task

behavior. In particular, the teacher would use explicit language with this student to increase

appropriate behavior by saying “thank you for keeping your head off the table” and immediately

give a token. Student 5 quickly learned this correlation and the teacher noticed that he kept his

60

head upright more frequently after this. However, on a new day, he would need reminders to

keep his head up again. This reinforcement did not show to sustain effect day after day but rather

as the intervention progressed.

25-Oct

29-Oct

30-Oct

1-Nov

5-Nov

6-Nov

8-Nov

12-Nov

13-Nov

15-Nov

19-Nov

20-Nov

26-Nov

27-Nov

29-Nov

3-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Date

On

Tas

k %

Figure 9. Student 6-On task behavior

Student 6 is a third-grade African American male who is identified as DCD-M/M. He was

present for each day of the study and participated in the on-task behavior study only and had daily

attendance. Overall, Student 6 had an increase of 40% in on task behavior throughout this study.

As seen in Figure 9, there are some increases and decreases in his daily behavior during this time

period. Depending on the day, Student 6 can become overly distracted by other students in the

room, watching and staring at them. During group lessons, Student 6 would laugh at

inappropriate times or blurt out. His behaviors were mimicked by other students and it would

take the teacher several prompts to get the class back on track. At times, some of the other

students on task behavior was hindered by his behavior. Overall, with the growth seen in Student

6 leading to 100% on task behavior, these negative behaviors decreased during the study and he

61

was more successfully able to participate and remain on task for the for entire lesson for multiple

days.

When analyzing data between all students, it is evident to notice that they all benefited

from the use of token economy systems. Each student made progress on their academic and/or on

task behavior goals. Student 4 had the most growth during the academic assessment. Student 4

had several absences but is the student with the most focus and naturally compliant behavior.

During the on-task behavior assessment, Student 3 had the most growth. This growth is very

positive especially when thinking that this student has the very significant and severe special

needs. She is identified with SMI meaning she fits into two disability categories. Through this

analysis, token economy systems have been effective across multiple disability categories and

varying ability levels.

Interpretation of Results

The goal of this study was to determine if a reward-based intervention like token economy

systems would positively impact the academic performance and on-task behavior of elementary

students with special needs. Research has suggested that individuals with special needs lack

intrinsic motivation (Carter et al., 2013; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; Diamond et al., 2016; Elliott &

Dillenburger, 2016). Token economy systems use extrinsic motivation, like rewards, to motivate

students. Research by Frielink et al. (2017) and Nelson (2010) found this type of motivation to be

extremely beneficial when working with students with special needs.

Results from this study indicate that all participating students improved their academic

skills and on-task behavior when using token economy systems. Even though all students have

special needs and receive skill instruction from the same classroom, each participant is unique

from the next in age, skill, racial identity, and gender. It should also be noted that the type of

62

setting in which the intervention occurred varied as well. During academic sessions, students

were paired with an adult and received one on one instruction. When looking at on-task behavior,

students were part of a whole group lesson with up to eight students and three adults present. Ivy

et al. (2017) and Maggin et al. (2011) both described that the token economy’s flexibility among

various populations and settings give reason to its success.

25-Oct 12-Nov 3-Dec0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4

Date

Prog

ress

(%

)

Figure 10. Reading growth

As Figure 10 shows, all students made progress in their individual reading goals. During

some weeks, progress was more noticeable, but overall each participant gained reading

knowledge within the six-week intervention. Student 1 had an increase of 10%, Student 2 made a

total progress of 15%, Student 3 increased her reading skills by 15%, and Student 4 made the

most significant progress with a total of 30%. Students 2 and 3 made progress from weeks one to

three and then maintained their learned skills until the end of the intervention. Students 1 and 4

continued to make growth throughout the study.

