THE EFFECTS OF GOAL SETTING, CONTINGENT REWARD, ANDINSTRUCTION ON WRITING SKILLS

BLAKE D. HANSEN

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

AND

HOWARD P. WILLS

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

Writing is one of the primary skills that children learn in school. Interventions that addressperformance deficits and skill deficits have been shown to improve aspects of elementary schoolchildren’s writing. This study demonstrates performance-based interventions (goal setting,feedback, and contingent reward) and a skill-based intervention (instruction) on the writingskills of a 10-year-old child. Results indicated that the performance intervention increased thenumber of correctly spelled words, and the combination of performance and instructionalintervention increased the number of complete sentences.Key words: writing fluency, writing accuracy, writing intervention

Written language skills are among the primarycurricular areas for elementary school children.Problems with written language skills can beattributed to either skill or performance deficits.Skill deficits can be improved with interventionssuch as instruction or extra practice. Burns,Ganuza, and London (2009) conducted a briefexperimental analysis that compared modelingand practice interventions for improved letterformation. The modeling intervention was mosteffective during the assessment phase, and thuswas applied to a multiple baseline design acrossthree sets of letters. The modeling interventionincluded repeated practice; cover, copy, andcompare; and an instruction-oriented interven-tion. The intervention improved accuracy acrossall sets of letters, indicating that the instructionalskill-based intervention was effective for the childin the study.

Some children may have the necessary writingskills in their repertoires but do not display themregularly. Performance-based interventions suchas goal setting, feedback, and contingent rein-forcement may be useful in such situations(Calkin, 2003). For example, Duhon et al.(2004) demonstrated that contingent reinforce-ment increased response rates on a writing probewith two children whose writing fluency rates(words correct per minute) were below those oftheir same-age peers. Feedback alone providedlittle improvement over baseline for eitherstudent. However, the students demonstratedlarge fluency gains (95% and 88% increases inwords correct per minute over initial assessmentprobes) during reward use, compared to bothbaseline and an instruction condition.

Sometimes, a combination of skill- andperformance-based interventions is necessary toimprove performance. Ollendick, Matson, Es-veldt-Dawson, and Shapiro (1980) remediatedthe writing skills of two children in a psychiatricfacility by comparing the effects of practice,reinforcement, and a combination of practice andreinforcement on the rate of words spelled

Address correspondence to Blake D. Hansen, Depart-ment of Counseling Psychology and Special Education,Brigham Young University, 340-C MCKB, Provo, Utah84602 (e-mail: blake_hansen@byu.edu).

doi: 10.1002/jaba.92

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014, 47, 171–175 NUMBER 1 (SPRING)

171

correctly. They found that the combination ofpractice and reinforcement produced strongergains and was preferred by the participants overeither of the interventions delivered alone.Given that skill-based and performance-based

interventions can improve writing fluency andspelling, the purpose of the present study was toadd to the available research by evaluating theeffects of these interventions on sentence writing.In addition, the collateral effects of the inter-ventions on writing errors were evaluated.

METHOD

Participant, Setting, and MaterialsThe participant, Jonathan, was a typically

developing 10-year-old boy who attended anurban elementary school in the Midwest. Theschool served approximately 600 children, 97%of whom were economically disadvantaged.Jonathan’s teacher had expressed concern regard-ing his difficulty with writing skills; his perfor-mance on standardized and informal tests hadindicated difficulties in spelling, punctuation,and overall writing performance. To verify thatJonathan’s performance was lower than hisclassmates, a writing probe was conducted withthe entire class. Jonathan’s peers wrote an averageof 37.8 words and Jonathan wrote 22, whichindicated an outcome more than one standarddeviation from his peers. Sessions were conductedin a classroom separate from Jonathan’s typicalclassroom to reduce distractions.Pencils, a timer, and a writing sheet were used.

The writing probe included a “story starter”prompt (i.e., “My best thing I did this summerwas —“) and lines at wide-rule spacing (approxi-mately 9mm).

