GTL 1015
`IPR of U.S. Patent 6,636,591
`
`

`
`Editor-in-Chief
`Professor H. J. EYSENCK, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology,
`De Crespigny Park Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ
`
`Assistant Editor
`
`Dr. S. RACHMAN,.‘InStitute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology,
`De Crespigny Park Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ
`
`Editorial Department
`
`_Dr. I. MARTIN, London
`Dr. T. AYLLON, Atlanta, Georgia
`Dr. J. S. MARZILLIER, Birmingham
`Professor A. BANDURA, Stanford. Calif.
`Dr. ANDREW MATHEWS, Oxford
`Professor J. T. BARENDREGT, Amsterdam
`Professor 0. H. MOWRER, Urbana, Ill
`Professor Dr. J. B. BERGOLD, Berlin
`Professor D. Mi'JLLER-I-IEGEMANN, Berlin
`‘Professor W. HORSLEY GANTT, Baltimore, Md.
`Professor P. PICHOT, Paris
`Dr. Jose GERMAIN, Madrid
`Professor J. WOLPE, Philadelphia, Pa.
`Professor H- GWYNNE JONES, Leeds
`Professor A. J. YATES, Nedlands, Western Australia
`Professor ANDRZEJ JUS, Warsaw
`])r_ w_ YULE, London
`Professor 0. R. LINDSLEY, Kansas City, Kansas
`Book Reviews D. HEMSLEY, London
`
`.
`
`
`
`Published bi-monthly
`
`Publishing and Advertising 0/flees
`
`Journals Dept., Pergamon Press Limited, Headington Hill Hall, Oxford, OX3 OBW, England;
`Pergamon Press, Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
`
`Annual Subscription Rates 1977
`For libraries, university departments, government
`laboratories,
`industrial and all other multiple-reader
`institutions US $56 (including postage and insurance).
`Specially reduced rate to individuals: In the interests of maximizing the dissemination of the research results
`published in this important
`international
`journal we have established a two-tier price structure. Any .
`individual whose institution takes out a library subscription may purchase a second or additional subscriptions
`for personal use at the much reduced rate of U.S. $30.00 per annum. All subscription enquiries should
`be addressed to the Subscriptions Fulfillment Manager, Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
`OX3 OBW, England.
`,
`
`Mieroform Subscriptions and Back Issues
`Back issues of all previously published volumes are available in the regular editions and on microfilm and
`microfiche. Current subscriptions are available on microfiche simultaneously with the paper edition and on
`microfilm on completion.of the annual index at the end of the subscription year.
`No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic,
`°l°°'-"°5ta¢i°» magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the publishers.
`
`Copyright © 1976, Pergamon Press
`
`_ P
`
`ERGAMON PRESS
`
`
`
`I-IEADINGTON HILL HALL
`OXFORD, OX3 OBW
`
`.
`
`~
`
`MAXWELL. HOUSE
`FAIRVIEW PARK, ELMSFORD, N.Y. 10523
`
`

`
`Behav. Res. & Therapy, 1976, Vol. 14. pp. 323-331. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain.
`
`This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)
`
`RAPID EDUCATIONAL REHABILITATION
`
`FOR PRISON INMATES*
`
`HENRY JAMES KANDEL and TEODORO AYLLONT
`
`Psychology Department. Georgia State University. Atlanta, GA 30303. U.S.A.
`and
`
`MICHAEL D. ROBERTS
`
`Community Mental Health Center of Palm’Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
`
`(Received 21 October 1975)
`
`Summary~One of the major goals of prisons has been the educational rehabilitation of inmates.
`Studies have shown that priedelinquents as well as delinquents could be motivated to achieve
`in academic areas through the use of an incentive system. The present study attempted to
`extend the behavioral yield of such a system with prison inmates. The academic performance
`v of two inmates in math and English were compared when two levels of incentives were made
`contingent on that performance. The results showed that
`the two inmates passed academic
`tests as much as nine times faster-under an enriched schedule of incentives than under a standard
`one. This increase in rate of performance was translated into actual academic achievement
`as one of the inmates passed 9th through 12th grade algebra in only 14 days. A standardized
`test confirmed this academic advancement for both inmates. These high rates of performance
`and academic achievement are even more dramatic in view of the fact that five months prior
`to this procedure, both inmates had been tested as being below average in intelligence.