63

25-Oct 12-Nov 3-Dec0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4

Date

Pro

gres

s (%

)

Figure 11. Math growth

As Figure 11 shows, all students made progress on their individual math goals. Student 1

made a total progress of 5%, Student 2 increased her math skills by 10%, Student 3 had an

increase of 15%, and Student 4, again, made the most significant progress of 50% and

demonstrating 100% accuracy on his math skills. Students 1 and 2 made progress from weeks

one to three and then maintained their learned skills until the end of the intervention. In Figure

10, Student 2 also had this same trend. Students 3 and 4 continued to make growth throughout

the study. Figure 10 also shows this trend for Student 4. Throughout the academic intervention,

Student 4 showed the most drastic progress.

64

25-Oct 12-Nov 3-Dec0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

On Task Behavior Growth

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 5 Student 6

Date

Wee

kly

Ave

rage

%

Figure 12. On task behavior growth

Figure 12 shows the overall growth of students’ on-task behavior. It is interesting to note,

that in the students’ individual graphs for on task behavior, their time spent on-task would vary

from day to day. However, when looked as a weekly average, it still shows continued growth

throughout. Student 1 had growth of 33%, Student 2 had growth of 40%, Student 3 increased her

time on task by 53%, Student 5 had an increase of 33%, and Student 6 had growth of 40% for a

final average of 100% on task behavior by week six.

Growth and success of token economy systems was not limited to just one exceptionality,

age, gender, or racial identity. It is evident from the participants in this study that students of

varying grade levels including first, third, and fifth all made growth in their academic and

behavior skills during this study. In addition, there was growth among all disability categories,

ASD, DCD-S/P, DCD-M/M, and SMI. Students of varying racial backgrounds, Caucasian,

Hispanic, and African American were also included in this study and all demonstrated growth.

65

This study also shows that communication styles do not matter for success when using token

economy systems.

There was not a control group in this study to determine what progress would look like

without the implementation of a token economy system. However, the researcher was impressed

with the student’s growth in skill during the study. Even when students were working on

academics with one on one adult, it was noticeable that the students were more engaged than

typically seen. As mentioned previously, the researcher has a prior relationship with these

students and has seen them work on academics without the use of this intervention. The reward-

based intervention was motivating for the students and provided them with an extra incentive to

stay on task during academic activities.

Overall, it is plausible to question whether the token economy system improved academic

knowledge or rather gave the students motivation to remain on task so that they could develop

more academic skill. Students 1, 2, 3 and 4 all made academic growth almost every week. In

past years the researcher has not conducted weekly progress monitoring for academic skills

because it was not uncommon for these students to maintain skills from one week to the next

meaning it took multiple weeks to notice academic progress. During this study, stagnant progress

has happened which can be seen in Figures 1, 3, 5 and 7, but it was accompanied shortly by

growth.

During the on-task behavior group, stagnant or decline of growth from one day to the next

was more apparent. Figures 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 show this data. There could be a variety of reasons

for this. Two days a week the lesson was about Science while the third day was centered around

current events. Students had fluctuating interest depending on the topic and activity. Some

lessons involved more videos, while others involved more verbal teaching and more emphasis on

66

listening. At times, these lessons were accompanied by hands on activities like art projects or

cooking. When students were engaged by videos on the Smartboard, art projects, and/or cooking

lessons, the on-task behavior increased. When lessons involved verbal teaching and paper and

pencil tasks, students were more easily distracted and had more difficult remaining on task.

Nonetheless, on the last week of data collection, all lessons happened to involve more verbal

teaching and paper and pencil tasks and that is the week that had the most on-task behavior

among all participants.

Conclusion

Through the implementation of a token economy system and given the data collected from

this study, this intervention has shown to increase academic performance and on task behavior of

students with exceptionalities. Progress made by each student varied and it can be presumed will

continue to look different from person to person in the future. As research had stated, token

economy systems are successful for many populations of people. Findings in this study prove this

fact and it can be concluded that this was successful for these elementary students with special

needs. The administrator notes that this intervention was relatively simple to implement and to

follow through with. In addition, it was easy to teach to other adults who were working with the

students. The administrator also notes that students appeared to understand it relatively quickly

regardless of cognitive level. Overall, implementation of token economy systems was an

effective intervention to use with the students included in this study.

