Free-time as a reinforcer in the management of classroom behavior.
Let the class earn a brief free-time for staying seated and out-of-seat behavior falls fast.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A teacher in a self-contained classroom gave students short free-time when they stayed seated.
The study flipped the rule on and off four times to be sure free-time caused the change.
No child was singled out; the whole class earned or lost the break together.
What they found
Out-of-seat behavior dropped sharply when free-time hinged on staying seated.
Six weeks later the low level held; when the rule flipped back, old behavior returned.
How this fits with other research
Anger et al. (1976) later paired a daily report card with home prizes for two regular-ed boys and saw the same drop in disruption.
Rispoli et al. (2016) gave free-time before work, not after, and still got 60 calm minutes, showing the reinforcer works even when it is not earned.
Bradshaw et al. (1978) swapped free-time for a ribbon-removal timeout and cut disruption even more, proving both reward and mild penalty can share one design.
Why it matters
You can shrink movement breaks without tokens or points. Just tell the class, "Everyone seated when the bell rings earns two minutes free-time," then start the timer. Track one student or the whole group; the 1969 pattern says the contingency, not the head-count, drives the change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a 2-minute sand timer: if every student is seated when it runs out, they pick a quick game.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Six subjects, comprising one class at a school for the deaf, were given reinforcement consisting of time free from school work for remaining seated in the classroom. As a result, the frequency of leaving their chairs was sharply reduced. A second procedure presented free-time not contingent on remaining seated. Little change was seen in the already lowered response rate. An extension of the time required to be seated with corresponding reduction in the number of daily free-time periods did not reduce the effectiveness of the procedure. A one-day observation after six weeks indicated that the procedure was still effective. A one-day contingency reversal, requiring subjects to leave their chairs at least once during each seated period in order to receive free-time, substantially raised the frequency of out-of-seat responses.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1969 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-113