`
`In recent years, correctional programs have committed themselves to a philosophy of
`rehabilitation rather than punishment. This philosophy is based on the reasoning that
`in many cases people break the law because they did not have the skills necessary
`to adapt to civilian life. One of the major programs in rehabilitation has been the
`academic training of inmates. Although this objective appears to be easy enough to
`meet on paper, in practice it is a difficult task to motivate inmates to participate and
`achieve in academic programs.
`A
`Within the past seven years,
`there has been empirical evidence demonstrating that
`there is a procedure which will motivate predelinquents (Phillips, 1968), delinquents
`(Cohen, Filipczak and Bis, 1970), and adult offenders (Milan, Wood, Williams, Rogers,
`Hampton and McKee, 1974) to engage in academic training. The major motivational
`procedure is a reinforcement system in which a standard number of points are adminis—
`tered to offenders who perform academically. These points can in turn be exchanged
`for a wide variety of rewards and privileges.
`Probably the most ambitious study in the area of academic training of delinquents
`was carried out by‘ Cohen et al.
`in a reformatory school
`(1970).
`In this study, the
`authors investigated the effects of a reinforcement system on the number of academic
`units passed by approximately twenty delinquents (passing was defined as 90 per cent
`accuracy). In addition to receiving points for passing tests, the delinquents could also
`lose points if they fell below a weekly average of 90 per cent on all final exams. The
`academic areas investigated were language, reading, math and spelling skills. The pro-
`gram showed that the average improvement for the twenty delinquents ranged from
`a 0.6 grade level improvement in language to an average increase in spelling of 1.3
`grade levels. The effects of the reinforcement program were measured only on a pre
`and post basiswithout the benefit of day—to-day measures or a control group.
`
`*This research was supported in part by the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Grant No.
`433, and by the Georgia Bureau of State Planning and Community Affairs, Grant No. 72E-0006.
`TReprints can be obtained from T. Ayllon, Psychology Dept., Georgia State University, Atlanta GA 30303,
`U.S.A.
`
`/
`
`323
`
`

`
`earn rewards. The results showed that academic performance increased above -baseline
`levels regardless of whether the inmate’s contract was managed by the experimenter
`or self-managed.
`-
`l
`-
`'
`.
`Using different criteria than passing tests, Milan et al. (1974) showed that reinforce-
`ment procedures could be used to improve prison inmates’ participation in an academic
`program and also increase the amount of time each inmate devoted to study.
`These studies, taken as a whole, show that the presence or absence of reinforcement
`affects inmates’ participation in academic programs and in some instances actual aca-
`demic performance.
`.
`Recently, the effect of magnitude of reinforcement on rates of academic performance
`in school children has been studied. For example, Rickard, Melvin, Creel and Creel
`(1973) explored the use of bonus tokens upon the academic productivity of a group
`of emotionally disturbed boys and girls in a remedial classroom. Bonus tokens were‘
`administered to the students if they had a mean ‘three-day frame count (number of
`frames in a programmed English text) above the median of their best previous three
`days. When the bonus contingency was in effect, the number of frames passed for the
`group increased by approximately 200 per cent over the period when only a standard
`number of points could be earned.
`In another study with school children, Lovitt and Esveldt (1970) selected math to
`investigate the effects of different reinforcement schedules. In this study,
`the authors
`controlled the variability of the academic stimuli by using mathcmaterial
`that was
`already mastered by the students. Their major objective was to determine the effects
`of differential magnitudes of reinforcement on a relatively homogeneous response.,Lovitt
`and Esveldt showed that high rates of academic performance can be produced byrelating
`the rate to differential magnitudes of reinforcement. The question arises as to whether
`such a procedure could be extended to increase the rate of academic performance in
`prison inmates when the complexity of the academic stimuli are not controlled as is
`the case under standard rather than laboratory-based conditions. An opportunity to
`implement a variation on the above procedures presented itself in the context of a
`rehabilitation project involving inmates in a medium security prison. In the course
`of assessing the relative effects of a motivational system on academic progress, it was
`noted that upon the introduction of incentives, the rate of academic performance for
`some inmates increased notably but then became stable, suggestingeither an intellectual
`ceiling had been reached or sufficient motivation was not available (Ayllon and Roberts,
`unpublished).
