Application of delayed reinforcement procedures to the behavior of an elementary school child.

Schwarz et al. (1970) filmed one elementary student during math class.

After school the child watched the tape with a teacher.

The teacher gave praise and candy for on-task clips.

They repeated this for several math behaviors in a multiple-baseline design.

The boy’s math behavior improved on taped days.

Better focus also showed up later during spelling.

Delayed reinforcement still worked even though the reward came hours after class.

Harrison et al. (1975) seems to disagree. Their RCT found immediate candy raised test scores more than delayed candy.

The clash is only surface-deep. M studied short 5-30 s delays with multihandicapped deaf children during tests. L used end-of-day video review for a general-ed student doing seatwork. Different kids, tasks, and delay lengths explain the opposite results.

Coffey et al. (2005) extends L’s idea. They showed that a quick verbal or visual “marker” during a 5-s delay helps kids with autism learn faster. The marker bridges the gap until the real reward arrives.

Koegel et al. (1992) conceptually replicated the 1970 study. They added self-rating and targeted playground behavior instead of math. Video review after school still cut problem peer acts and raised prosocial ones.

You can reinforce behavior without stopping class. Record short clips, watch them after school, and hand out praise or tokens. The change can carry into other subjects the same day. Try this when you can’t give immediate rewards or when in-the-moment tokens feel disruptive.