EFFECTS OF TOKEN AND PUNISHMENT STRATEGIES ON BULLYING BEHAVIOUR AMONG CHILDREN WITH MILD INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IN OYO MUNICIPALITY BY ADISA WUMI AJARAT MATRICULATION NUMBER: UI/D/R/FCES/149014 A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IBADAN, NIGERIA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR DEGREE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION (B.Ed) NOVEMBER, 2017 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that this project was carried out by Adisa Wumi Ajarat with Matriculation Number UI/D/R/FCES/149014 of the Faculty of Education in the department of Special Education/Mathematics of the University of Ibadan, Oyo State Nigeria under my supervision . Dr Mrs O.O Adesina Supervisor …………………………… Signature & Date DEDICATION This project is dedicated to Almighty God the most excellent who created me from cloth of bloods and who has been my guidance from cradle and who will always be my savior to the graves. ACKNOWLDGEMENT For every achievement in the life of an individual, there is always a support and cooperation of some individuals which may be inform of advice, financial aspect, encouragement, moral and spiritual support. As a result of this, I express my profound gratitude to Almighty God for his goodness and mercy unto me since my enrolment in this citadel of learning till now. My profound gratitude to Dr Mrs O O Adesina noble supervisor that make this work to fashioned out most of my ideas, and for their suggestions, which have crystallized into the quantity and quality of this study, also to all my indefatigable scholars in the department of special education who impacted a lot of knowledge in to me, I appreciate them all immensely. Also, I sincere appreciation goes to my parent Mr. and Mrs. Adisa for their moral, spiritual and financial support during my course of study may God let them live long and eat fruits of their labour (Amen) Also, my appreciation goes to all lecturers in department of special education and mathematics of federal college of education (special) Oyo in affiliation with university of Ibadan, Ibadan may peace and blessing of God be with them all. Also, to my dearest brother and sister, Wale, Bukky, Bose, Pastor And Mrs Oginni, Pastor Awe, Elder Adegoke, Adeniyi Adisa, Oseni Wasiu, Oseni Tawa, Hassanat,Toyin, Biola, Princess, Sekinat, Lateef, Buhari, Abbey, Ayola Biola, Sewe, Ayoka, Jide, Omolola, Dorcas, Mariam, And M Fiance Adeniyi Samson, may God almighty answer all your prayers. ABSTRACT This study examined the effect of token and punishment on bullying behavior among children with mild intellectual disabilities. The main objective of the study is to investigate the extent to which token and punishment influence the enhancement of bullying behavior among children with mild intellectual disabilities in Oyo School for the Handicapped, Durbar, Oyo state. To guide this study, four null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance using Analysis of Co-Variance (ANCOVA). Experimental design adopting the pretest-posttest research design was used for this study and the population of the study consisted all learners with intellectual disabilities in Oyo School for the Handicapped, Durbar Oyo. However, fifteen children with mild intellectual disabilities were selected as the sample size for the study. The Bullying Victimization Scale (BVS) was used to assess the bullying behaviour of children with mild intellectual disabilities. The findings of the study revealed that: punishment strategy is more effective in correcting bullying behavior in children with mild Intellectual Disability than token strategy. TABLE OF CONTENT TITLE PAGE TITLE PAGE i CERTIFICATION iii DEDICATION iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v-vi ABSTRACT v TABLE OF CONTENS vi-xii CHAPTER ONE Background of the study 1-4 Introduction Statement of the Problem 4-5 Research Questions 5-6 Purpose of the Study 6 Significant of the Study 7 Scope of the Study 7 Operational Definition of Terms 8-9 CHAPTER TWO Introduction 10 General Concept of Intellectual Disability 10-12 Causes on Intellectual Disability 12 Concept of Bullying 14-17 Causes of Bullying among Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities 17 Consequence of Bullying 17-19 Concept of Token 19-21 Determinants Factors for Successful Implementation 21 Concept of Punishment 22 Classification of Punishment 23-28 Guideline for Implementation of Punishment 29-31 2.3. Advantages of Punishment 31 2.3.1. Theoretical Perspective 31-32 2.3.2. Social Learning Theory 32-35 2.3.3 Frustration Bullying Theory 36 2.3.4 Empirical Review of Related Literature 36-37 2.3.5 Acquired deafness and oppression 37 2.4. Empirical frame work 37 2.4.1 Bullying 37-39 2.4.2 Sources of Bullying among Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities 39-40 2.4.3 Effect of Bullying on Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities 40-41 CHAPTER THREE 3.0 Methodology 3.1 Introduction 44 3.2. Research design 44 3.3. Variables in the study 45 3.4. Population 45 3.5. Sampling procedures and sample 45-46 3.6. Instrumentation 46 3.7 Procedure for administration 46 3.8. Data analysis. 47 CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 Data Analysis and Discussion of Results 48 4.1. Introduction 48 4.2. Data Analysis 48-55 4.3. Discussion of Findings 56-57 CHAPTER FIVE Introduction 5,1 Conclusion from finding 5.2 Limitation to the study 5.3 Recommendations 5.4 Contribution to knowledge 5.5 Conclusions 5.6 Suggestion for further research REFERENCES 62-68 APPENDIX 69-71 CHAPTER ONE 1.0 Background to the Study. 1.1 Introduction Bullying behaviour whether physical or verbal is abnormal behaviour that hurt other children either directly or indirectly. It is a universal social issue which an individual particularly pupils commit against self or other children. It is a major problem that increases all over the schools in Nigeria and globally causing individual and social damages which worry the parents, teachers, school administrators and community in general. Hostility and bullying are perhaps the most common forms of interaction between children in today’s society. It is hardly a day passes without receiving media reports about destruction of lives and property in the country. In fact assault, random bullying, violent threats and other forms of antisocial behaviour are on the increase worldwide. According to Wolman (2015) bullying behaviour is the acts of behavioural responses of an organism that display the quantity of bullying while bullyingness is the tendency to display hostility by performing act of bullying. fawole (2012) sees bullying behaviour as a behavioural trait characterized by hostile attack, usually upon someone or something else. It is a behaviour directed towards causing harm to others, Dollar (2002) viewed bullying as a sequence of behaviour “the goal-response to which is the injury of the children towards whom it is directed”. They believe that frustration eventually leads to bullying. According to them, when an individual is faced with a frustrating situation he/she react bullying which makes bullying to be basically hostile in nature. According to Department of Health and Human Services (2001) physical harm on other children include behaviours such as biting, pushing, hitting, shoving, slapping, stabbing, rape, shooting, kicking, among others. Verbal harm on another children include the employment of words to hurt someone as in the case of threatening and intimidating others and engaging in malicious teasing, taunting and name-calling. Indirect harm on other individuals includes the manifestation of such behaviours as spreading cruel rumours, gossiping and encouraging others to reject or exclude someone. According to O’Connor (2011) children with bullying behaviour may have difficulty controlling their temper and are easily upset and annoyed by others. They are often defiant and may appear angry and resentful. It has also been observed that some children exhibit bullying behaviours that are less extreme or problematic, but worrisome nonetheless. O’Connor (2011) suggested that these children may slap or poke other children or pinch them. Some throw small objects or bang and break things when they are angry and upset. Others have temper tantrums and kick or scream. Some children are verbally bullying. They call other children names, they threaten and tease other children or use emotional control to victimize and push other children around. They might ostracize and spread rumours about others. Most children including children with mild intellectual disabilities are involved directly or indirectly in this situation of bullyingness. This experience does not only affect the children but also education personnel’s, teachers, parents, school governing bodies and the community at large. Gasa (2005) suggest that bullying behaviour frequently interrupts the smooth running of the school and leads to a school climate that is not conducive to learning and teaching. That is to say it places everybody’s life at risk and makes the culture of learning and teaching very difficult. Unless intervention is given to assist the bullying children, they are at risk of developing serious antisocial bullying behaviour disorders. As their problems increase, their bullying behaviours threaten the safety of other children. When the problems of bullying behaviour escalate to the high level, some of such children are expelled or suspended from school. Therefore, the protection of the other children and their teachers is the prime concern when this occurs. It is dangerous to ignore the negative effect of bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities. Various preventive and controlling measures are being employed by parents, teachers and school administrators such as beating, reinforcement strategy depriving some basic necessities of life among others in order to facilitate behaviour change among bullying children in schools. It has been observed that, in spite of all these measures taken by the parents, teachers and school administrators to prevent the menace of bullying behaviour, the problem is in persists among regular school and learners with intellectual disabilities Most children who manifest bullying in schools come from dysfunctional family where relationships are strained; no parental care and affection. And where there is hatred, abuses, and disrespect for one another overtly display problem behaviour of bullying (Lauer, 2010). Children from different clash of cultures are likely to witness incessant squabbles, physical confrontations, aggressive, and violence and so on. In the olden days, the mentally retarded are being used as jesters and at times they are thrown away by their parents. Into the forest to die, some areas use them for sacrifice, but on other times they survived e.g. victor, the wild boy in Are on and brought to Hard, who found out that he was so severely retarded that he could not be educated. Although, he failed in his attempt, he laid the foundation for the education of the retarded children. Children with mild intellectual disability have existed in all societies throughout recorded history, although who would be labeled as having an intellectual disability has varied ancient times is based on written records and archaeological evidence of children with particular conditions associated with intellectual disability. The earliest written record is probably the Papyrus of Thebes (1552 BC) which included discussion of the treatment of children with mild intellectual disability (Ellis 1975, cited in Katims 2000). In addition to written references in records of societal history and religions, archaeology has also identified the remains of individual less with conditions such as microcephaly and Down syndrome. The writings of great religious leaders over the centuries often mentioned children with mild intellectual disability, and how they were to be regarded, in general or in reference to religious rituals. Some of these views were exceedingly negative, for example, Martin Luther, while others were very positive, such as Paracelsus, a Swiss doctor of the early sixteenth century (Ryan and Thomas 1987). There are records of areas in which a particular condition leading to intellectual disability was common, such as cretinism in parts of Switzerland. While some writers refer to these children in extremely derogatory terms, apparently their families and communities regarded them as “angels from heaven, a blessing to their families and incapable of sin” (Ryan and Thomas 1987). Provisions for the education and care of children with mild intellectual disability, as a group rather than individually, were not apparent until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Early influential professionals, such as Itard, a French doctor, and Seguin, who had worked with Itard, were positive about the promises of education and training. Thus, the more recent histories tend to be the histories of legal or institutional provisions, or the stories of those who “made their mark” as great leaders or visionaries. As Ryan and Thomas (1987) put it, for children with mild intellectual disability, “what history they do have is not so much theirs as the history of others acting either on their behalf or against them”. Assumptions are often made that children with mild intellectual disability were invariably treated harshly until more recent times. Practices such as infanticide, punishment, or reliance on begging are often listed in historical accounts. However, recent critiques have pointed out that the historical evidence for such assumptions is very sparse and highly questionable, and the generalizations made are seldom based on reputable research undertaken by trained historians (Bragg 1997). Inevitably, the histories that have been written, present a story of unabated progress, from the misery and neglect of ancient history to the enlightened and effective treatment available in the present (Bredberg 1999). However, actually very little is known about the lived experiences of children with mild intellectual disability in past eras and within different societies and communities, or how their families and communities perceived their impairments. That how individuals and societal institutions define or understand intellectual disability, affects whether and how children with an intellectual disability are supported, and what roles they are described by society. Intellectual disability is bound by the social contexts of time, place, and societal values, which may also differ among social groups within society. There are various definition being given to intellectual disability, the most generally used by the scholars according to Association of Mentally Deficiency (AAMD) is that ’’Intellectual disability refers to the sub-average general intellectual functioning which originate in the developmental period and its associated period with impairment in adaptive behaviour. (Heber, 2001). Between 1959 and 1983 the American Association of Mentally Deficiency (AAMD) definition of intellectual disability change from broader to more restrictive and provided criteria that include both measured intelligence and adaptive behaviour. In Grossman (2003) the AAMD general definition reads: ‘’a significantly sub average intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with con-current impairment in adaptive behaviour and manifested during the developmental period’’. In 2002, the AAMR came up with a tenth definition has being, ‘’a disability characterized by significant limitation both in intellectual and adaptive skills. These disabilities originate before the age 18 (AAMR, 2002). Apart from the AAIDD, other agency also provides definition on intellectual disabilities (formally known as mental retardation). The National Dissemination for Children with Disabilities (2004) describe intellectual disabilities as a term used when a children has a certain limitation in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of self and social skills. This limitation will cause a child to learn and developed more slowly than a typical child. As contain in the 11th edition of it manual published in 2010. Intellectual disabilities was viewed as a disability that involve significant limitation both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behaviour, which covers many everyday social and practice skills. Simpson (1997) defined intellectual disabilities as “idiocy”. Idiocy is a specific infirmity of the cranio-spinal axis, produced by deficiency of nutrition in utero and noe-nati. It incapacitates mostly the functions which give rise to the reflex, instinctive and conscious phenomena of life, consequently, the idiot moves, feels understands, wills, but imperfectly, does nothing, thinks of nothing cares for nothing(extreme cases), he is legally irresponsible, isolated, without associations and a soul shut up in imperfect organ. Dever (1990) define intellectual disability as the need for specific training of skill that most people acquire incidental and that enable individual to live in the community