`e
`
`METHOD
`
`v
`Subjects
`Two black inmates incarcerated for violent crimes and deficient in their academic
`work were chosen for study. One of the inmates, Sanford, was 22 years old and was
`functioning at the 6.1 grade level as measured on the California Test of Basic Skills
`(CTBS) and had an I.Q. of 65 as measured on the Stanford—Binet. The other inmate,
`Martin, was functioning at the 7.7 overall grade level andvhad an I.Q. of 91. Sanford
`was known to be rather withdrawn, while Martin had a reputation of being» hostile
`and aggressive, which resulted in his being sent to the ‘hole’ on several occasions. Though
`they were enrolled in vocational programs in the prison, the two men engaged in little
`work, possibly because of their lack of interest or lack of component academic skills
`required for successful job performance. Both inmates had been in prison for -approxi-
`mately a year prior to the initiation of the present study, and no signs of rehabilitation
`
`

`
`Rapid educational rehabilitation
`
`325 .
`
`,_ were apparent. To help the inmates gain from the vocational and social programs
`offered, intensive academic training was required immediately.
`
`Setting and personnel
`
`The study took place in a state prison in the South. The prison housed over 160
`inmates and had a vocational program as well as an academic program..All inmates
`were enrolled in some type of vocational training and attended their respective voca-
`tional schools five days a week, eight hours a day. During the eight—hour day,
`the
`inmates were permitted to take two hours time oil" to engage in academic training.
`The school room for academic training consisted of individualized study Carrells where
`teachersand tutoring were available to the two inmatesduring the academic"‘period
`except when they were engaged in taking tests.
`
`Academic materials and recording of academic performance
`
`The target response was passing Skill Unit tests at a criterion level of 80 per cent
`or better in both math and English. These tests were based upon two to six assignments.
`A seriesof six Skill Units comprised a Skill Level which was approximately equivalent
`to a grade level.
`Programmed materials were utilized for both. subject areas. All material to prepare
`for assignments and for Skill Unit tests was included in workbooks and programmed
`booklets*. Since the material was designed for individual usage, Sanford and Martin
`could be working on different levels simultaneously and progress at their own unique
`rates.
`
`Placement on the appropriate level at which they could be tested was based on
`CTBS scores. The inmates were then placed in the appropriate workbook in both Eng— _
`lish and math. At any time during their two-hour academic study period,
`they could
`receive assistance from the three certified teachers in the school.
`Skill Unit tests consisted of 15-20 written objective questions requiring short written
`answers or math computations. If the inmate ‘passed’ the skill unit test, he was permitted
`to "go on to the next test. If, however, he failed the test, he had to re-study the material
`or receive any additional help he needed to pass a test on the same skill unit before
`he proceeded.
`All materials were signed in and out of the school otfice by the inmates. When an
`inmate felt prepared to take a test, he had to return all his materials and" sign out
`a Skill Unit test for which he had a specified amount of time to complete and return.
`The return of all tests and the actual testing of the two inmates was directly monitored
`by one of the co—authors so that cheating could not occur.
`
`‘Criteria for incentives
`~ Points were administered on two different schedules during first and last condition
`of the study. During the standard schedule of reinforcement (which served as baseline),
`twenty points were earned by passing each skill unit test in a particular academic area.
`In addition, 120 points were earned for every skill level completed. During the treatment
`condition, an enriched schedule of reinforcement for passing Unit Tests as well as com-
`pleting Skill Levels was employed. Under this schedule, the inmates received a greater
`magnitude of points as the temporal period decreased between tests passed. In short,
`the faster the inmates passed tests under the rate schedule, the more points they received
`per -test. The slower the inmates passed tests, the fewer points they received. A similar
`type of rate schedule was used for completing a Skill Level.
`;The. base level of payment on the enriched schedule was computed by the average
`number of days it took inmates to pass one test under previous standard conditions.