Impact on Practice, Special Needs Students, Families, and Colleagues

Student motivation can greatly impact educational performance. As research implies,

motivation can be more difficult for students with special needs. When internal motivation is

lacking, educators may decide to use external means of motivation to increase student

67

performance. Token economy systems have been a widely used and research-based intervention

strategy for academic and behavioral success utilizing extrinsic motivation. In addition, token

economy systems have also demonstrated success working with high needs populations like

students with exceptionalities.

The results of this study support the findings of the literature review which conclude that

token economy systems are a successful and valuable intervention to use in educational settings.

This study also supports the effectiveness of use with special needs students. The participants in

this study come from various backgrounds, skills levels, and qualifying disability categories.

Research has suggested that token economy systems can be used with numerous populations,

including those with significant special needs and can also be used across multiple settings. As

seen from the results of this study, these findings hold true.

The action research results demonstrate that implementation of a token economy system

was a successful intervention for improving the participants’ academic skills and on-task

behavior. The students in this study are some of the highest need students within the school due

to cognitive delays. It can be difficult for these students to make the same progress as their

typically-developing peers and find personal satisfaction in their school work. Although it is

unknown if the students found an increased self-worth from their progress, it is evident through

the results that these students made significant progress within the six-week intervention.

Writing my literature review and conducting my action research allowed myself to

understand and implement a new way to increase student educational performance. As an

educator, I am consistently looking for effective ways to increase student performance especially

ways that can be used with a diverse population of students. Due to range of differences in my

student’s abilities, it has been difficult to find something that is easy to implement and can be

68

used for all my students regardless of their skill level. Token economy systems gave me the

opportunity to use one method and see success regardless of student exceptionality.

This study also provided me with the opportunity to educate the paraprofessionals that I

work closely with each day in a new way to motivate and work with students with special needs.

Not only is my job to teach students, I have a responsibility to ensure that the paraprofessionals

successfully work with the students as well. Many times, paraprofessionals enter my classroom

with limited or no experience in special education. They are also often the adults who work the

most closely with the students throughout the day. These factors put the responsibility of training

these adults on my shoulders. Token economy systems were an easy intervention to teach to

adults and one that was simple enough that it was used consistently without the need for my

supervision.

I also meet monthly with other teachers in my like profession in my district. Within this

community of special education teachers, we often share ideas and tips with each other. I was

been able to share my findings, resources, and results from this study with them as well. Most of

the educators I work with are familiar with token economy systems but struggled to implement it

with fidelity as it is intended within the classroom. They also have classrooms like mine which

vary greatly in student ability and exceptionality. The ease of this intervention and success with

all participants has led others to begin to implement this within their classrooms in similar ways.

The success of this study is also important for my students’ families to understand.

Through consistent meetings and conferences with parents, I discuss their child’s progress in

school and strategies that are working within the classroom. For the families involved in this

study they can see that their child is being taught by an educator that has taken the time and effort

to benefit their child’s education. As discussed within the results and interpretation section, token

69

economy systems showed an increase in progress than typically seen prior to implementation.

My hope is that families feel comforted that their child’s teacher is taking measures to increase

their child’s progress in school.

Further Reflection and Continuing Questions about My Action Research Journey

Upon review of my action research I wish that I would have used a control group to

compare results of progress using the token economy system. I can assume, from prior

knowledge, that the progress made is greater than without the presence of the intervention, but I

did not have the data to support my statement. The limited timeframe for this intervention has

also impacted results. I have wondered about the participants’ growth per week if the study were

to continue now that the students have had adequate experience with the token economy system.

Data shows that students of all exceptionality categories, DCD-M/M, DCD-S/P, ASD, and

SMI all demonstrated growth. This makes me wonder that if the study were to continue would

there be more noticeable trends between growth and disability category? With that in mind,

would there be more noticeable trends by age, gender, or racial background? IEP goals are set for

students to attain within one calendar year, if the study continued, would students meet their IEP

goals sooner? Given these questions, extending the study would provide greater results and

information that can lead to further research.

As stated within my literature review, student and teacher relationships are also important

to educational success for students. My students enjoyed the token economy system and the use

of rewards. I specifically created rewards around their interests and tried to ensure that were able

to receive the rewards each time. Students were more frequently verbally praised for their hard

work throughout this intervention. Overall, it was noticed that students responded better to adult

direction and were more motivated to complete their work as required.