without supervision. Further explain that intellectual disability should be conceptualized from an instructional perspective. Gold (1980) define intellectual disability should be viewed as society’s failure to provide sufficient training and education, rather than a deficit within the individual. He therefore defined intellectual disability in the following words intellectual disability refers to a level of functioning, which requires from society significantly above average training, procedures and superior assets in adaptive bahaviour, manifested throughout life. The person with intellectual disability is characterized by the level of power needed in the training process for the person to learn, and not by limitations on what the person can learn. The height of a disabilities persons level of functioning is determined by the availability of training technology and the amount of resource society is willing to allocate and not by significant limitation in biological potentials In curbing bullying behaviour among school children most especially children with mild intellectual disability, evident have shown that reinforcement strategy plays a significant role, token however is a such as food, gifts, positive verbal praise, tickets, clips, stickers, note books and anything that can be change for something desirable which when presented to child in a given situation strengthen the desired behaviour and increase the likely hood of the occurrence of such behaviour. Token is a behaviour modification strategy that uses tangible reinforces such as prices, money or gift as systematic application of a reinforcement schedule. A token is an approach in which children with mild intellectual disabilities are given a mark for reward, token can be a highly effective method for changing or controlling children with mild intellectual disabilities. According to (Mathur, 1996), reasons why token may be effective include: tokens can be easily dispensed without disrupting the teaching/learning process; tokens can be exchanged for a variety of individualized backup reinforcess, requirements for earning reinforcement can be adjusted as the needs of the children with mild intellectual disabilities change, A token may give the teacher flexibility in adjusting the relationship between certain behaviours and rewards, may allow for continued pairing of tokens with more natural social reinforcess; and, token can be used to help the children with mild intellectual disabilities acquire skills that will eventually lead to other more natural reinforcess such as good grades. (Mathur, 1996) also the following guidelines for implementing token strategy: Determine the target behaviours, Choose the tokens (beads, poker chips, money, points), Determine how, when, and at what rate tokens will be distributed, Expand the token with other target behaviours as time increases, Fade the consequences until there is gradual removal of the tokens, Expand the token to other settings, Make incremental changes in the reinforcement schedule. Another strategy to incorporate into the token that may help to fade away from the constant reinforcing is to also have the children with mild intellectual disabilities monitor their own performance as part of the token program, and then gradually fade from the constant tangible tokens. Wilson (2006) opined that toke involves reinforcing a child for compliance with previously agreed upon behaviours. The children earns token, which can be anything from stickers, tickets, and marbles which he/she then collects until enough have been earned to trade in for reward. Some common rewards are stickers, free time, extra computer time, a no home work pass, an opportunity to line leader, and the ability to wear a hat during class. For children at a lower cognitive level, it is usually most effective in the beginning to reward each success with a token, and have the ability to trade in the tokens for a reward fairly quickly. As the children with mild intellectual disabilities learn the system, typically the number of tokens required to earn a reward can be gradually increased Punishment is perhaps the most misunderstood and emotionally explosive of the behaviour modification interventions. In punishment strategy, children with undesirable behaviour such as bullying receive no reward or attention by the teacher. It is one of the effective behaviour modification strategies that decrease antisocial behaviour such as bullying and increases desirable behaviour among children’s with intellectual disabilities. Punishment as an aversive stimulus may be operated in many forms. There can be punishment by application of the aversive stimulus made contingent on the target behaviour punishment such punishment can reduce the excess behaviour punishment also be effected by the removal of a positive reinforcement made contingent on the target behaviour, punishment has been found to be more effective in managing excess behaviour when the constitute immediate physical problem to the learner. Punishment occurs when a response removes something positive from the situation or adds something negative, in every language we can say that punishment is either taking away something an organism wants, or giving it something it does not want, Skinner and Thorndike agreed on the effectiveness punishment, it does not decrease the probability of a response although punishment, suppresses a response as long as it is applied, it does not weaken the habit. Punishment is designed to remove awkward, dangerous or otherwise unwanted behaviour from a repertoire on the assumption that a person who has been punished is less likely to behave in the same way again, unfortunately, the matter is not that simple. Token and Punishment do not differ merely in the direction of the changes they induce. A child who has been severely punished for sex play is not necessarily less inclined to continue, and a man who has been imprisoned for violence assault is not necessarily less inclined toward violence. Punishment behaviour is likely to appear after punitive contingencies are withdrawn. Nelsen (2013) viewed that positive punishment is designed to encourage children and to teach them self-control and self-discipline. It is respectful because children are involved in the process (by helping to create a space that will be encouraging) instead of object or victims of the process. Positive punishment teaches children to understand that their brains don’t function well when they are upset. They learn the value of taking time to out to calm down until their brains are functioning in a way that’s advantageous to them rather than detrimental 1.2 Statement of the Problem Inappropriate behaviours by children with mild intellectual disability often interfere with the learning process of both the children exhibiting inappropriate behaviours and the remaining children. Bullying behaviour in schools under study include physical bullying such as hitting, biting, pushing, slapping and verbal bullying in the forms of threatening and intimidating others, engaging in malicious teasing, taunting and name-calling. It is noted by the researcher that all this behaviour listed above will have a negative effect on the academic performance and the up-bringing of the children with mild intellectual disability, the behaviour will bring about distraction in class in the sense that one pupils might interrupt the teaching process anytime he/she exhibit one of the behaivour and this might interfere the teaching process. This study was therefore designed to find out the effects of token and punishment strategy bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disability in Oyo Municipality. 1.3 Hypothesis The following research questions are presented to guide the study: Ho1There is no significant main effect of treatment on children with mild intellectual disability on bullying behaviour HO2There is no significant main effect of gender on children with mild intellectual disability on bullying behaviour HO3There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on children with mild intellectual disability on bullying behaviour HO4 Is there a significant different between pre-bullying behaviour and post-bullying behaviour on children with mild intellectual disability when exposed to treatment 1.4 Purpose of the Study The general aim of this study is to determine if token and punishment strategy could decrease bullying behaviours among children with mild intellectual disabilities. However the main purpose of the study is to find out: 1 Whether there is gender difference in level of bullying behaviour in the children . The effectiveness of token strategy in reducing bullying behaviour among the experimental and control groups of children with mild intellectual disabilities. Whether there is a difference between level of bullying behaviour among with intellectual disabilities exposed to punishment strategy and control group. The relative effectiveness of token and punishment strategy in reducing bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities in Oyo municipality. To determine whether there is gender difference in level of bullying behaviour in some special school in Oyo with intellectual disabilities using token strategy. To determine with mild intellectual disabilities using punishment strategy. 1.5 Significance of the Study It is hoped that findings of this study will make significant contribution to knowledge especially in the field of education generally and also in the education for learners with intellectual disability specifically. Also, the findings will be useful for both special and regular school teachers by having insight into behaviour modification strategy which can help to modify children’s antisocial behaviour it will also help such children to develop skill in handling child would make it possible for them to assist children to regulate acceptable behaviour. It will also be of help to the school administrators, the findings will be used in minimizing bullying behaviour among children with intellectual disability especially through organizing programmes on token and punishment can be taken as the tools for reducing bullying behaviour. Similarly, this study will help schools administrators to design school curriculum and educational policies than is suitable for children with mild intellectual disability which will prevent or minimize this categories of learners with intellectual disability. In addition, the findings will enrich the available literature and this will be useful to the future researchers who might be interested in the subject matter so as to serve as a reference materials. 1.6 Scope of the Study This study focused on effect of reward of token and punishment on bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disability in Oyo East Local Government Area of Oyo State. In carrying out this research, learners with intellectual disability will be selected for the study. 1.7 Operational Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study it is necessary to define and explain some of the used in the project. Therefore term like intellectual disability, token, punishment and bullying behaviour where given short definition as it was perceived by the researcher. Intellectual disability: A term used when a person has certain limitation in mental functioning or abnormality in intellectual development. Learners with mild intellectual disability. These are learners with significant difficulty and impairment of cognitive adaptive and social skill; such children need constant support training and supervision from members of the family and community at large. Token: It is an application of a much desired stimuli to maintain or increase behaviour. Punishment: An act or a way of punishing somebody to remove an unwanted behaviour, punishment is the presentation of an adverse stimulus as a consequence of the exhibition of an inappropriate behaviour. Bullying behaviour; This is characterized by acts of intentional harm, repeated over time, in a relationship where an imbalance of power exists. CHAPTER TWO 2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Introduction This research work is designed to investigate the effect of token and punishment on bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disability. This chapter is a review of literature. It presents some of the factors responsible for bullying and a theoretical perspective on bullying behaviour and empirical studies relevant to bullying behaviour. General Concept of Intellectual Disability According to World Health Organization (2001), intellectual disability can be as subnormal intellectual development manifesting in different degree in everyday mental performance which can also manifest in the form of incomplete mental development and maturity in reason understanding and behaviour. Mither(2000)define intellectual disability as a condition of incomplete or halted development of the mind which is characterized by the impairment of skill which manifested during the developmental period that contribute to the overall level of intelligence such as cognitive, language, motor and social ability. Mither(2000)further stated intellectual disability as making impairment in the ability to adapt to the cultural demands of society. Also, maintained that it is now widely agreed that both intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour must be show to be impaired as measured on objective criteria before an individual can be identified as being retarded. Similarly The American Association on Mental Deficiency (2002) opined that intellectual disability refers to significantly sub average general intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with impairment in adaptive behaviour manifested during the developmental period. In a related developmental, United State Department of Education (2001) stated that intellectual disability means significant sub average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behaviour and manifested during the development period that adversely affects a child’s educational performances. World Health Organization (2002), stated that both children and children with mild intellectual disability may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics: - Delay in oral language development, deficit in memory skills, difficulty learning social rules, difficulty in problem solving skills, delay in the development of adaptive behaviours such as self-help or self skills and lack of social habit. Sidney Bijou (2013) proposed a strictly behavioural definition that states that an individual is one who has a limited repertoire of behaviour shaped by event that constitutes his history. Bijou and Dunitz Johnson (1981) have described an inter behaviour analysis view of intellectual disabilities that attributes a limited behavioural repertoire to the hampering effects of biochemical impairment, handicapping socio-cultural condition or both. Biochemical impairment can retard an individual’s development through injury to the response equipment or to the internal or external sources of stimulation. Handicapping socio-cultural condition may include an impoverished home environment, limited educational opportunities and negative parental practices such as indifference or abuse. Bijou’s view maintains that if he children’s environment provides with proper supports, the deficits in functioning associated with intellectual disabilities can be replaced with more adapting, age appropriate behaviour. Tredgold (1937) defined intellectual disabilities as “a state of incomplete mental development of such a kind and degree that the individual is incapable of adapting himself to the normal environment of his fellows in such a way to maintain existence independently of supervision, control or external support”. Also Edgar Doll (1941) maintained that six criteria are generally considered essential to an adequate definition and concept of intellectual disabilities. These criteria are: Social incompetence, mental, sub-normality, developmental arrest, obtained at maturity, constitutional origin, essentially incurable. Intellectual disabilities therefore refer to significantly general intellectual functioning which originates during the development period and is associated with impairment in adaptive behaviour. Sub-average impairment functioning refers to one or more standard deviation below the mean, an intelligence quotient of 75. 