`*T‘he-materials used in math were 7th and 8th Grade Mathematics, A Programinetl Course; Algebra I,
`A Pliogrammed Course; TEM AC Plane Geometry; and TEMAC Trigonometry, all published by Encyclopedia
`Brittanica, 1965. The materials used in English were Keys to Good Language; The Economy Company, 1965,
`for "grades 3 through 6. Also used were English 2200, Englisli 2600, and English 3200, Harcourt, Brace and
`World; Inc;, 1964, for grades 7 and 8, 9 and 10, and 11 and 12 respectively.
`
`

`
`fifty points; but if he passed two tests in one day, he earned 150 points. Ultimately,
`if he passed six tests in one day he earned 700 points. The number of points available
`for passing a Skill Level increased in a similar fashion. If the individual completed
`one Skill Level in sixteen days, he earned 500 points; but if he completed one Skill
`Level in one. day, he earned 4,700 points.
`i
`’
`-
`'
`
`Table
`
`reinforcement
`of
`1. Schedules
`academics
`
`in
`
`Standard Schedule of Reinforcement)
`(A) Passing 1 Unit Test earns 20 points (B)
`Completing 1 Skill Level earns 120 points
`
`Enriched Reinforcement Schedule
`
`(A) Passing Unit Tests
`Number of
`Number of
`tests passed
`days required
`
`Points
`earned
`
`O\U1.|>.L,\J[\))—+i—~>—-i—-
`
`4 or more
`
`>-y-—-i—->—~i—>—»l\)b.>
`
`20
`25
`35
`50
`150
`250
`400
`550
`700
`
`(B) Completing Skill Levels
`Points
`Number of days
`required to complete 1 skill level earned
`
`1
`2
`3
`416
`90 or more
`
`4700
`2000
`1000
`90(%500
`120
`
`Table 1 summarizes ‘the point-earning schedules. When the inmates took a test, they
`were corrected by both the prison clerk and one of the co—authors. Hundred per cent
`agreement was always arrived at.
`
`Incentives which could be exchanged for points
`Points were earned and spent through a credit card system (see Ayllon and Roberts,
`in press). Points were recorded on the day the inmates passed their tests. Each inmate’s
`current point earnings were tallied at a central office and his totalamount of credit
`T was assessed and distributed to areas such as the prison canteen, where the men could
`spend their points. Points could be exchanged for a variety of items and privileges.
`These included consumables and cosmetic goods, extra phone calls, extra visiting‘ privi—
`leges and extra letters. Points could also be exchanged for trading stamps with which
`the inmates could purchase items for themselves and their families. All incentives avail.-
`able for the inmates were additional to the rights and privileges they already had ‘within
`the prison. The inmates were never deprived of their current
`incentives orgdeprived
`of their basic needs to enhance the value of the incentives introduced.
`3 Q .,
`:. T.
`The incentives and their cost did not vary over baseline and treatment conditions.
`The following is a small but representative sample of the incentives availableto the
`
`

`
`Rapid educational rehabilitation
`
`327
`
`inmates and their cost: ten Gold Bond Trading Stamps or cakes and cookies ranged
`from 1
`to 5 points; cigarettes and extra privileges ranged from 20 to 45 points; a
`new radio was 1,000 points.
`
`Baseline: assessment of rate of academic performance under standard level of reinforcement
`
`The two inmates involved in this study had been participating in a motivational
`program where they receivedistandard amounts of reinforcement for three months prior
`to the investigation of the effects of the enriched reinforcement schedule. Therefore,
`baseline measures of math and English performance were taken for the two inmates
`when passing tests was on a standard reinforcement schedule. The rate of academic
`work in both math and English for Martin and Sanfordvwas fairly stable throughout
`the three-month standard reinforcement condition; therefore for purposes of parsimony
`and clarity, only the data for the last twenty days for each inmate are presented here.
`
`PROCEDURE AND RESULTS
`
`_Measures of math and English performance were taken for Sanford and Martin when
`passing tests was on an enriched reinforcement schedule. For Sanford, the enrichment
`phase was 22 days in math and 7 days in English. For Martin, the enrichment phase
`lasted 14 days in math and 8 days in English. Pre (before the standard schedule was
`implemented) and post (after the enriched schedule was implemented) measures were
`taken in Reading, “Language and Arithmetic for both inmateson the California Test
`of Basic Skills.
