Abstract
Years of research on various forms of goal setting interventions, specifically assigned versus participative, continue to yield inconclusive results. While many articles indicate that assigned goals produce results comparable to or even better than participative goals, others argue that even minute increases in employee satisfaction suggest that participation is worth any extra effort or time. Efficacy of classroom interventions developed to assist children with emotional handicaps is almost surely a result of how cleanly the interventions are applied. Token economies, with very specific reinforcement and correction procedures should be implemented with precision and consistency. In an attempt to increase the precision and consistency with which reinforcers, specifically prosocial points, were delivered by Instructional Aides, a further variation on goal setting was implemented. Classroom aides and the teachers to which they were assigned were formed into teams. These teams were given instruction in goal setting, and then asked to set collaborative goals, or goals that could be met with combined effort. Team members worked together to deliver prosocials in order to meet the goal they set together. Effects of collaborative goal setting were examined within a multiple baseline research design. Results indicate that increases in prosocial delivery were accomplished by all subjects. Supplementary measures indicate that improvements in prosocial delivery also made small improvements in student engagement in inappropriate behaviors. Finally, all subjects reported that collaborative goal setting was an intervention that they might use again, even for a different aspect of their jobs.
|