2.2.1 Causes of Intellectual Disabilities Per natal Causes According to Smith (2003), the causes of intellectual disabilities shall be viewed under Pre-natal, Peri-natal and Post-natal causes. Scientists are interested in identifying genetic causes of intellectual disabilities. Genetic is the science that studies the principles and mechanics of heredity, or the means by which traits are passed to offspring (Gianze,2006,Collins English Dictionary, 2009) through genetics a number of specific disorders have been identifies as being genetically caused. Some genetic disorders are associated with intellectual disabilities, chronic health problem and development delay. The possibility of being born with intellectual disabilities or developing the condition later in life can be caused by multiple factors, unrelated to genetics. Since the brain is such a complex organ, there a number of genes involved in its development. Genetic disorders are typically broken down into three types; chromosomal, single gene and multi-factoria. Peri-natal causes Different types of problem can occur during the process of giving birth. These problems are described as peri-natal causes of intellectual disabilities. When problems occur during the process of giving birth it can result into the condition of intellectual disabilities. If a child in not positioned properly in the uterus brain injury can result during delivery. Anoxia can cause intellectual disabilities during delivery. Anoxia is complete deprivation of oxygen. Intrauterine disorders such as maternal anemia, premature delivery, abnormal presentation, umbilical cord accidents, multiple gestation and misuse of forceps during delivery can cause intellectual disabilities. Neonatal disorders such as intracranial hemorrhage, neonatal seizures, respiratory disorders meningitis, and encephalitis and head trauma at birth are also some of the causes of intellectual disabilities during birth. Infections such as syphilis and herpes simplex can be passes from mother to child during childbirth. These veneral diseases can potentially lead to intellectual disabilities. Herpes simplex is a viral disease that can cause cold sores or fever blister; if it affects the genitals and is contacted by the mother-to-be in the later stage of foetal development. Low birth weight can result in a variety of behavioural and medical problems including intellectual disabilities. The American Association on Intellectual Disabilities (2013) stated that low birth weight is one of the major peri-natal causes of intellectual disabilities. Low birth weight is also associated with a number of factors such as poor nutrition, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and excessive cigarette smoking. Post-natal Causes Post-natal causes are conditions that are responsible for intellectual disabilities in young children after delivery. Traumatic Brain Injury is a type of biological postnatal causes of intellectual disabilities. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) from such things as blows to the head, vehicular accidents or violent shaking. It is injury to the brain not including conditions present at birth, with trauma, or degenerative diseases or conditions. This condition results in total or partial disability or psychosocial maladjustment that affects educational performance. It may affect cognition, language, memory, reasoning, abstract thinking, judgment, problem solving, speech and so on. Meningitis and Encephalitis are two infections that can cause intellectual disabilities after birth. Meningitis is an infection of the covering of the brain that may be caused by a variety of bacterial or viral agents. Encephalitis is an inflammation of the brain, which affects the child’s mental development. Lead is also a toxin or poison that has been linked with intellectual disabilities. In advanced countries lead in paint has been prohibited. Lead poisoning in great quantity can lead to death in infants. Children from poor environment circumstances are at risk of developing intellectual disabilities. Unstimulating environment is also believed to be one of the causes of intellectual disabilities. Other postnatal causes of intellectual disabilities include Demyelization Disorders such as post-infectious disorders and post immunization disorders. Degenerative Similarly, some experts such as Obani(1998) and Adima(1990) group these as biological, cultural families, psychological, genetic and environment. The writer will look at the causes here under genetic and environmental. Genetical Causes of Intellectual Disabilities Columbia and Bower who are psychologists both reached the conclusion in their studies that every ‘normal’ children is made up of forty-six (46) chromosomes, then is twenty-three from father and twenty-three from the mother, researches have shown that any chromosomal abnormality either from the sperm of the father or from the egg of the mother will lead to intellectual disability such as down’s syndrome mongolism. Environmental Causes of Intellectual Disability The following factors are the environmental causes of intellectual disabilities: Infection; Infection such as congenital rubella, congenital syphilis, childhood diseases such as measles, meningitis, jaundices, tuberculosis are the majorcauses of intellectual disability among children. The study of Obani and Lemark (1980) confirmed that severe malnutrition of mother during pregnancy would lead to intellectual disabilities of the child. Okogbe(1995) quoting Parry,(1970) stated that, the quality of mother’s nutrition during early pregnancy therefore determine the quality and extent of development of the foetus. Nelson (1989) confirmed that poisonous materials and chemicals such as mercury and lead when taken much in errors with food or drink may cause intellectual disabilities. Adeniyi(1995) writes that if a mother had no proper medical care or indulged in self medication or treatment from quack doctor, the chances are that the child may be born intellectual disabled. Ayobami(1987) found that social and environmental conditions might causes intellectual disability, Ayobami stressed that children who come from poor home and are less likely to have access to proper medical care or balanced diet, may be born as intellectual disability. Smoking which destroy or weakens the sperm of a man can also lead to the production of weak children, drinking of alcohol by pregnant mother can also result to intellectual disabilities. Classification of Intellectual Disability The intellectual disability can be classified into thus: Educable Intellectual Disability: - This classification is equivalent to the moron level of intellectual disability. A little extent learn academic skill and to a large extent be in learn various vocational skills and contribute to the development of their community. Trainable Intellectual Disability:- This groups equal to the imbecile group the intellectual disability can achieve such skills as toileting, habits table etiquette adjustment at home, living skill and some economic usefulness at home and can be trained in minor routine job. The Totality Dependent Intellectual Disability: - This class of intellectual disability children is the one referred to earlier as idiots and severely intellectual disability. They are also called the custodian because this category cannot learn anything and are often institutionalized. The level of intellectual disabilities The Mild: The mild intellectual disability range in intelligent quotient (55-70) are the largest of the intellectual disability many of them have less physical problem, they can fit into the society, they are known and labeled as the ‘borderline’, they have little or no communication problem, they are social poor most of them have potentials for rehabilitation and social adjustment. The Moderate: the moderate intellectual disability range in intelligent quotient (40-55 ) they are the second largest in the population of the intellectual disability, they can learn to talk and communicate but they always have general problem in the social awareness, their motor skill are fair and they can learn some functional academic skill when they are given professional attention The Severe: the severe intellectual disability range in intelligent quotient (25-39) they generally have poor motor dexterity, they have poor communication skill, they can learn some little health habits but they are very poor in academic skill, their rate of development is poor and slow, they can learn some daycare activities with supervision, they can learn the potentials to develop some useful self-protection skills to a minimum level in a controlled environment. The Profound; This profound intellectual disability are generally in the intelligent quotient range of (0.19-0.24), they are sometime labeled as ‘vegetable ‘(no movement), they are easily recognized right away from birth, they are frequently institutionalized because of their extremely demanding development needs, they have little potentials to social and communication skills, they always depend on others for their daily living activities such as eating, dressing and toileting. These are unable to benefit from any meaningful education and are often quite physically handicapped. 2.2.2 Concept of Bullying The term bullying comes from the Latin word bullying meaning attack. The Latin was itself a joining of and gradi which means step at. There is no globally accepted definition of bullying. Some consensus seems to exist, however, that bullying behaviour is meant either to injure another, to gain something for the aggressor, or to result in both injury and extraneous gains. It is unplanned and usually occurs during times of stress. It is viewed as a loss of self control or an impulse break-through. That is, bullying behaviours refer to those behaviours, verbal, non-verbal or physical that injury other children directly or indirectly and or results in extraneous gains for the aggressor. Bullying is a psychological concept used to describe behaviour by an individual against himself or others with the sole aim of inflicting physical and psychological harm. It is a maladaptive behaviour exhibited by an individual in different ways from physical, to verbal and indirect ways. It can also be seen as an unprovoked attacked that causes hurt of a psychological, social or physical nature. Colman (2003) supported this idea by describing bullying as a behaviour whose primary or sole purpose or function is to injure another children or organism, whether physically or psychologically. According to Bolaji (2001); Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2000); United State Department of Health and Human Services (2001) and Fox and Zawitz(2001) opined that physical harm on another children include behaviours such as biting, pushing, hitting, shoving, slapping, stabbing, rape, shooting, kicking, hair-pulling among others. Verbal harm on another children include the employment of words to hurt someone as in the case of threatening and intimidating others and engaging in malicious teasing, taunting and name-calling. Indirect harm on other individuals includes the manifestation of such behaviours as spreading cruel rumours, gossiping and encouraging others to reject or exclude someone. In addition, Nwachukwu (1995) described bullying as the idea that one child commits an action that hurts another. Felson and Tedeschi (1993) define bullying as an act that injures or irritates other children. According to Baron and Richardson (1994) bullying is any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment. Berkowits (1993) view bullying as any form of behaviour that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologically. Long and Brendtro (1993) also defined bullying as a spontaneous, impulsive act of anger. It is an observable behaviour which can depreciate, threaten, or hurt a children or destroy an object. Similar view Loeber and Hay (1997) also defined bullying as a category of behaviour that causes or threatens physical harm to others. This means that bullying is not a unitary term but encompasses a variety of behaviours, including verbal bullying, bullying, physical fighting, robbery, rape and homicide. Dollard and his collaborates (2002) viewed bullying as a sequence of behaviour “the goal-response to which is the injury of the children towards whom it is directed”. They believe that frustration eventually leads to bullying. According to them, when an individual is faced with a frustrating situation he/she react bullyingly which makes bullying to be basically hostile in nature. According to Long and Brendtro (1993) in Zirpoli (2008) bullying is a spontaneous, impulsive act of anger. It is an observable behaviour which can depreciate, threaten, or hurt children or destroy an object. It is unplanned and usually occurs during times of stress. It is viewed as a loss of self-control or an impulse break-through. O’Conner (2011) observed that bullying children need to learn how to control their behaviours and manage anger and conflict without resorting to bullying Yahoo Contributor Network (2012) defined bullying as a physical or verbal behaviour intended to harm. Bullying is a behaviour that can be directed towards others internally and which is destructive (Blank, 2011). According to Wolman (1989) bullying behaviour is the acts of behavioural responses of an organism that display the quantity of bullying while bullyingness is the tendency to display hostility by performing act of bullying. Bruno (1992) sees bullying behaviour as a behavioural trait characterized by hostile attack, usually upon someone or something else. It is a behaviourdirected towards causing harm to others (Fraczek & Zumkley, 1992). From the foregoing definitions of the concept of bullying, it can be inferred that human bullying, in its broadest sense, is behaviour or a disposition that is forceful, hostile or attacking. It is an intention to cause harm or an act intended to increase relative social dominance. It implies any physical, verbal, direct or indirect act or behaviour that is exhibited with the intention to harm self (bullies own self) as in the case of murder or suicide or others as in the case of pushing, hitting, slapping, kicking, stabbing, shoving, biting, rape, hair-pulling, shooting, threatening, intimidating, engaging in malicious teasing, taunting, name-calling, spreading rumours, gossiping, encouraging others to reject or exclude someone and so on. It is true to say that bullying is any form of behaviour exhibited with the intention to harm self or others which disrupt peace in the school environments and a challenge to the smooth conduct of school activities that affects children with mild intellectual disabilities’ academic performance. Different classifications of bullying were given by different authors or psychologists. Bandura (1973) distinguishes instrumental and hostile bullying. He describes instrumental bullying as those actions aimed at securing extraneous rewards other than the victims suffering. For example a children with mild intellectual disabilities who steals a pair of tennis shoes out of another children with mild intellectual disabilities locker. Hostile bullying is an action that is used to produce injurious outcomes rather than to gain status, power, resources, or some other types of results. Moeller (2001) described two major categories of bullying, physical bullying and verbal bullying. - Physical bullying includes activities in which actual physical harm is intentionally done to a children, animal or object. For example hitting, kicking, stabbing, shooting, pushing and shoving, throwing objects, breaking windows, defacing property and setting fires. - Verbal bullying involves the use of words to harm another children. Example of verbal bullying include behaviours such as making threats or writing threatening notes or letters, calling names, spreading gossip, and teasing. Moeller (2001) further delineated three types of bullying, hostile bullying, instrumental bullying and reactive bullying. Hostile bullying has the primary goal of doing harm to the victim or of making the victim suffer. Instrumental bullying involves the use of force in order to obtain some non-bullying goal, whereas reactive bullying refers to an angry bullying act in response to some precipitating environmental event or behaviour. Instrumental bullying is sometimes called unprovoked bullying, while reactive bullying is sometimes referred to as provoked bullying. Nwachukwu (1995) delineated four forms of bullying. These include physical attack, display of tantrums of temper, verbal attacks with threats, scolding and so on and indirect bullying, as when a child breaks something belonging to the children who has annoyed him/her. Papalia, Olds and Felman (2002) has also described four categories of bullying, which are; instrumental, hostile, overt and covert bullyings. - Instrumental bullying according to Papalia (2002) is a kind of bullying behaviour which is used as a means of achieving a goal which is very common in an early childhood between 2 and 5 years of age. This kind of bullying is sometimes necessary for social development. - Hostile bullying: this is a kind of bullying behaviour intended to hurt another children. - Overt Bullying: It is a form of bullying which is either instrumental or hostile. This kind of bullying can be physical or verbal and usually directed against its target openly. This is quite obvious during the political rallies where one party member destroys their opponents in order to win favour from the children and at the end to wins the election. - Covert Bullying: This type of bullying consists of damaging or interfering with relationship, reputation or psychological wellbeing. It involve spreading rumour, withholding friendship, removing someone from