`
`The results show that the number of tests passed by the two inmates in math and
`English was dramatically higher under the enriched schedule of reinforcement than under
`the standard reinforcement schedule.
`
`Sanford
`
`‘ Math. When Sanford was receiving reinforcement on the standard schedule for math,
`his performance was stable and relatively high. However, under the enriched schedule
`of reinforcement, Sanford’s rate of performance rose from 11 tests in 20 days to 42
`"tests in 22 days. Sanford, therefore, was passing math tests approximately four times
`faster under the enriched schedule than under the standard schedule. This increase in
`
`rate was related to academic progress. Under the standard schedule of reinforcement,
`Sanford passed 9th and part of 10th grade algebra; however,
`in the same period of
`time under enriched conditions he passed and completed 10th, 11th and 12th grade
`algebra and geometry and began trigonometry.
`,
`1 English. Under the standard schedule of reinforcement, Sanford passed relatively few
`English tests. When Sanford was under the enriched schedule, he went from six tests
`in 20 days to 14 tests in seven days. Sanford, therefore, was passing English tests over
`seven times faster under the enriched schedule than under the standard schedule. During
`thegperiod Sanford was under the standard schedule of reinforcement he only completed
`9th grade English. However, in only 7 days when the enriched schedule was in effect
`Sanford passed 10th, 11th and part of 12th grade English.
`
`Martin ’
`
`Math. When Martin was receiving reinforcement on the standard schedule for math
`his performance was consistently at a low level. Under the enriched schedule conditions
`his rate rose from five tests in 20 days to 30 tests in only 14 days. Martin, therefore,
`passed almost nine times as many tests under the enriched schedule than under the
`standard schedule. During the period Martin was under the standard schedule he passed
`8th grade math, however, in almost half the time when the enriched schedule was in
`effect he passed 9th through 12th grade algebra as well as geometry.
`English. Under the standard schedule of reinforcement, Martin was working at a
`relatively stable and moderate rate. Under the enriched schedule of reinforcement he
`went from eight tests in 20 days to passing nine tests in eight days. Martin was, therefore,
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Standard
`Incentives
`
`2 6
`
`IO I4 I822263o343842
`Days
`
`Enriched
`incentives ,
`
`/’
`
`Standard
`incentives
`. . I O O 0
`
`2 6
`
`10 i4
`
`ia® 25
`
`Days
`
`Fig. 1. Cumulative number of math (top of graph) and English (bottom) tests passed for Sanford
`during two incentive conditions. Standard incentives were available for passing tests during
`the first 20 days. The arrow signifies the point where enriched incentives were available for
`passing tests. Each data point is the total number of tests passed in a two-day period except
`where the day is circled.
`
`V
`
`Martin
`
`
`
`
`
`MathsTests(cum.No.)
`
`'0
`
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`English(cum.No.)tests
`
`40
`55
`
`'8
`Z_ so
`E3 25
`
`X8
`
`20
`I5
`,4;
`5 IO
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ennched
`incentives
`
`Standard
`incentives
`
`2
`
`6
`
`IO
`
`I4
`
`I8 22 26 30-34
`Days
`
`Enriched
`incentives ,/
`
`/
`
`'
`
`3 25
`2.
`E 20
`gg
`I5
`:3
`_:
`g
`g»
`Lu
`
`'0
`
`5
`
`~
`
`
`
`Standard
`incentives
`
`'
`
`2
`
`6
`
`IO
`
`I4
`
`i82226
`Days
`
`Fig. 2. Cumulative number of math (top of graph) and English (bottom) tests passed for M’artin'.~ —'
`during two incentive conditions. Standard incentives were available for passing tests during
`the first 20 days. The arrow signifies the point where enriched incentives were available for
`passing tests. Each data point is the total number of tests passed in a two—day/ period.
