Reinforcement strategies need to adapt to learners much like the materials which are used for their instruction.
Balancing that level of reinforcement given is as important as any other consideration.
It is not only inappropriate to provide too much reinforcement - it can also be counterproductive to the student's development.
The obvious consequences of providing too little reinforcement will also inhibit his or her progress and may lead to frustration.
As a student acquires a history with early and more direct reinforcement models, these models can be shaped into more typical and, therefore, delayed forms of reinforcement.
These models begin to look increasingly like the everyday motivational systems which typical learners and adults receive and self-administer.
They have the ability to become more complex and represent goals for the learners' daily, weekly or even monthly activity schedules.
The range of dependent variables associated with the system can also be far-reaching, including task based and behavior reduction based models.
Before any such system can be put in place it has to made clear that the student understands the significance of the marker being used to represent the reinforcer.
For most of us, money is an example of this in our society.
Taken out of context, paper and coin currency has little significance.
We have learned that the acquisition of money represents a way in which we can reinforce ourselves with items and activities of our own choosing.
Therefore, based on our actions, we accrue reinforcement, i.
e.
money and self-deliver that reinforcement to ourselves by spending the currency.
This is, of course just one way in which we are reinforced for our actions.
The above model is the norm though and should be the goal of all reinforcement based systems.
The first step in this process is to help the student associate the marker as being significant.
These 'markers' or tokens can take almost any form; pennies, bingo chips, paper stars, cartoon characters, etc.
Teachers can then pair these markers with the reinforcing item/activity.
This is often done by creating a token board which includes each marker and a photograph/image/word which represents the reinforcer.
Teachers can adjust the frequency of breaks and access to the reinforcer by adding or removing tokens as is necessary.
Since tokens are given for appropriate behavior, correct answers and/or overall positive responses, the goal of the teacher is to systematically increase the number of tokens being given to increase the amount of time which the student spends being appropriate.
This is used with teacher driven activities which may require many trials to build-up the tokens significance.
Eventually, the individual will be responsible for completing a task and therefore some type of activity schedule can be created which is student driven.
Each completed activity will represent the acquisition of a marker which brings the student closer to the reinforcer.
This is an adaptation of a very typical system.
Everyone has made a to-do-list of tasks.
Checking off each completed item brings you one step closer to "being done" and perhaps able to blow off some steam and watch T.
V.
or go for a walk.
The complexity of these systems can and should increase in relation to a learner's developmental level and his ability to successfully delay or accrue reinforcement.
Delaying reinforcement can actually increase its significance (think about planning your next vacation).
Working towards a goal and understanding the significance of completing various objectives before reaching that goal, is an important life-skill.
Earning a single paycheck will, usually, not allow you to take that two week vacation to the islands.
Rather, it is the act of budgeting those resources and future planning which made that possible.
In respect to students with autism, this is partly reflected in the idea of consequences.
Since we have worked very hard at building the concept of reinforcement accrual, at certain times, a response cost can be enacted.
In this case, it is a way to help shape a student's behavior by delaying his/her access to a reinforcer.
Granted, in the above section, we discussed how delaying reinforcement can increase its significance; but situational perspective is the key here.
Human nature seems to dictate that ground rules, i.
e.
the activity schedule, are acceptable but changing the ground rules by adding an activity (or delaying the reinforcement), is not preferred.
A speeding ticket is a good example of how a response cost is used.
Speeding is, of course, dangerous and the courts have decided that a certain monetary fine will inhibit this behavior.
Again, relieving you of these funds may be frustrating, but it also pushes back your access to, for instance, purchasing that new car or eating out more which should reduce the chance that the speeding behavior will continue.
Without a system of reinforcement in place, delivering consequences for undesired behavior is more difficult to enact (and I would argue less effective).
A consequence has to be significant in order for it to be effective.
Of course, positive reinforcement proves to be much more of a motivator than withholding reinforcers or delivering consequences.
Early lessons in reinforcement accrual and self-administering reinforcement in typically developing individuals are, in large part, provided by monetary allowances and other early budgeting experiences.
Special attention should be given to this process concerning individuals with autism and other special needs.