70

Educators are consistently attempting to find new ways to motivate students and enhance

educational performance. There are endless opportunities that can assist in providing these skills.

However, through my research, I have discovered that token economy systems is an effective and

easy to implement and use intervention. I like that it can be used in such a unique classroom like

my own which consists of a wide range of students. It was easy to train paraprofessionals about

and something they could utilize independently with a student. Even though data collection

ended, I have continued to use this system in my classroom. I am fortunate that I have found

something so effective for my students so that they can continue to make the progress they are

capable of making.

71

References

Adibsereshki, N., Abkenar, S. J., Ashoori, M., & Mirzamani, M. (2015). The effectiveness of

using reinforcements in the classroom on the academic achievement of students with

intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 19(1), 83-93. doi:

10.1177/1744629514559313 

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher

behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of

anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397–413. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008

Bartlett, S. M., Rapp, J. T., Krueger, T. K., & Henrickson, M. L. (2011). The use of response cost

to treat spitting by a child with Autism. Behavioral Interventions, 26(1), 76–83. doi:

10.1002/bin.322

Becraft, J. L., & Rolider, N. U. (2015). Reinforcer variation in a token economy. Behavioral

Interventions, 30(2), 157-165. doi: 10.1002/bin.1401 

Boyd, B., McDonough, S., & Bodfish, J. (2012). Evidence-based behavioral interventions for

repetitive behaviors in Autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42(6),

1236–1248. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1284-z

Cameron, J., Banko, M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001) Pervasive negative effects of rewards on

intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst 24: 1–44.

72

Carnett, A., Raulston, T., Lang, R., Tostanoski, A., Lee, A., Sigafoos, J., & Machalicek, W.

(2014). Effects of a perseverative interest-based token economy on challenging and on-

task behavior in a child with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377.

doi: 10.1007/s10864-014-9195-7

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Cooney, M., Weir, K., Moss, C. K., & Machalicek, W. (2013). Parent

assessments of self-determination importance and performance for students with Autism

or intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities,

118(1), 16-31. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-118.1.16

Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease

students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.

doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004

Chou, Y.-C., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., & Lee, J. (2017). Comparisons of self-

determination among students with Autism, intellectual disability, and learning

disabilities: A multivariate analysis. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental

Disabilities, 32(2), 124–132. doi: 10.1177/1088357615625059

Coy, J. N. & Kostewicz, D. E. (2018). Noncontingent reinforcement: Enriching the classroom

environment to reduce problem behaviors. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(5), 301–

309. doi: 10.1177/0040059918765460

Daniel, J. R., & Cooc, N. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of academic intrinsic motivation for

students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 101–112. doi:

10.1177/0022466918765276

73

Diamond, G. P., Da Fonte, M. A., & Boesch, M. C. (2015). I am working for [_]__: Successfully

using token reward systems. Journal of the International Association of Special

Education, 16(1), 73–76.

Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Barretto, A. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and

evaluation. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 131-149.

Elliott, C., & Dillenburger, K. (2016). The effect of choice on motivation for young children on

the Autism Spectrum during discrete trail teaching. Journal of Research in Special

Educational Needs, 16(3), 187–198.

Fiske, K. E., Isenhower, R. W., Bamond, M. J., Delmolino, L., Sloman, K. N., & LaRue, R. H.

(2015). Assessing the value of token reinforcement for individuals with Autism. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(2), 448–453. doi: 10.1002/jaba.207

Frielink, N., Schuengel, C., & Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2018). Autonomy support, need satisfaction,

and motivation for support among adults with intellectual disability: Testing a self-

determination theory model. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities, 123(1), 33–49. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-123.1.33

Frielink, N., Schuengel, C., & Embregts, P. (2017). Distinguishing subtypes of extrinsic

motivation among people with mild to borderline intellectual disability. Journal of

Intellectual Disability Research, 61(7), 625–636.

