In the realm of special education and therapy, understanding and applying the most effective strategies for maintaining and enhancing conditioning in young children is crucial. A groundbreaking study, "Maintaining Conditioning in Young Children with Varied Schedules of Reinforcement," sheds light on how different reinforcement schedules can influence the effectiveness of conditioning, offering valuable insights for practitioners aiming to optimize therapeutic outcomes.
The study conducted by Hetsko and Gans at Kent State University explored how varying the schedule of reinforcement affected the maintenance of conditioned responses in young children. The research involved 24 infants, aged 12 to 24 months, with normal physical development and no history of middle ear problems. These children were divided into three groups, each subjected to different conditions of reinforcement: continuous visual reinforcement (CVR), intermittent visual reinforcement on a 50% schedule (IVR), or no visual reinforcement (NVR).
The findings revealed that conditioning was maintained more effectively in both the 50% and 100% reinforcement conditions than when no reinforcement was provided. Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of conditioning maintenance between the 50% and 100% reinforcement conditions. This suggests that intermittent reinforcement can be as effective as continuous reinforcement in maintaining conditioned responses in young children, a revelation that could have significant implications for therapeutic practices.
For practitioners, these results underscore the importance of employing varied reinforcement schedules in therapeutic settings. Continuous reinforcement, while effective, may not always be necessary or practical. Intermittent reinforcement schedules, such as the 50% schedule used in the study, can offer a viable and potentially more efficient alternative. This approach not only maintains conditioning effectively but may also help in managing the child's expectation for reinforcement, making the therapeutic process more dynamic and engaging.
Implementing varied reinforcement schedules in therapy requires careful consideration and planning. Practitioners should begin by assessing the individual needs and responses of each child, as the effectiveness of reinforcement schedules may vary from one child to another. Additionally, therapists should be prepared to adjust reinforcement schedules as needed, based on ongoing observations of the child's responsiveness to therapy.
The study also highlights the potential for intermittent reinforcement schedules to delay the onset of response decrement, thereby prolonging the child's engagement and responsiveness to therapy. This is particularly relevant in therapeutic contexts where maintaining the child's motivation and responsiveness over time is critical for achieving therapeutic goals.
In conclusion, the research by Hetsko and Gans provides compelling evidence for the benefits of varying reinforcement schedules in the therapeutic conditioning of young children. By carefully selecting and adjusting reinforcement schedules, practitioners can enhance therapeutic outcomes, making therapy more effective and engaging for young children. This study serves as a reminder of the need for flexibility and innovation in therapeutic practices, encouraging further research and experimentation in the field.
For those interested in delving deeper into the study and its methodologies, Maintaining Conditioning in Young Children with Varied Schedules of Reinforcement provides a comprehensive overview of the research and its findings.