a group and name-calling which is also common during politics when children reputations are damaged and false rumours are spread. This kind of bullying is also found mostly among girls (Gleitman Fridlund and Reisberg 2004). Kuppuswamy (2006) categorized bullying into two forms; sadistic and masochistic bullying. - Sadistic Bullying: It is also called externalized form of bullying. It is a bullying that is expressed on things, objects or children in the external world by doing some harm or damage to them. The individual that is afflicted is usually harmed and if it is an object, is damaged and in most cases destroyed. - Masochistic Bullying: It is also referred to internalized form of bullying. This is where the individual does not express his anger on others. This individual turns the bullying on himself for herself. Similarly, Hunt (1993) also categorized bullying into five forms:- Over aroused Bullying: children engage in behaviour that is characterized by high levels of activity that result in frequent accidents and bullying incidents. Children who push and shove their peers often provoke or initiate an bullying response from their peers. Unlike motivation for other types of bullying behaviour children with mild intellectual disabilities who demonstrate over aroused bullying rarely select their victims. - Impulsive bullying: children are generally quiet and passive in their demeanor but into a flurry of activity and violence that can be uncharacteristically destructive. - Affective Bullying: children demonstrate rageful bullying. Their behaviour is described as appearing to be chronically angry, resentful, and hostile. - Predatory Bullying: children seem to be seeking revenge. Individuals who demonstrate predatory bullying are described as persons who wait for a chance to get back at another person in a harmful manner. - Instrumental Bullying: children who engaged in instrumental bullying demonstrate behaviours that allow them to get their own way through intimidation of others. Shaffer (1993) categories bullying into two. Hostile bullying and instrumental - Hostile Bullying: If a children’s ultimate goal is to harm a victim, his or her behaviour qualifies as hostile bullying. - Instrumental Bullying: This describes those situations in which one person harms another as a means to some other end. The most common types of bullying observed in school settings are physical, verbal and psychological bullying. A study conducted by Popp (2003) showed the presence of physical violence in schools (vandalism fights, blackmailing) and also presence of verbal bullying (calling names, nicknames and spreading rumours) that lead to social stigmatism and exclusion. Identification of children with bullying behaviour Szyndrowski (1999) viewed that children who witness violence often exhibit: - Behaviour problems often blamed on the victim. - Behaviour problems often blamed on the victim. - Conflict concerning taking sides with parents. - Fear and distrust of close relationships. - Guilt at having escaped punishment and extreme fear for the future. - Low self-esteem. - Pattern of general bullyingness. - Pattern of over-compliance and fearfulness. - Psychosomatic complains. - Problems relating to authority. - Problems relating to authority. Moeller (2001) described a clear picture of the early warning signs of potential future bullying behaviour. These warning signs involve some type of bullying that warrants attention. They include: - Being a victim of violence. - Expression of violence in writings and drawings. - Extensive feeling of isolation and being alone. - Excessive feelings of rejection. - Feelings of being picked on and persecuted. - History of discipline problems. - Low school interest and poor academic performance. - Uncontrolled anger. - Patterns of impulsive and chronic hitting, intimidating and bullying behaviour. - Past history of violent and bullying behaviour. - Social withdrawal. 2.2.4 Causes of Bullying among children with mild intellectual disabilities Bullying behaviour is a major public health problem that is increasing all over the world, causing serious individual and social damages. It appears as if life in the world is becoming increasingly violent and out of control. In Nigeria, many children are being violently killed; properties are being destroyed for no cause. Bullying behaviour exhibited among primary school children in Nigeria poses a serious challenge to the smooth running of school activities and also threatens lives and properties. Different psychologists have given various factors leading to Bullying behaviour. It appears that adolescent bullying stems from different factors. Bullying behaviour according to Gasa (2005) can be traced to children’s family backgrounds, community, school, peers, media, gender, age among others. The violent behaviour especially bullying is so feared and worrisome Nwachukwu (1995) described the common causes of bullying behaviour in young children as follows: - Displaced anger when the child cannot express anger directly toward the offending children or object. - Emotional tensions generated by the environment. - Frustrations which predispose the child to attack a children or object that stands in his way. - Identification with an bullying child. - Jealousy. - Learning from child’s both specific types of bullying and the general idea that acting bullyingly pays and is acceptable. - Need for self-protection when feeling of insecurity develops. - The desire to win attention or to show superiority. - Parental rejection. - Physical punishment for misbehaviour arousing the desire to strike back. - Permissive attitudes by significant children towards bullying. Biological influences include genetic or inherited factors and various neurological factors that influence how the brain functions. Some theories attribute the tendency toward antisocial behaviour to innate biological factors. Evolutionary views revealed that bullying is biologically based. Santrock (2002) assert that certain stimuli release innate bullying responses. The evolutionary theorists believe that early in human evolution, the survivors were probably bullying individuals. For example, hunters and food gatherers did not only have to kill animals to eat but also had to compete for the best food territories if they were to survive. Santrock (2002) also argued that bullying is biologically based. He believed that children have a self-destructive urge called the death instinct. The death instinct comes in conflict with our self-preserving life instinct; the death instinct is redirected toward others in the form of bullying. Even though a human instinct for bullying had not been proved, genes are important in understanding that bullying is biological. The selective breeding of animals provides the evidence. Santrock (2002) viewed that after a number of a breeding among only bullying animals and among only docile animals, vicious and timid strains of animals emerge. The vicious strains attack nearly anything in sight. The timid strains rarely fight even when attacked. Brennan, Mednick and Kandel (1991) assert that the genetic basis of bullying is more difficult to demonstrate with humans. However, in an investigation of 573 sets of adult twins, identical twins had more similar bullying tendencies than did fraternal twins (Rushton and others, 1986 in The parents or guardians who use frequent physical punishment to discourage antisocial behaviour of their children tend to raise bullying children that lead to child bullying. The child sees the parent as model and the punishment as an appropriate way of solving problems. Children want to succeed; they want to see themselves as worthy and adequate. With the support from children, they will be able to see some purpose, meaning or value in persistence to a therapeutic interaction for changing behaviour. They tend to develop maladaptive motivational beliefs such as refusal to persist during a therapeutic interaction if they interpret their social environment as conveying negative information. Some parents practice bullying acts against their children which sometimes take a form of unusually severe discipline or may be cross the line and become child abuse which can lead to bullying behaviour. Children who are Bullying according to Mishra (2007) are not born that way. Their education in the use of force may begin at home, where their parents may model Bullying behaviour as a way of solving problems. These children may learn from an early age that the way to get what they want is through force. They may be taught to respond to challenges with confrontation and to express themselves with their fists rather than with words. Mcwhirter (1998) assert that a dysfunctional family which is a marital disruption such as divorce, separation and unwedded or single parenthood. Although the family may seem intact, it might be characterized by spousal violence, child abuse and alcoholism. Testosterone: This is another biological factor that causes bullying behaviour. It can be associated with orbitofrontal cortex a brain area associated with impulse control and self-regulation systems that integrate emotion, motivation and cognition to guide context-appropriate behaviour. Patients with localized lesions to the orbitofrontal cortex engage in heightened reactive bullying. Archer (1991) believed that sex hormones appear to play a role in shaping Bullying behaviour. Thus Bullying violent offenders according to him have been found to have significantly higher levels of testosterone. 2.2.6 Consequences of Bullying Bullying behaviour has many serious consequences for both bullies and children around them. The children with mild intellectual disabilities who are bullying are often socially rejected and stigmatized. They are often the victims of retaliation from peers. The children with mild intellectual disabilities are also at risk of abuse from staff and family members. The children with mild intellectual disabilities may also loose opportunities for integration into community activities, integrated education and living settings. The informal management practices from family members as well as staff, who are reluctant to include them in activities with others, may also restrict their lifes. Ferris and Grisso (1996) delineated that children who are bullying at school are likely to be rejected by their peers or classmate. When bullying child fail to respond to simple interventions they may receive multiple interventions which are both restrictive and ineffective. Under the guise of behavioural intervention, the bullying children with mild intellectual disabilities may loss access to their personal possessions, work, money, community activities and access to their family and peers. Bullying is a major risk factor for failure of family and community placements and for admissions and multiple admissions to institutions and psychiatric facilities. 2.3.1 Concept of Token The token reinforcement has been reviewed and analyzed by different researchers in relation to general principles of behaviour. Hackenburg (2009) delineated that token first appeared in human history in the transition from nomadic hunter-gather societies to agricultural societies, and expanded from simple barter economies to more complex economies. Its current use provides the basic economic framework for all monetary transactions involving some forms of token reinforcement. Therefore, the token has been employed as a behaviour management and a motivational tool or strategy in education and rehabilitation settings. Token method according to Hackenburg (2009) was significantly practiced throughout the world in the 19th century, and has since been manipulated and modified over the years and practiced in a variety of disciplines. Token is a of behaviour modification through positive reinforcement derived from the principles of operant conditioning. Example of token involve points, clips, tickets, sweets and anything that can be exchange for something desirable which one may like. Martin and Pears (1978) described token as a strategy in which a group or Individual can earn tokens for a variety of desirable behaviours and can exchange tokens earned for back-up reinforces. Child (1986) further viewed token as a behaviour modification strategy that uses tangible reinforces such as prices, money or gift as systematic application of a reinforcement schedule. According to Rice (2012). Token is a form of behaviour modification which uses the principles of operant conditioning and based on B.F. Skinner‟s (1953) concept of behaviour shaping through selective positive reinforcement. It is designed to increase desirable behaviour and decrease undesirable behaviour with the use of tokens. A token is a form of operant conditioning that is used in behaviour modification that involves rewarding desirable behaviours with tokens which can be exchanged for items or privileges and punishing undesirable behaviours by taking away tokens (Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002). Filcheck and McNeil (2004) described token as a program in which individuals earn tokens (example, poker chips, stickers) for exhibiting acceptable behaviours (example compliance), and can exchange these tokens for rewards (example, preferred activity). According to Sandra and Friedrich (2009) described token within an educational setting as a system for providing positive reinforcement to a child or children by given them tokens for completing tasks or behaving in desired ways. Cosgrave (2009) also defined token as a system for providing positive reinforcement to a child or children by given them tokens for completing tasks or behaving in desired ways. A token is a system of behaviour modification through positive reinforcement derived from the principles of operant conditioning. Example of token involve points, chips, tickets, sweets, and anything that can be exchange for something desirable which one may like. Token are used in many environments from schools to individual households. They have been advocated for children with Autism spectrum disorders and children with developmental disorders (Reitman et al 2001). Kerr and Nelson (2010) in Humphrey (2011) viewed token as an intervention used to reduce problem behaviours in children. It is a system of behaviour management in which tangible or token reinforcess are given as rewards and later exchanged for back-up reinforcess that have value in them. Token according to Humphery (2011) could include points plastic chips, metal washers, poker chips, play money and stickers used in numerous settings as long as attention can be focused on the Child behaviours. Meyer (2002) opined that a token is a system where something, a token, represents a unit of value that can be exchanged for an item or service equal to the value of tokens exchanged. It is based on principles of operant conditioning and the work of B.F. Skinner and others. Skinner and others showed how to use reinforcement by trying the different possibilities of reward structure. For example giving the same reward every time or varying it and giving the reward every time the behaviour is performed or randomly. Operant conditioning deals with voluntary behavioural change while classical conditioning deals mainly with physical response such as salivating at a food festival. Token are used as a method of strengthening behaviour or increasing its frequency, because the tokens are a way of “paying” children for completing tasks and the children can then use these tokens to buy desired activities or items (Miltenberger, 2008). Token according to Elliott, Kratochwill, Cook and Travers (2000) is a form of classroom management in which children receive tokens for desirable behaviour. These tokens may then be exchanged for something pleasurable. According to Carr, Fraizer and Ronald (2005) token is treatment procedure based on the principles of operant conditioning. Tarbox, Ghazzi and Wilson (2006) opined that toke involves reinforcing a child for compliance with previously agreed upon behaviours. The children earns token, which can be anything from stickers, tickets, and marbles which he/she then collects until enough have been earned to trade in for reward. Some common rewards are stickers, free time, extra computer time, a no home work pass, an opportunity to line leader, and the ability to wear a hat during class. For children at a lower cognitive level, it is usually most effective in the beginning to reward each success with a token, and have the ability to trade in the tokens for a reward fairly quickly. As the children with mild intellectual disabilities learn the system, typically the number of tokens required to earn a reward can be gradually increased. 