Gilley, C., & Ringdahl, J. E. (2014). The effects of item preference and token reinforcement on

sharing behavior exhibited by children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Research in

Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 1425–1433. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.07.010

Ivy, J. W., Meindl, J. N., Overley, E., & Robson, K. M. (2017). Token economy: A systematic

review of procedural descriptions. Behavior Modification, 41(5), 708-737.

74

Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based

social-emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in translational developmental

research. Child Development, 82, 533–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01560.x

Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis

of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs

on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of

Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680

Lambert, J., Bloom, S., Samaha, A., Dayton, E., & Kunnavatana, S. (2016). Effects of

noncontingent reinforcement on the persistence and resurgence of mild aggression.

Psychological Record, 66(2), 283–289. doi: 10.1007/s40732-016-0170-7

Lee, K., Penrod, B., & Price, J. N. (2017). A comparison of cost and reward procedures with

interdependent group contingencies. Behavior Modification, 41(1), 21–44.

Maciu, A. (2011). Students’ motivation, demotivation and amotivation in second language

learning. Studii Si Cercetari Filologice: Seria Limbi Straine Aplicate, (10),125-128.

Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic

evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with

challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, (5), 529. doi:

10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001

Minnesota Department of Education (2018). Categorical disabilities. Retrieved from

https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/sped/cat/

Moore, T. C., Robinson, C. C., Coleman, M. B., Cihak, D. F., & Park, Y., (2016). Noncontingent

reinforcement to improve classroom behavior of a student with developmental disability.

Behavior Modification, 40(4), 640–657. doi: 10.1177/0145445516629937 

75

Nelson, K. G. (2010). Exploration of classroom participation in the presence of a token economy.

Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 49-56.

Noel, C. R., & Rubow, C. C. (2018). Using noncontingent reinforcement to reduce perseverative

speech and increase engagement during social skills instruction. Education & Treatment

of Children, 41(2), 157–168. doi: 10.1353/etc.2018.0006

Nolan, J. D., & Filter, K. J. (2012). A function-based classroom behavior intervention using non-

contingent reinforcement plus response cost. Education and Treatment of Children, (3),

419.

O’Brien, P., (2018). Self-determination for primary school children: Theory and practice. Reach,

31(2), 155–168.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2011). Inclusion of

students with disabilities in tertiary education and employment. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development.

Payne, R. (2015). Using rewards and sanctions in the classroom: Pupils’ perceptions of their own

responses to current behaviour management strategies. Educational Review, 67(4), 483–

504.

Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (2011). Temporal discounting predicts student responsiveness to

exchange delays in a classroom token system. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, (1),

1.

Rispoli, M., O Reilly, M., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Davis, T., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J.

(2011). Effects of motivating operations on problem and academic behavior in classrooms.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS, (1), 187.

76

Saliga, H. (2017). My teacher, my peers, or myself? A collective case study in regards to

classroom comfort and academic success concerning the taxonomy of motivations within

self-determination theory. The Young Researcher, 1 (1)57-77.

Scheithauer, M., Cariveau, T., Call, N. A., Ormand, H., & Clark, S. (2016). A consecutive case

review of token systems used to reduce socially maintained challenging behavior in

individuals with intellectual and developmental delays. International Journal of

Developmental Disabilities, 62(3), 157–166. doi: 10.1080/20473869.2016.1177925 

Solis, M., El Zein, F., Vaughn, S., McCulley, L. V., & Falcomata, T. S. (2016). Reading

comprehension interventions for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Focus on

Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 284–299.

Sran, S. K., & Borrero, J. C. (2010). Assessing the value of choice in a token system. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, (3), 553.

Thompson, M. J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2011). The use of differential

reinforcement to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of a nine-year-old girl with

Autism. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(1), 183–196.

Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2018). Emotional support, social goals,

and classroom behavior: A multilevel, multisite study. Journal of Educational Psychology,

110(5), 611–627. doi: 10.1037/edu0000239

77

Appendices

Appendix A: Reward Choices

78

Appendix B: Token Economy Board

79

Appendix C: Star Token

80

Appendix D: Academic Progress Collection Record

81

Appendix E: On-task Behavior Collection Record