Dependent Measures and Interobserver AgreementTwo writing skills were the primary measures

targeted for change in this study. Words spelledcorrectly (WSC)was calculated as the total numberof words that were spelled according to standardAmerican English written in a 3-min period

provided for each session. Complete sentences (CS)was the total number of sentences written duringa 3-min period. A sentence was counted ascomplete if it began with a capital letter, includeda subject and a verb, and ended with correctpunctuation (Gansle, Noell, VanDerHeyden,Naquin, & Slider, 2002). Errors were defined aswords written during the 3-min period thatdeviated from standard American English spell-ing. Data were collected by scoring the permanentwritten product from timed writing probes.Interobserver agreement was calculated for50% of all sessions, equally distributed acrossall phases, by having two observers independentlyscore the written products and comparing theirscores. For WSC, an agreement was countedevery time both observers scored the same wordas spelled correctly. Agreement was calculated bydividing the number of agreements by the sum ofagreements and disagreements and was 100%.For CS, an agreement was counted every timeboth observers scored the same sentence ascomplete; agreement was 96% (range, 94% to100%). For errors, an agreement was countedevery time both observers scored the same wordas spelled incorrectly; agreement was 100%.

Design, Procedure, and Procedural IntegrityWe used an ABABCACB reversal design to

evaluate the effects of the interventions on thestudent’s WSC, CS, and errors. The order of theexperimental conditions was baseline, goal settingand contingent reward for words spelled correctly(GSþCR: WSC), a brief reversal to baseline,followed by a single trial of GSþCR: WSC.Then instruction, goal setting, and contingentrewards for complete sentences (IþGSþCR:CS) was implemented, followed by a return tobaseline and brief replacement of the IþGSþCR: CS intervention. Finally, GSþCR: WSCwas reinstated (a) for replication and (b) to testmaintenance of CS in the absence of instructionand reinforcement.Baseline. Baseline and all subsequent condi-

tions implemented the writing probe using the

172 BLAKE D. HANSEN and HOWARD P. WILLS

following general procedures. The experimenterprovided Jonathan with a writing probe (de-scribed above) and read a prescripted prompt,“Today we are going to do some writing. I wouldlike you to write as much as you can. You willhave 3 minutes to write. When the timer goes offand I say ‘stop,’ please put your pencil down.Ready? Begin.” Jonathan was then given 3min towrite on the topic provided on the probe. After3min, he was instructed to put his pencil downand did not receive any feedback on hisperformance. He then returned to his classroom.One writing probe occurred per day. Duringbaseline neither goal setting, praise, nor rewardsoccurred.GSþCR: WSC. These sessions were identical

to baseline except that before the writing probe,Jonathan was asked to set a goal that was higherthan his previous session’s score. The averageWSC for Jonathan’s classmates was 37.8. Thus,for the first session of this phase, he wasencouraged to set a goal for at least 32 WSC;for the second session, the goal was at least 34WSC; and for the third session, the goal was atleast 36 WSC. Each time Jonathan reached hisgoal, he received a reward. Rewards includedsmall toys, pencils, positive calls home, andcandy. These rewards were determined by givinghim a list and asking him which of the choices hemight want to earn for writing. He could selectany one of the rewards from a box followingeach session with the exception of candy, whichwas available only once per week during eachcondition. If he did not reach his goal, he wasasked to try harder next time, and a reward wasnot delivered.IþGSþCR: CS. At the beginning of this

condition, Jonathan was taught how to writecomplete sentences (including correct capitaliza-tion, subject, verb, and ending punctuation) byshowing him examples and nonexamples andasking him to select the sentences that werecomplete. In addition, Jonathan was shown oneof his own previous writing samples and was askedto correct his capitalization and punctuation

errors and ensure that each sentence containeda subject and a verb. Only two instructionalsessions of approximately 15min each wererequired to teach this skill. Goal setting for thisskill only required improvement. Jonathan had towrite more complete sentences than he had in theimmediately preceding session to receive areward. Rewards were provided in the samemanner as in the GSþCR: WSC condition.Procedural integrity. A second observer was

present for 50% of all sessions, equally distribut-ed across all conditions. The observer completeda checklist of the procedural steps for each of theconditions, marking each step as completedcorrectly, incorrectly, or omitted. Proceduralintegrity was calculated by dividing the numberof steps completed correctly by the total numberof steps and was 100% across all conditions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

WSCResults are shown in Figure 1. During baseline,

Jonathan wrote an average of 27.3 WSC (range,27 to 28), in contrast to his in-class assessment of22 WSC. When the GSþCR: WSC interven-tion was implemented, averageWSC increased to37.4 (range, 34 to 43), which was similar to hisclassmates’ average of 37.8 WSC. When GSþCR: WSC was removed, WSC decreased to 21.When the GSþCR: WSC intervention wasreimplemented, WSC returned to 39. DuringIþGSþCR: CS, WSC decreased to an averageof 33.7 (range, 30 to 39). When IþGSþCR:CS was removed, he continued to decline to 22WSC. When GSþCR: CS was implemented,Jonathan wrote 31 WSC, which was consistentwith the effect on WSC during the first briefreversal phase. During the final WSC interven-tion phase, Jonathan wrote an average of 39WSC(range, 36 to 41).