2.3.2 Determinants Factors for successful Implementation of Token There are some factors that determine the success of token procedures in behaviour modification as explained in Mayer (2002) which include: First the system should have clear stated rules. It is important for the environment to be highly structured so children with mild intellectual disabilities know what it is expected of them and the consequences of their actions. Also, while a token can be designed to punish undesirable behaviours, it is typically more successful when using rewards rather than punishments. Typically, children disruptive behaviour increases with punishments rather than decrease. Finally, the teacher should always recognize appropriate behaviour in a timely manner. The faster the feedback, the more likely the behaviour will be reinforced because the children with mild intellectual disabilities will understand the reason for being rewarded or punished. Ingersoll (1988) opined that token require a considerable amount of time, organization and follow-through on the part of the child involved. Because children’s actions need to be closely monitored, token may be difficult to implement in the home. In a school setting, these programs are appropriate because daily routines are clearly established, adult supervision is consistent, and access to reinforces, such as recess and free time, can be strictly controlled. Carr, Fraizer and Roland (2005) identified five factors to be considered in planning token. They include: - Establishing the exchange system - Identifying and defining target behaviours - Selecting tokens - Selecting backup reinforces - Programming for maintenance. Voughn and Bos (2009) viewed the following factors to be considered before implementing token: - Pinpoint behaviours to be changed. Determine the behaviours to be changed through the use of the token. It can be successful in influencing academic, social and classroom skills. Define them in specific, observable and measurable terms to facilitate consistency of implementation among staff. Behavioural pinpoints will also prevent confusion among children regarding the behaviours of which they can earn tokens. - Select Tokens. Start by selecting what type of token you want to use. For example, objects such as money, beans, play money, marbles in a jar, pennies or plastic chips are excellent devices but use caution when working with younger or disabled children who may allow or lodge them in their nose or ears. In this case, happy face stickers, holes punched in a card or points in the board might serve these children. - Select Reinforces. When the token is in place, children will periodically exchange their tokens for re-inforcers, so the reward must motivate children to do whatever is necessary to earn it. After considering about the children, his or her age, interests and what he or she likes and dislikes, identify a list of potential re-inforcers. Interview the children about the things that he/she likes and would be reinforcing to those children and be sure to keep a record of the target behaviour and the extent to which it is influenced by the token. 2.4.1 Concept of Punishment Punishment is one of the effective ways of increasing desirable behaviour and decreasing undesirable behaviour without recourse to physical punishment. Child (1986) viewed punishment strategy as a general isolation from all reinforces inherent in the normal social environment. White and Bailey (1990) described punishment strategy as the act of removing a misbehaving child to a place that is less reinforcing such as sitting in the corner of a room watching other children play but not being allowed to join. Punishment is a procedure that involves removing an individual from the reinforcing environment to an austere environment to decrease the future provability of problematic behaviour (Donaldson and Vollmer, 2011) According to Gordon (2000) punishment is used to control the occurrence of undesirable behaviour in pupils by the withdrawal of privileges in the event of the occurrence of undesirable behaviour. Mishra (2007) punishment that removes the child from something that is reinforcing (being with other children with mild intellectual disabilities, participating in class). If the child does not find the classroom reinforcing, then punishment may not be a punishment at all, if you use punishment, you should carefully monitor the change in the child’s behaviour over time since you began using punishment. If the problem behaviour escalates, the child may be using punishment to get out of school work or your class environment. The intention of punishment according to Mishra (2007) is to remove the children with mild intellectual disabilities from an environment that he or she would otherwise receive reinforcement. It is a setting or condition in which the children with mild intellectual disabilities receive no attention, reinforcement or reward. Day (2004) opined that punishment is a specific procedure in which an individual is isolated from social contact or general access to reinforcing objects or activities for a period of time. It may include withholding a specific reinforces. Day (2004) further viewed that the absence of human interaction and distraction also allows the child to calm down mentally and physiologically. Cooper, Heron and Heward (2007) defined punishment as the withdrawal of the opportunity to earn positive reinforcement or the loss of access to positive reinforces for a specified period of time, contingent on the occurrence of behaviour. Akinade (2012) define punishment as a behaviour modification strategy that is used to check excess or disruptive behaviour among children. Punishment according to Akinade (2012) involves removing individuals who exhibit undesirable behaviour from places where they may receive or enjoy reinforcement for such behaviour for a brief period to where they cannot be reinforced. That is long enough to make them sober or better behaved. It varies from a few minutes to about 15 minutes. For example, if classroom activities are such that children like to be in class being asked to go and stand at the back of the last row, facing the teacher/board is a form of punishment. Punishment is therefore a form of behaviour modification strategy in which children with mild intellectual disabilities are denied to have an access to apportunities for reinforcement. It is used to control the occurrence of undesirable behaviour including bullying in children with mild intellectual disabilities by withdrawal of privileges in the event of the occurrence of bad behaviour. According to White and Bailey (1990) punishment which are used in the home such as „go to your room may be ineffective since the child’s room may be a reinforcing environment. In support to White and Bailey’s opinion, Vaughn and Bos (2009) believed that punishment is frequently used inappropriately. The underlying principle behind the successful use of punishment is that the environment the child is leaving must be reinforcing and the punishment environment must be without reinforcement. 2.4.2 Classification of Punishment 1. Planned Ignoring. This form of punishment involves the systematic withdrawal of social reinforces such as teacher’s attention, physical contact or verbal interaction to children with mild intellectual disabilities for a predetermined period of time upon the onset of mild levels of problem behaviour. The duration should be (10 – 60 seconds). During planned ignoring, the teacher does not interact with the children with mild intellectual disabilities on punishment. Cooper, Heron and Heward (2007) stated that planned ignoring does not pose an imminent threat to child renal or material safety. It is to integrate the procedure with the reinforcement of other children with mild intellectual disabilities who is demonstrating the desired behaviour in such a manner that the children with mild intellectual disabilities presenting undesired behaviour can see or hear the reinforcement occurring to the children with mild intellectual disabilities for the demonstration of the desired behaviour. However, if planned ignoring is not properly implemented, some children with mild intellectual disabilities misbehaviour may likely increase when the teacher attention is withdrawn. 2. Removal of Reinforcement. This is the removal of materials the children with mild intellectual disabilities is interacting with. When the children with mild intellectual disabilities are using the materials upon the occurrence of inappropriate behaviour, the teacher simply removes the materials that the children with mild intellectual disabilities are using for a period of time (1 – 3 minutes). This is the recognized as the simplest form of punishment (Colarado Department of Education). 3. Contingent Observation. The children with mild intellectual disabilities are removed from the current environment to another location in the room or setting. The children with mild intellectual disabilities is removed from the reinforcing activity, but is allowed to sit and observes others engage in on-going reinforcement or instructional activities but may not participate in them for a brief period of time (30 – 60 second) (Cooper, Heron and Heward (2007). Erford (1999) stated that the teacher directs the children with mild intellectual disabilities to a area in the classroom where the children with mild intellectual disabilities is able to listen to the discussion, but not allowed to participate for a period of time. When contingent observation is used, children with mild intellectual disabilities may lean appropriate behaviour through imitation by observing classroom activities although instructional activities are interrupted. 4. Exclusion punishment. This is a removal of the children with mild intellectual disabilities from the current reinforcing environment to another location within the same room were the children with mild intellectual disabilities cannot participate observe on-going activities for a specified period of time of about 2 – 5 minutes. (Cooper, Heron and Heward, 2007). For example, the children with mild intellectual disabilities sitting behind a partition or sitting in a corner for a maximum of 2 – 5 minutes. 5. Isolation punishment. Colarado Department of Education, Guidelines for the use of punishment viewed isolation punishment as the isolation child or youth from all probable reinforcess by being placed in a different room under the constant supervision of qualified staff. The duration should not exceed one minute per year of age of the children with mild intellectual disabilities with a maximum of 12 minutes. 6. Seclusion punishment. It is a placement of children with mild intellectual disabilities alone in a locked room. The children with mild intellectual disabilities is excluded from the reinforcing activity area and placed in a room specifically created for punishment (Mace and Heller, 1990). Example for seclusion punishment is the children with mild intellectual disabilities in danger for hurting self or others are moved to a punishment room that is safe after disarming him or her under constant supervision by the staff. 7. Suspension and Expulsion. These interventions are usually carried out by school management and Governing board of the schools to correct the undesirable behaviours of the misbehaved children with mild intellectual disabilities. It is recognized as extreme forms of punishment. 2.4.3 Guideline for Implementation of punishment For punishment to be effective, following guidelines by Nelsen (2013) must be observed: - A specific location should be defined for punishment - A specific duration for punishment should be set - A warning that punishment may come should be offered. - The children with mild intellectual disabilities should be consistently removed and placed in punishment when the behaviour reoccurs. - A defined behaviour should lead to punishment. - Clear contingencies should be defined for the child to be released from punishment. Mishra (2007) outlined some procedure for implementation of punishment. Some of the procedures include: - If a children with mild intellectual disabilities is not responding to verbal redirection. Give one warning if desired, and then assign a base punishment of 5 minutes. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities refuse, warn that refusing will cause additional minutes to be added the 5. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities still refuse, start adding minutes. You can decide to add an additional minute for every minute they delay.1 Additional minute per 30 seconds, and so on. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities continue to refuse, tell them that if the number reaches ten (10), their parent/guardian will be called. If no-one is at home, call the office. Should the same problem occur daily, refer the children with mild intellectual disabilities to the office directly. It is also an effective deterrent to deduct time spent in punishment from activities that the child desires (recess, free time), deduct points that they may be accumulating for “store”, reduce their behaviour level/privileges, et cetera. It is important to identify what the children with mild intellectual disabilities values and provide penalties which are both appropriate to the behaviour, and effective. - Never present a children with mild intellectual disabilities with a consequence that you cannot or do not reinforce. It undermines your authority and your credibility. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities accept the punishment and sits down in the proper place, make sure they understand the rules. Mishra (2007) further viewed that if the children with mild intellectual disabilities complete the punishment; take a minute to speak with them about what happened, and how they will act differently to avoid the same problem. If it is clear that the children with mild intellectual disabilities is still angry, in denial, and still demonstrating the same behaviour that prompted the punishment in the first place, point this out to the children with mild intellectual disabilities, and tell them you will check back with them in 5 minutes. Resume the procedure that you the use for a regular punishment. Nelsen (2013) viewed that positive punishment is designed to encourage children and to teach them self-control and self-discipline. It is respectful because children are involved in the process (by helping to create a space that will be encouraging) instead of object or victims of the process. Positive punishment teaches children to understand that their brains don’t function well when they are upset. They learn the value of taking time to out to calm down until their brains are functioning in a way that’s advantageous to them rather than detrimental. Nelsen (2013) outlined the following procedure for implementation of punishment: - Identify reinforces maintaining the undesired behaviour - Conduct of functional assessment to identify the function of the target behaviour. - Specify in advance the behaviours which will result in punishment. - Use less intrusive behaviour reduction procedures first (i.e. differential reinforcement, verbal aversive, response cost). - These less intrusive procedures should have been documented as ineffective before punishment is used. - Develop a written statement of how punishment is to be implemented. - Consider the following requirements for using exclusionary punishment: The punishment room should be properly lighted and ventilated The room should be free of objects with which the children with mild intellectual disabilities could harm him or herself. The teacher should be able to see and hear the children with mild intellectual disabilities in punishment at all times. The room should never be locked. At no time shall children with mild intellectual disabilities be placed in a locked area alone. - Keep written records of each occasion when punishment is used. - Always differentially reinforce desired children with mild intellectual disabilities behaviour in time-in environment (classroom or instructional setting). - Evaluate procedures if punishment duration exceeds 15 minutes. - Evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures if punishment is not having the desired impact on children with mild intellectual disabilities behaviour (collect and chart data on the frequency of the target behaviour). Vaughn and Bos (2009) also enumerate the following procedures for successful punishment: - Children with mild intellectual disabilities should be told in advance which behaviours will result in punishment. - The amount of time children with mild intellectual disabilities will be in punishment should be specified a head of time. - The amount of time children with mild intellectual disabilities are in punishment should be brief (one to five minutes). - Punishment must occur every time an undesirable behaviour occurs. - Contingences should be set in advance for children with mild intellectual disabilities who fail to comply with punishment rules. - Punishment area should be constantly monitored. - When punishment is over, children with mild intellectual disabilities should return to the group. - Positive behaviours that occur after punishment should be reinforced. - Planned ignoring. This occurs when the teacher allows the children with mild intellectual disabilities to remain in the setting; however all attention from the teachers and peers is removed for a designated period of time. - Withdrawal of materials. All materials related to the behaviour are removed from a specified period of time. For example, if children with mild intellectual disabilities throw a ball at other children with mild intellectual disabilities in a bullying manner, he/she is not allowed to access to the ball for a specified period of punishment Contingent observation. Children with mild intellectual disabilities are removed from the setting but are able to observe. Example, on the play ground children with mild intellectual disabilities who exhibits inappropriate behaviour watches from the side-lines for a specified period of time. - Seclusion punishment. The children with mild intellectual disabilities are removed from the setting and place in isolation for a specified period of time. Mishra (2007) pointed out the following as punishment core rules: - The children with mild intellectual disabilities cannot bring anything to the cubicle except themselves (example, no toys, sunglasses, hats, books, pencils, and so on). - Staff is in charge of timing the punishment. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities disrupt the punishment by standing, talking out, moving the chair to look at others, the time starts over. - Staff will notify the children with mild intellectual disabilities when time is up, and will notify them when they can return to their seat. - When it’s necessary to start time over, tell the children with mild intellectual disabilities you’ve done this, and why (the rules, above). After a few reminders, there may not be any use in saying “Time has started over” and it may just make the children with mild intellectual disabilities angrier. In this case, just make a mental note of the new time their punishment is up. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities start wandering the room, begin adding additional minutes again, with a reminder about reaching ten (10) minutes. Other staff in the room according to Mishra (2007) should be supportive and deferential to the children who set the punishment, regardless of who initiated it. When it comes to creating uniform discipline, teachers, instructional assistants, interns, volunteers, and counsellors should all have the ability to set limits and provide consequences, and have those decisions upheld by the team. If the children with mild intellectual disabilities tries to engage or bargain with anyone, remind them that they have to do what they were asked to do by the children who gave them the punishment, and do not engage them further. Do not change the terms or modify the punishment in any way. It undermines the authority of the staff member who gave the punishment, and harms team solidarity. Wilhoit (2000) suggested the following rules for effective use of punishment t:- - Parent or guardian permission. Before using punishment especially exclusionary punishment as an intervention procedure, schools should obtained written permission from parents or guardian The discussion in the permission of the punishment should consist the specific procedures that will be used, as well as the circumstances leading to the use of punishment and its effect on the children with mild intellectual disabilities’ behaviour. - Only use punishment as one component of an Extensive Array of Behaviour Interventions. Punishment especially exclusionary punishment should not be used isolation as the only behaviour modification strategy being applied. - Avoid power struggles with children with mild intellectual disabilities. Do not engage in forcing children with mild intellectual disabilities through physical means to take a punishment especially exclusionary punishment. Whenever the teacher engages in physical power struggles with children with mild intellectual disabilities, it becomes a no-win situation. - Avoid excessive use of punishment. Children with mild intellectual disabilities should not be secluded in a punishment setting for more than 5 – 15 minutes. - Never lock children with mild intellectual disabilities in a closed setting. Children with mild intellectual disabilities should never be placed in a punishment setting secured with locks or in a fully enclosed area that could prevent teachers‟ observation and access to the children with mild intellectual disabilities. - Maintain Through Written Records. Detailed records of the use of punishment should be kept that include the children with mild intellectual disabilities’ name, date, time incident and outcome. - Assess when punishment is not working. Whenever the data indicated that punishment is not effective, functional behaviour assessment should be performed. Cooper, Heron and Heward (2007) list three different methods of implementing exclusionary punishment and four non-exclusionary punishments. Exclusionary punishment is in place when children with mild intellectual disabilities are removed from a reinforcing environment for a specified period of time. Nelson (1997) maintained that the following are factors for effective use of punishment: - A warning signal indicating that the punishment is about to happen if the children with mild intellectual disabilities does not alter his or her behaviour. - A nonverbal signal indicating the beginning and end of punishment may be used. - A brief punishments (e.g. 1 – 5 minutes) are more effective than a longer punishment if the s children with mild intellectual disabilities have not been exposed to long punishment first. - Duration of children with mild intellectual disabilities longer than 15 minutes should not be employed. - Requirements for release from punishment include: Completion of the specified duration of punishment. Appropriate behaviour during punishment. End of 15 minutes maximum duration of punishment (if punishment has not been effective at This point, implement other alternate intervention). Prince (2013) outlines the following methods of implementing punishment strategy: - To remove children with mild intellectual disabilities from environment were the behaviour occurred. Removing him or her from that area is a clear non-verbal signal that they will not get what they want while they are engaging in problem behaviour. - Withholding attention while enforcing the punishment procedure. This means interacting with the children with mild intellectual disabilities as little as possible, which entails not speaking the children with mild intellectual disabilities at all if possible or providing only minimal prompts (“sit down”, “no”). - To remove the children with mild intellectual disabilities from the area. Do not talk to the children with mild intellectual disabilities during this time and provide the least amount of physical guidance necessary. Once the children with mild intellectual disabilities behaves appropriately, he or she may return to the area were the behaviour occurred. - Teaching the children with mild intellectual disabilities appropriate ways of getting what he or she wants. If they are not taught a more appropriate way of getting it, then they will continue to engage in problem behaviour to get it, as they have no alternatives. For punishment to be effective Essa (2000) suggested the following: Children with mild intellectual disabilities should be separated from reinforcement. The time should be short. Confrontation should be avoided. Verbal interaction should be limited. A time-contingent release should be provided (e.g. sitting quietly required in earning Release). The contingencies should be explained and provided to children with mild intellectual disabilities prior to entering punishment. The length of time period of punishment is also vital in determining the effectiveness of punishment. A minutes punishment was found to be significantly better than a 10 second or 1 minute punishment among elementary school children with mild intellectual disabilities. Essa (2000) further observed that teachers can do many things to minimize the need to use punishment through the following: Ensuring that classroom activities are more reinforcing than punishment. Providing children with mild intellectual disabilities with ample but not excessive opportunities to comply. Children with mild intellectual disabilities with behaviour problem should be provide with additional consequences for not requiring punishment in a given time span. Handling Potential Problems Associated with punishment Mishra (2007) had provided helpful suggestions about how to handle Potential problems associated with punishment. These include: - If the punishment requests are unsuccessful and the children with mild intellectual disabilities are continuing to resist and disrupt class time, call the office. Once again NEVER present a children with mild intellectual disabilities with a consequence that you cannot or do not reinforce. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities behaviour turns destructive, evacuate the room and notify the office from the nearest phone or emergency call button what is happening. Request that the heamaster call security. - If children with mild intellectual disabilities initiate physical violence toward a peer they should be placed in an isolated seat for the rest of the day. Write a referral, consult the office, and proceed with their plan (calling security, suspension, immediate or after school detention by police and so on). Vaughn and Bos (2009) suggested the following about how to handle potential problems associated with punishment: - Add time to children with mild intellectual disabilities’ punishment for refusing to go to children with mild intellectual disabilities or displaying others inappropriate behaviours such as screaming, yelling and kicking. - Children with mild intellectual disabilities should be required to clean up any mess made during punishment before they return from punishment. - Be sure to have a backup consequence if children with mild intellectual disabilities refuse to go to punishment and the amount of time added reaches 30 minutes (usually considered the maximum amount). - Do not argue with individuals when they either try to talk you out of punishment or indicate that you - If the inappropriate behaviour involves two children with mild intellectual disabilities and it is not possible to determine the source of the problem, do not argue; put both children with mild intellectual disabilities in punishment. - If the children with mild intellectual disabilities display the behaviour in a place where it is not possible to use punishment, indicate that punishment will be provided when you return to the classroom. - Be sure to chart the effects of punishment so that you can determine whether it is working. 2.4.5 Advantages of punishment Nelson (2013) highlights the following effectiveness of punishment: - It can help children learn many important life skills, such as the importance of taking time to calm down until they can think more clearly and act more thoughtfully. When human beings are upset, they function from their reptilian brain (the brain stem) where the only options are fight or flight. - Punishment allows children (and children) space to calm down until they are again functioning from their rational brain (the cortex), so they can problem-solve and learn. - It encourages children to form positive beliefs about themselves, their world, and their behaviour. In this state of mind, they can learn their mistakes and /or problem solve on how to make amends for any hurt or damage their behaviour might have caused. - When the method of punishment has really worked with children they feel empowered and motivated to improve from inner desire and locus of control (as opposed to control from others), and they develop skills that will help them solve problems and improve behaviour. 2.6 Theoretical Perspective Bullying is not a phenomenon. It was laid by different theorists many years ago. As old as this phenomenon children and current researchers are still learning new things by building on the foundation of these theories. Psychologists predicted that there is a root cause in all bullying that a child demonstrates and these theories might help us find and understand that root. Mackintosh (1990) opines that an attempt to describe bullying is diverse and often influenced by the professional discipline of the children given the explanation. Positive reinforcement (token) and punishment (punishment) could influence bullying behaviour among children and adolescent. For example, according to Dollard (1939) and Berkowitz (1963) individuals who are frustrated, annoyed or threatened will behave bullyingly since bullying is a natural, almost automatic response to frustrating circumstances. In short, frustration facilitates the performance of bullying behaviour. Each scientific discipline has its own way of analysis and develops its own set of theories and methods to explain phenomena. Felson and Tedeschi (1993) delineated that psychologists focus on internal tensions and frustrations, learned associations, emotions and perceptions in developing their theories. Sociologists tend to focus on social, demographic and cultural factors to explain bullying behaviour. Biologists are more apt to focus on evolutionary principles, genetic codes, biochemical factors, or central nervous system activity as explanations of bullying. Therefore, this study concentrated on social learning theory, behavioural theory, frustration bullying theory and anomie theory with the aim of explanations of bullying. Therefore, this study concentrated on social learning theory, behavioural theory, frustration bullying theory and anomie theory with the aim of revealing the past in order to understand and predict the future. Below is the review of the theories development by various professionals. 2.6.1 Social Learning Theory This theory was developed by Albert Bandura in 1993. Bandura developed a cognitively oriented social learning theory of bullying that does not depend on internal drives. He believed that anticipated positive consequences are a major cause of bullying. Bandura (1977) opined that social learning theories can be broadly understood as a social behavioural approach that emphasizes the reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioural and environmental determinants of human behaviour. According to social learning theories Bandura (1983); Mischel & Shoda (1995) believed that children acquire bullying responses the same way they acquire other complex forms of social behaviour, either by direct experience or by observing others. This means that children develop many complex behaviour including bullying by watching their parents and significant others in their communities and school environment. According to Bandura (1991) human beings adopt, learn and maintain behaviour patterns that have worked in the past even if they worked occasionally. This means that children develop many complex behaviour including bullying by watching their parents and significant others in their communities and school environment. According to him, when a child’s initiative behaviour is reinforced by praise and encouragement from significant models, the probability that the behaviour will occur in the future is increased. Social learning theory explains the acquisition of bullying behaviours, via observational learning processes, and provides a useful set of concepts for understanding and describing the beliefs and expectations that guide social behaviour. Anderson and Bushman (2002) opine that social learning theory especially key concepts regarding the development and change of expectations and how one construes the social world is particularly useful in understanding the acquisition of bullying behaviours and in explaining instrumental bullying. Baron and Richardson (1994) also give a clear explanation by saying that an individual may acquire a wide variety of bullying responses when rewarded for such behaviour providing reinforcement for an act of bullying increases the probability. The reward and punishments that regulate bullying behaviour are labeled by Baron and Richardson (1994), three kinds as follows: -One kind comes from sources external to the individual and includes tangible reward and punishments, social praise or rejection, and or the reduction of an increase in aversive treatment from others. - Bullying may be regulated by vicarious experiences. For example, observing the rewarding or punishing consequences of bullying Reward and punishment can be self-administered. Felson and Tedeschi (1993) viewed that children sometimes learn bullying behaviour through trial-and-error processes but the fact remains that most complex skills are learned vicariously. Children learn by observing others, i.e. models, who use different skills too vicariously. Children learn by observing others, i.e. models, who use different skills to obtain goals in a variety of situations. As Felson and Tedeschi (1993) cited from Bandura (1983) there are four processes by which modeling can instigate bullying behaviour. - A direct function of modeling serves to inform the observer about the casual means-ends relations in the situation. - An inhibitory function of a model teaches observers that they avoid punitive outcomes associated with bullying conduct. - Observation of others who engage in bullying behaviour causes emotional arousal in the observers, which may increase the likelihood of imitative bullying or may heighten the intensity of bullying responses. - Observation of a model may have stimulus enhancing effects by directing the observer’s attention to the kinds of implements or tools being used. Baron and Richardson (1994) opined that social learning theory treats bullying as a social behaviour, involving activities that entail intricate skills that require extensive learning. As Bandura (1986) stated that in order to engage in bullying action, individuals must learn how to use a weapon, they must learn the movements that make physical contact painful for the victim, or they must understand what words or actions will be considered hurtful to their targets. No individual human is born with such knowledge, but have to learn how to behave bullyingly through interaction with others. Govender & Killian (2001) delineated that the continued exposure to acts of violence is likely to induce a process of learning and imitation, culminating in the acceptance of violent conduct as a dominant and normal mode of conflict resolution. Felson and Tedeschi (1993) cited Bandura (1997) who revealed that learning by observation involves the following interrelated processes: - The individual must notice or pay attention to the cues, behaviour and outcomes of the modeled event - These cognitive processes are transformed into imitative response patterns that are new for the individual. - Given the appropriate inducements or incentives, the learned behaviour pattern will be performed. 