`
`-~ ‘
`
`

`
`Rapid educational rehabilitation
`
`329
`
`Table 2. Pre-test and post-test scores on the CTBS for both inmates
`Sanford
`
`Reading
`
`Language
`
`Arithmetic
`
`Pre-test
`II-Form A
`Post—test
`III-Form B
`
`Difference
`
`‘
`
`6.3
`
`11.2
`
`+ 4.9
`
`8.0
`
`12.6
`
`+ 4.6
`
`4.8
`
`11.4
`
`+ 6.6
`
`Martin
`
`Reading
`
`Language
`
`Arithmetic
`
`Pre-test
`II-Form A
`Post~test
`III-Form B
`
`7.7
`
`8.9
`
`7.0
`
`8.0
`
`Difference
`
`+ 1.2
`
`+ 1.0
`
`8.3
`
`10.6
`
`+ 2.3
`
`Numbers are in terms of academic grade level.
`
`Overall
`
`grade
`placement
`
`6.1
`
`11.4
`
`+ 5.3
`
`Overall
`grade
`placement
`
`7.7
`
`9.2
`
`+ 1.5
`
`passing'English tests approximately three times faster under the enriched schedule than
`under the standard "schedule. During the period Martin was under the standard schedule
`he passed 6th grade English. However, in less than half the time when he was under
`the enriched schedule he passed 7th and part of 8th grade English
`‘
`' Comparison of California Test of Basic Skills pre test and post test scores indicated
`increased achievement for both inmates during the five-month period the motivation
`system was in effect. Martin increased 1.2 grade levels in reading,
`1 grade level
`in
`language, and 2.3 grade levels in arithmetic. His overall grade placement increase was
`1.5 grade levels. Sanford’s increases were even greater: his reading increased" 4.9 grade
`levels, his language increased 6.6 grade levels, and his arithmetic increased 4.6 grade
`le-vels. His overall grade placement increase was 5.3 grade levels. Table 2 summarizes
`these scores.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The findings demonstrate that the application of an enriched schedule will produce
`high.‘ rates of academic performance with adult criminals who were academically defi-
`cient, had a' long history of academic failure, were unmotivated to engage in academic
`work and who were in an environment that far from encouraged academic achievement.
`These results expand upon the findings of Lovitt and Esveldt (1970) who found that
`an enriched schedule of reinforcement resulted in high rates of math performance in
`elementary school children.
`_
`Further,
`these findings demonstrate that the enriched schedule which Lovitt and
`Esveldt found effective on the rate of passing math material already known to the
`children isuseful in facilitating the learning of new materials such as Math and Reading.
`For example, the data show that Sanford could progress through 9th grade math to
`12th grade advanced trigonometry when an enriched schedule of reinforcement was
`available for passing tests. Observations by the prison staff and anecdotal reports of
`other inmates showed that Sanford and Martin spent longer periods of time studying
`for tests as they moved up in levels of difficulty. The instructors reported that the
`men often studied academics during recreational periods. Correctional officers and in-
`
`

`
`This arrangement of reinforcement is in contrast to the schedule proposed by Lovitt
`and Esveldt where responses within ‘a wide range paid off the same amount of points.
`In their study, some children responded at the lower end of the response range and
`gained the same amount of reinforcement as they could have if they responded on
`the higher end of the range.
`As one might expect,
`the two inmates earned a fantastic number of points. This
`resulted in their purchasing a good deal of canteen items; the point-spending records
`showed, however, that most of the points were spent on privileges or gifts for their
`families. The men now had the opportunity to call or write to their families and friends
`and even have these important people visit them more often. Both Sanford and Martin
`used the majority of their points to buy Gold Bond Stamps with which they purchased
`goods for their wives and children. These incentives naturally increased the Contact
`of the inmates with their families and friends and gave them an opportunity to enhance
`relationships. The number of points earned and spent can also be looked at from another
`point of view. A cost—analysis of the program might show that the enriched schedule
`speeds up rehabilitation in such a short period that in the long run it costs less than
`a standard schedule, which prolongs the rehabilitation and thus might result in excessive
`costs.
`An enriched schedule of reinforcement such as this one may be effective when the
`individual is largely deprived of much contact with people or events. A separate source
`of evidence suggests that such limitation may not obtain in practice.*
`In this study, standardized tests had placed Sanford at an I.Q. level of. 65 and Martin
`at a 91 I.Q.