CSDuring baseline and throughout the WSC

interventions, Jonathan’s CS remained at zero.

WRITING INTERVENTIONS 173

When the correct responding was instructed andreinforced, he wrote an average of 5 (range, 3 to6) complete sentences. During the brief reversal,the number of sentences decreased slightly to 3.When the intervention was reimplemented, thenumber of sentences increased to 6. During thefinal intervention phase that targeted WSC, CSdecreased to 3.7 (range, 3 to 4).

ErrorsAlthough they were not specifically targeted,

errors decreased over the course of the interven-tion (slope¼ –0.24). Visual analysis demonstrat-ed that errors remained unaffected during thefirst intervention phase after baseline. Gradually,however, especially during the CS interventionphase, errors began to decrease.The present study adds to the existing

literature on interventions that address writingproblems in children who struggle with basicwriting skills. The increases Jonathan showedduring the various intervention phases weresubstantial, approximating the performance ofhis peers. Of note is that WSC appeared to be a

performance deficit, whereas CS appeared to be askill deficit. WSC improved quickly when goalsetting and rewards were in place and was notmaintained when rewards were not in place. Incontrast, CS did not improve until skill instruc-tion was implemented and was maintained whengoal setting and rewards were discontinued. Thepresent study demonstrates how performance-and skill-based interventions can interact toincrease academic skill fluency and accuracy.Jonathanmade gains on both theWSC andCS

measures, but the gains of WSC were not asstrong as have been reported in other research(e.g., Duhon et al., 2004). This might be relatedto the fact that during the later parts of theintervention, Jonathan was allowed to set his owngoals. Under these circumstances, he could haveset a goal that was easier to obtain. Anotherlimitation was that contingent rewards wererequired to maintain writing fluency; the rein-forcement schedule was not thinned over time.Although writing fluency and accurate punc-

tuation are important measures of overallperformance, there are many more qualityindicators for writing. The participant in thepresent study was able to improve the fluency andaccuracy of his written language, but overallwriting quality was not measured. Skill fluencyand accuracy are only two ways to measurewriting, and they describe the behavior of thewriter rather than the effect of the writtenproduct on the behavior of the reader. In thisregard, more research is needed in the areas ofmeasuring students’ writing and discerning theeffects of writing on a reader’s behavior.

REFERENCES

Burns, M. K., Ganuza, Z. M., & London, R. M. (2009).Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation:Single-case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Edu-cation, 18, 20–34. doi: 10.1007/s10864-008-9076-z

Calkin, A. B. (2003). The course of precision teaching.European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4, 87–96.

Duhon, G. J., Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Freeland, J. T.,DuFrene, B. A., & Gilbertson, D. N. (2004).Identifying academic skill and performance deficits:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20N

umbe

r of

Sen

tenc

es

Num

ber

of W

ords

Sessions

BL GS+CR: BL I+GS+CR: BL GS+CR:WSC CS WSC

Words spelled correctly (WSC)

Spellingerrors Complete

sentences

Figure 1. Jonathan’s writing results in all conditions.BL¼ baseline; GSþCR: WSC¼ goal setting and contin-gent reward for words spelled correctly; IþGSþCR:CS¼ instruction, goal setting, and contingent reward forcomplete sentences.

174 BLAKE D. HANSEN and HOWARD P. WILLS

The experimental analysis of brief assessments ofacademic skills. School Psychology Review, 33, 429–443.

Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M.,Naquin, G. M., & Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyondtotal words written: The reliability, criterion validity,and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-basedmeasurement in writing. School Psychology Review,31, 477–497.

Ollendick, T. H., Matson, J. L., Esveldt-Dawson, K., &Shapiro, E. S. (1980). Increasing spelling achievement:

An analysis of treatment procedures utilizing analternating treatments design. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 13, 645–654. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-645

Received November 21, 2011Final acceptance August 21, 2013Action Editor, Stephanie Peterson

WRITING INTERVENTIONS 175