2.6.3 Frustration-Bullying Theory Frustration bullying theory was developed by Clark Hull (1984) in Felson and Tedleschi (1993). Hull (1984) believed that frustration produces bullying energy, which activates bullying behaviour. Under the influence of Hulls work, Felson and Tedeschi (1993) describe factors associated with the strength of the instigating to bullying behaviour: - The amount of frustration is directly affected by the strength of the response that is frustrated. - The degree of interference with a response is directly related to instigation to bullying. - The number of frustrated responses experienced by the individual. Felson and Tedeschi (1993) opined that if a children is frustrated, bullying energy is created and that energy activates dominant bullying responses. These bullying responses are considered self-reinforcing because they reduce the negative „drive state‟ produced by frustration. If children are frustrated, this self-reinforcement increases the likelihood of bullying behaviour. The frustration experienced by an individual adolescent instigates bullying behaviour. It is therefore to conclude that frustration is one of the aversive stimuli that may cause bullying. 2.7 Empirical Review of Related Literature Various approaches to the control of bullying and violent behaviour exist, but vary according to the individual therapist’s theoretical inclination and persuasion. Research had been carried out using both token and punishment strategy attesting to their efficacy in modifying disruptive and undesirable behaviour especially bullying among school children including children with mild intellectual disabilities. At the displays of good behaviour and learning using teaching machines, reward were awarded such as better food, private quarters, colour television and free day out. After the treatment from the reform institution, many had learned useful skills from the programmed learning texts. Bostow and Bailey (1969) carried out a research on modification of severe disruptive and bullying behaviour using brief timeout and reinforcement procedures. Punishment disruptive behaviours and reinforcement for appropriate behaviours were used with two retarded patients in state hospital ward setting. The procedures reduced loud vocal behaviour in one patient and bullying behaviour in another to near-zero levels when the procedures were removed and were again greatly reduced when punishment and reinforcement were reapplied. The results were significant because the behaviour problems were severe and long-standing and the procedures were instituted without greatly disturbing normal ward routine. Another study was carried out by Bolarin and Badejo (1998) using self-control therapy and token therapy to eliminate stealing behaviour among juvenile delinquents in Lagos approved schools. At the end of treatment, the study revealed that the two strategies (self-control therapy and token therapy) were effective by reducing stealing behaviour among twenty males and twenty females’ delinquent youth that were used for the study. Wille (2002) investigated on the use of multicomponent intervention including token in reducing disruptive classroom behaviours. The result of study affirmed that token have been one of the most effective ways of improving effective classroom behaviours. Reinke and Herman (2002) has also observed that school environment being academically successful, perceiving peers in the classroom as friends or colleagues, and having positive interactions with teachers have all recently been singled out as important for the child’s psychosocial adjustment. Children sharing these characteristics are likely to perceive the school as a useful learning context the purpose of which is to help them construct a successful future as workers and citizens. Such children will not normally exhibit behavioural problems and will express positive attitudes towards teachers and the school. A negative school environment in contrast, damages children and child potential. Luby (2007) conducted a study on an examination of the use of token in reducing behaviours in a child with autism spectrum disorder. The interpretation of the results indicated instability in the variability of the frequency of all targeted behaviours, as the token did not serve as an effective method in modifying the behaviours of the participant. In another study carried out by Brosnan and Healy (2011) on a review of behavioural interventions for the treatment of bullying in individuals with developmental disabilities. A comprehensive number of interventions have been evaluated for the treatment of bullying behaviour exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. These treatments have included antecedent manipulations and changes in instructional context, reinforcement-based strategy, and behaviour reduction strategy the review of study suggests that the treatments implemented have effectively decreased or eliminated bullying in individuals aged 3-16 years. Pendergrass (1972) conducted an investigation on intellectual disabilities children. The study revealed that Punishment is not only suppressed high rate misbehaviour, but concomitantly caused a decrease in desirable behaviour such as speaking and touching. Firestone (1992) conducted a research on the effect and side effect of punishment on bullying primary School Children. Systematic observations of target and non-target behaviour were undertaken. The results showed that as the bullying behaviour was eliminated, the child showed increases in desirable behaviours. The finding also suggests that punishment may sometimes lead to decreases in undesirable behaviour at the cost of certain pro-social activities. The study supports the notion that occasionally, when a behaviour that is disturbing to the environment is eliminated, other deviant behaviours also drop out and pro-social behaviours increase. Kandel (1992) investigated on physical punishment and the development of bullying and violent behaviour: A review. The findings of the study suggested that, severe or frequent parental use of physical punishment was associated with an increase in the child bullying. The study also revealed that family factors such as identification with parents, high parental warmth, or use of reasonable discussion may eliminate any noxious effects which occur as a result of the use of physical punishment. In another study conducted by Gee and Potwarka (2007) on the impact of introducing legal punishment on the frequency of bullying behaviour using the Todd Bertuzzi incident as an ecological case study. The findings revealed that a slight, but statistically insignificant, reduction in the frequency of bullying behaviour was witnessed. However, when individual acts of bullying were assessed independently, fighting and misconduct infractions significantly decreased following the incident. Therefore, legal punishment maybe useful in curbing the most extreme forms of bullying. The study revealed that the majority of children indicated an bullying behaviour. 54.5% of children in primary schools did not hesitate to use force only to defend themselves, 56% of the children had shown anger by way of subdivision and damage to the goods, while 59% were characterized of bullying behaviour where they did not think twice to beat someone if the children challenge them. Punishment not only suppressed high rate misbehaviour, but concomitantly caused a decrease in desirable behaviour such as speaking and touching. Firestone (1992) conducted a research on the effect and side effect of punishment on bullying primary school children. Systematic observations of target and non-target behaviour were undertaken. The results showed that as the bullying behaviour was eliminated, the child showed increases in desirable behaviour. The finding also suggests that punishment may sometimes lead to decreases in undesirable behaviour at the cost of certain pro-social activities. The study supports the notion that occasionally, when a behaviour that is disturbing to the environment is eliminated, other deviant behaviours also drop out and pro-social behaviours increase. Kandel (1992) investigated on physical punishment and the development of bullying and violent behaviour: A review. The findings of the study suggested that, severe or frequent parental use of physical punishment was associated with an increase in the child’s bullying. The study also revealed that family factors such as identification with parents, high parental warmth, or use of reasonable discussion may eliminate any noxious effects which occur as a result of the use of physical punishment. In another study conducted by Gee and Potwarka (2007) on the impact of introducing legal punishment on the frequency of bullying behaviour in professional using the Todd Bertuzzi incident as an ecological case study. The findings revealed that a slight, but statistically insignificant, reduction in the frequency of bullying behaviour was witnessed. However, when individual acts of bullying were assessed independently, fighting and misconduct infractions significantly decreased following the incident. Therefore, legal punishment may be useful in curbing the most extreme forms of bullying. Muhammad, Chong and AbdMunaf (2012) investigated on substance abuse and bullying behaviour among children. The study revealed that the majority of children indicated an bullying behaviour. 54.5% of the children in primary schools did not hesitate to use force only to defend themselves, 56% of the children had shown anger by way of subdivision and damage to the goods, while 59% were characterized of bullying behaviour where they did not think twice to beat someone if the children challenge them, The result of study revealed that there is no significant difference between male and female children inclination to crime. In another study conducted by Lopez, and Ruiz (2008) on children bullying, Effects of gender and family and school environments. The study examined the influence of family and classroom environments on the development t of particular individual characteristics, including level of empathy, attitude to institutional authority and perceived social reputation, and the role of these characteristics may in turn play in school bullying. Participants were children aged 11-16 (47% male) drawn from primary schools in Nigeria, The findings of the study suggested that a positive family environment seems to be a stronger protective factor for girls in the development of problems of behaviour at school, whereas for boys this is the case for a positive classroom environment. This model accounted for 40% of the variance in bullying at school for boys and 35% for girls. 2.7.1 Bullying Bullying has been defined variously by researchers. Keashly and neuman (2010) defined as harassing offending excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. He continued by saying that bullying has to occur regularly and over a period of time. Bullying is characterized by acts of intentional harm, repeated over time, in a relationship where an imbalance of power exists (Peppler And Craig, 2007, Masteion And Mah 2001). Bullying is not just a child’s play but a terrifying experienced faced by many school children every day ( Hoel, Zapf And Cooper (2003 -15) bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the children confronted ends up in an inferior position and become the target of systematic negative social acts. The effect of bullying on the school climate can be affected. The environment can become one of fear and disrespect, hampering the ability of children with mild intellectual disabilities to learn. Children with mild intellectual disabilities may feel insecure and tend not to like school very well. When children with mild intellectual disabilities don’t see the children at school acting to prevent or intervene in bullying situation, they may feel that teachers and other school staff have little control over the children with mild intellectual disabilities and don’t care what happen to them. The effect of bullying are so devastating and portend that over the last few years at last 37state laws against bullying have been adopted. There have also been civil suits brought against schools and schools systems over bullying incidents, some with damages in the millions of dollars. It is important to realized act like sexual harassment and racial, discrimination, some forms of bullying is illegal actors .bullying is serious issue that will impact the school experience of all children involved. This is why it must be taken seriously and effective measures to prevent it must be put in place. 2.7.2 SOURCES OF BULLYING AMONG CHILDREN WITH MILD INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES Unfortunately there seems to be a western world trend toward increased bullying among children with mild intellectual disability. May parent the pain caused for their child’s they were on the receiving end of such activities. Often when the bullying ends, its effects are felt emotionally for a long time after wards by its victims. However, an Australian expert in this field, Dr. kenrigby claims that we have been more successful in dealing with the recipients, than those who are dishing it out. It seems that although those on the receiving end are at least becoming more assertive in protecting themselves, there has been little change in behaviour from the bullies themselves. This provides some interesting food for thought not in all cases, but in many, bullying may unwittingly have its roots in the family. Parents would rarely consider their behaviour bullying toward their child’s but ask yourself what bullying is actually is. To me it is causing intimidation thought the misuse of your power over someone. Often, those of us who have been raised to be an authoritarian parent will hold the belief in good faith that they should use whatever means are required to keep their child’s on the straight and narrow. This may include physical punishment, criticizing, silent treatment exclusion and demeaning or humiliating verbal put downs. Whilst parental intentions may be well intentioned aren’t these the exact tools of the school bully unintentionally parents have trained their child’s in the use of toxic tools Those who are bullied at home may also respond to school bullying passively unable to speak for themselves because they have been trained to expect trouble if they did so. So how do we begin to address all of this my thoughts are that are to blame or at fault; but because when it comes to wanting child’s to have all of the tools that they will need in life to build healthy relationship nobody is more committed to that their parents. A relationship where respect flows in both directions is the desired destination and most parents appreciate some guidance or at least the loan of a compass to require out how to get there. Parent education in how to lead and coerce their family without the need to wild power will go a long way. As will course that teach how to instill values and principles in our children. If we aid parents on the journey of creating mutually respectful relationships in the family we may 7 changes our course and dusting. Generally speaking, the family background of children who bully others is characterized by neglect, dominance, hostility and harsh punishment (olweus, 1993, Righy, 1994). Lack of appropriate resources within schools is also associated with higher