`level. These intelligence scores are below normal and Sanford could be
`considered in the educable mentally retarded range. Nevertheless, both inmates were
`working in 12th grade algebra and trigonometry by the end of their work in the incentive
`program, an accomplishment not predictable from their I.Q. scores. The California Test
`of Basic Skills (CTBS) scores taken before and after the five—month baseline and treat-
`ment period indicated that both men made substantial gains in each subtest areaand
`in their overallgrade placement. Since the day—to—day measures demonstrate that the
`major academic gains took place during the enriched schedule conditions, it can be
`assumed that the change in CTBS scores can be attributed to the brief period of time
`the enriched schedule was in effect. That overall gains ranging from 1.5 to 5.3 grade
`levels were achieved in such a short time, suggests that either the I.Q. measures used
`for these men inaccurately reflected their I.Q., or,
`in these cases at least, I.Q. scores
`do not accurately reflect ability to learn. Because there were only two students involved
`and as there was no control group.
`it is possible that the achievement score changes
`may have been a Hawthorne type effect (Cook, 1962) since this procedure was presented
`to the"’men as a special project. Their measured performance, and their observable
`progress through increasingly diflicult material, however, suggest that the changes in
`achievement scores did result from the experimental procedures and were not spurious.
`This study clearly indicated the usefulness of an enriched schedule and indicated
`the high levels of performance possible with such schedules. Not only were the men
`working harder but, as the achievement tests indicated, they were learning a great deal.
`*The enriched schedule has been shown to be extremely powerful
`in generating academic performance
`with over 30 underachieving elementary school children in a public school in Atlanta, Georgia (for details,
`see Research and Development Report, Atlanta Public Schools, 1974). It is also presently being applied
`in a community~based program for approximately ten juvenile delinquents. In this program, the de1inquent’s
`length of commitment to the community program can be reduced substantially depending on the rate that
`the adolescents perform in several rehabilitation areas. After one year,
`the results show this program to
`be highly promising.
`.
`
`r_
`
`

`
`Rapid educational rehabilitation
`
`331
`
`The most significant finding of this study was that it enabled the staff to properly
`assess the potential in both the inmates who participated in the study. In so doing,
`it became clear that Sanford’s ability had been grossly underestimated. Clearly too,
`Sanford himself had come to believe that he had low intellectual capability. Sanford’s
`I.Q. was tested at 65 when he entered prison the previous year. Yet, it was Sanford
`who rose approximately five to six grades across reading,
`language and arithmetic.
`This study indicates that exposure to learning opportunities and unlimited motivation
`can lead to great strides in education growth. This appears far better than sheltering
`people with limited educational skills from the failure they may never meet.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`AYLLON T. and ROBERTS M. Behavior Modification and Prison Rehabilitation: Toward an Effective Humanism,
`in preparation.
`CLEMENTS C. and MCKEE J. (1968) Programmed instruction for institutionalized offenders: Contingency mana-
`gement and performance contracts. Psychol. Rep. 22, 957—964.
`COHEN H. L., FILIPCZAK J. and BIS J. (1967) A study of contingencies applicable to special education: Case
`I. Educational Facility Press—1BR, Silver Springs, Maryland.
`COOK D. (1962) The Hawthorne effect in educational research. Phi Delta Kappan, December, 116-112.
`LOVITT T. and ESVELDT K. (1970) The relative effects of Inath performance of single Versus multiple ratio
`schedules: A case study. J. appl. Behav. Analysis 3, 261-270.
`MILAN M., WOOD L. WILLIAMS R., ROGERS J., HAMPTOM L. and MCKEE J. (1965) Applied Behavior Analysis
`and the Imprisoned Adult Felon, Project I: The Cellbloclc Token Economy. Rehabilitation Research Founda-
`tion, Montgomery, Alabama.
`‘
`PHILLIPS E. L.
`(1968) Achievement place: Token reinforcement procedures in a home-style rehabilitation
`setting for pre—delinquent boys. J. appl. Behau. Analysis 1, 213-221.
`~
`Rehabilitation Research Foundation (1971) Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) System for Delivery of
`Adult Basic Education Skills. Rehabilitation Research Foundation, Montgomery, Alabama.
`RICKARD H., MELVIN K., CREEL J. and CREEL L. (1973) The effects of bonus tokens upon productivity in
`a remedial classroom for behaviorally disturbed children. Behav. Ther. 4, 378—385.
`
`n.R.T. I4/5—I3