levels of school bullying. Bullying is more likely to occur during more competitive or bullying activitores. Studies had highlighted that children who are bullied have higher levels to stress, anxiety, depression and illness, and an increased tendency to suicide. All these characteristics are inicimal to productive growth and academic development of children with mild intellectual disability. Olweus (1993) there are several common assumptions about the sources of bullying for there no supporting evidence. They include claims that bullying is a consequence of large class or school sizes, or of competition of more accurate than the stereotype that children with mild intellectual disabilities who are fat, reality other factors are more important. Sullivan (2006) children with obvious disabilities are victimized with more boys than girls targeted. Research has demonstrated that children who are victimized often have inadequate social 2.7.3 Effect of Bulling on Children with mild intellectual disability Bullying doesn’t involve only those doing the bullying and those being bullied. Bullying involves and affects the entire school, community. The three main groups that are affected by bullying are the children with mild intellectual disabilities who bully. The children with mild intellectual disabilities who are bullied, and the witness or by standers who see it happen. Children with mild intellectual disability who are bulled can develop physical symptoms such as headaches stomach pains or sleeping, go to the lavatory or node the school bus. They may lose interest in school, have trouble concentrating or do poorly academically. Bullied children with mild intellectual disabilities typically lose confidence in themselves. They may experience depression, low self esteem, and suicidal thought or they may cash out in violent ways the most serious being school shootings. The effect on children with mild intellectual disability who bully. Children with mild intellectual disabilities who bully do not fare much better. Research shows that these children with mild intellectual disability are more likely to get into frequent fights, steal and vandalize property, drink alcohol and smoke, report poor grades, perceive a negative climate at school, and carry a weapon. Long term research has also shown that these children with mild intellectual disabilities are increased risk to commit crimes later in life it’s important to note, however, that not all children with mild intellectual disabilities who bully other have obvious behaviour problem or are engaged in rule breaking activities some of than are highly skilled socially and good at ingratiating themselves with their teachers and other children. For this reason it is often difficult for children to discover or even imagine that these children with mild intellectual disabilities engage in bullying behaviour. Children with mild intellectual disabilities who witness bullying may also be affected. They may feel guilty for not helping or fearful that they will be the next target. Or they may feel guilty for not helping or fearful that they will be the next target or they may be drawn into the bullying themselves and feel bad about it after wards. All of this may gradually change the group or classroom attitude and norms in a harsher less empathetic direction. Sources of bullying among children with mild intellectual disabilities in special school. Bullies come from dysfunctional families. A dysfunctional family is not a guarantee that a child will become a bully. However there is little affection and openness. They may often witness their parents being bullying toward friends, siblings or other member of the family. Bullies need to be in control. Child’s who push others are often driven by the need for power. They enjoy school children with mild intellectual disabilities are typically impulsive and hot headed and they thrive when their victims cower in their presence. Bullying behaviour gets rewarded. Most children don’t do this intentionally; however, the perpetrator is in advertently rewarded anytime victims give up their lunch money or belongings. They also get rewarded by gaining popularity, affection or the power of handing others afraid of them. These unintenal rewards reinforce bullying behaviour and encourage the perpetrator to keep pushing others around. Bullying doesn’t care how others feel. Some children either lack empathy or just relish seeing others in pain. When they hurt someone, they have no sees of what they victims or the children around them are feeling. Sometimes perpetrator may event get pleasure from seeing a child yelp as helices him down the hall way .the reactions of the accomplishment, so he continues the behaviour. Bullies can’t regulate their emotions. When children get frustrated and angry, they can usually stop themselves from doing thing that will hurt others. When child’s don’t have the ability to regulate their emotion small annoyance can provoke them to severely over react for example, a child may be innocently walking doing the hall and accidentally bump into bully. Even though the child apologizes, the bully may lose his temper and slam the victim into the wall. Bullying is a serious issue that’s not going to go away until parents, teachers and administrators address the reason why children with mild intellectual disabilities in primary school bully in the first place. Children with mild intellectual disabilities can get tools they need to learn to work through their issues instead of dealing with them by bullying others. Social movement: the root of bullying is drive for power especially in the middle school gain power by being socially accepted. Children with mild intellectual disabilities in the group sometimes keep others out through the unfortunate strategy of physical bullying, verbal abuse and gossip. A child who is in the “out” group and attempts to move into a higher status peer group indirectly theaters those children already in the “in” group. So while in the eyes of such affine, she is doing nothing wrong by trying to fit in, she might suffer the consequences of attempting to better her social situation by getting bullied. A common example of this situation is when girl complete for boys an unpopular girl might suffer the wrath of a popular girl if the two girl have the same romantic interest. This can result in rumour spreading, verbal harassment and cyber bulling. Strong reactions: some bullies harass other for the purpose of gaining their peers attention. They choose targets based upon the reaction they will get if a victim of bullying react in a strong way, such as by crying, heftiest the desires of the bully. Through this positive reinforcement the victims for a strong reaction when needed. This can result in an escalation of bullying behaviour toward the victim parents of sensitive fens should explain why bullies act the way they do emphasizing the fact that the victim is not to blame. They should also train their children to react appropriately to bullying, which is usually informing teachers or parents Telling: when a victim informs children of bullying behaviour it often ironically result in more bullying behaviour Edward Dragan, explains this phenomenon in his book, the bully action guide Dragan states that bullies who find out about a victim “telling on them” will usually escalate their bulling as a way to demonstrate superiority. Dragrn also points out that this why schools should not respond to bullying counseling, the school should counsel the bully and victim in the same room for bullying counseling, the school should counsel the bully and victim separately. These victims of bullying should be carefully about how they inform the administration of the bullying situation. Often the best situation is for victims to inform parent so that parents can contact the school. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction: The chapter describes the method used to conduct the research under the following headings; research design, variable in the study, population, , sampling procedure and sample , instrumentation, procedure for administration, data analysis. 3.1 Research Design This study will adopt an experimental research study. The study is an experimental study because variable were manipulated, XX insert A 3x2 factorial matrix which generated three groups will be used; two groups were experimental which the third group was the control group. The table below explains the design better Treatment Package Male Female Token Punishment Control Group 3.2 Variables in the Study The independent variables used in this study are token and punishment strategies bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities is the dependent variable however, age range and gender are the moderating behaviour 3.3 Population The population to be used in this study consists of all children with mild intellectual disabilities in School for the Handicapped, Durbar, Oyo in Oyo state 3.4 Sampling Procedures and Sample The participant to be used in this study comprises of fifteen (15) children with mild intellectual disabilities exhibiting bullying behaviour, the participants were screened using Bullying Victimization Scale (BVS) 3.5 Instrumentation The instrument for this study was a psychological based test titled Bullying Victimization Scale (BVS) Adapted, The items in the instrument consist of ten items which were adapted to suit the participants with mild intellectual disabilities in School for the Handicapped Durbar, Oyo, the instrument was designed by Reynolds (2003). 3.6 Procedure for Administration The researcher collected an introduction letter from the Head of Department that shows the researcher is on a research process, which the researcher visited the school for proper introduction to the head of Master/Mistress for approval and also create a rapport with the respondents before administering the BVS to screen the pupils for bullying behaviour. The researcher also administered the treatment package for six weeks using the research assistants that has been trained by the researcher. And the BVS will be re-administered to show the effect of token and punishment strategies. 3.7 Data Analysis Data collected from the study will be analysized using Analysis of Covariance CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the analysis of the results and the discussion on findings for the study. 4.1 Hypotheses testing HO1; there is on significant effect of treatment on children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour. Table1. Summary of analysis of covariance (AVCOVA) on reduction of bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities Dependent variable; Source Type iii sum of squares DF Mean square F SIG Partial Eta squared Corrected model 436.6169 5 87.323 39.819 0.45 ,900 Intercept 274.841 1 274.841 125.326 .010 .973 Bullying 48.491 1 48.491 22.111 .048 .900 Treatment 395.196 2 197.598 90.103 .026 .972 Gender 42.293 1 42.293 19.741 .047 .899 Treatment gender 36.629 2 18.315 8.352 .134 .865 Error 4.385 2 2.193 Total 16647.75 14 Corrected total 441.000 13 R squares =.900 (adjusted R squared=.883) Table1 reveals that there is a significant effect of treatment on children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour. (f(2,9)=90.103; p<0.05). Therefore, Ho1 is rejected. Ho2; there is no significant effect of treatment on gender difference of children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour. Table2; effect on gender difference Gender Mean Children error Male 75.03 .65 Female 63.57 .89 The above table reveals that female children with mild intellectual disabilities have more reduced on bullying behaviour (mean= (63.57) than their male counterparts (mean =75.03). this simply means that males are prove to bullying behaviour than the females counterparts As shown in table1, there is a significant effect of treatment on gender difference of children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour (f(1,9=19.74;p<0.05), therefore H02 is rejected. Ho3; there is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour. Table1 reveals that there is no significant interaction effect of treatment gender on children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour(f(12,9=8.35;p>0.05). Therefore H03 is accepted. H04; there is no significant difference between bullying behaviour of children with mild intellectual disabilities before and after being exposed to treatment. Table3; Estimated marginal mean on effect of treatment. Treatment MEAN Std. Error 1.05 EXP1(Token) 55.02 1.08 Control Group 75.15 1.04 Table3 shows that exposure to token have the lowest bullying behaviour mean score (55.02) followed by those exposed to punishment have a mean score (68.60) while those expose to conventional treatment (control group) has the highest score (75.15). the sources of the significant difference is shown in the table below. Table4; Pairwise comparison using scheffes post H0c test. Treatment Mean Control EXP1 EXP11 Control Group 75.15 * * EXP1 55.02 * * EXP11 68.60 * * The significance exposed by table 1 is shown in table 4 above, this is as a result of the significant difference between Exp I and conventional group Exp I and Exp II Exp II and Conventional group This implies that the token treatment reduced the bullying behaviour of children with mild intellectual disabilities significantly more than punishment while punishment treatment reduced the bullying behaviour significantly more than conventional. Table5; Summary of pre and post bullying behaviour score of children with mild intellectual disabilities. N Pre score mean Post score mean Children error Partial Eta square F SIG 10 61.35 45.53 50 .90 125.32 .010 Table5 shows that the pre- bullying behaviour mean score of children with mild intellectual disabilities is higher (61.35) then the post-bullying behaviour means score (45.53). The difference between this is shows to be significant (F(1,9) is 125,32;p,0.05; peta square =.90). Therefore Ho4 is rejected. Partial eta square also reveals that the effect of treatment on the post bullying score is 90% (Eta square-=90). This implies that the effect of the treatment is high on the reduction of the bullying behaviour of children with mild intellectual disabilities. 4.2 Summarizing of the Findings The results above shows that there is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on children with mild intellectual disabilities in their behaviour by accepting the null hypothesis this is so because a child is a child beside the sex and since the behaviour (bullying) is associated with children with mild intellectual disabilities, sex has nothing to do with this as long as the child exhibit the condition. The other three null hypotheses were rejected because the treatment given will have effect on children with mild intellectual disabilities. According to Hackenburg (2009), Token method was significantly practiced throughout the world in the 19th century and therefore, has been employed as a behaviour management and a motivational tool or technique in education and rehabilitation settings. A token is a form of operant conditioning that is used in behaviour modification that involves rewarding desirable behaviour with token which can be exchanged for items or privileged and punishing undesirable behaviour by taking away token (Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002).Kerr and Nelson (2010) in Humphray (2011) in support of the above results viewed token as an intervention used to reduce problem behaviour in children. According to Nelson (2013) positive punishment is designed to encourage children and to teach them self-control and self-discipline. It teaches children to understand that their brains don’t function well when they are upset. CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 Introduction This chapter presented Conclusion from findings, limitations to the study, implications of the study, Recommendations, contributions to knowledge, conclusions and Suggestions for further study on the effects of Token and Punishment strategy on bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities. 5.1 Discussion of the findings According to Wolman (2015) bullying behaviour is the act of behavioural responses of an organism that display the quantity of bullying while bullyingness is the tendency to display hostility by performing act of bullying. O’Connor (2001) says children with bullying behaviour may have difficulty controlling their temper and are easily upset and annoyed by others. They are often difficult and may appear angry and restful. As the problem of bullying increases, the bullying behaviour threaten the safety of other children and if there is no intervention to assist the bullying children they will be at risk of developing serious antisocial bullying behaviour disorders. In curbing bullying behaviour among school children most especially children with mild treatment strategy plays a significant role. Token is a behaviour modification strategy that uses tangible reinforces such as prices, money or gift as systematic application of a reinforcement schedule. A token is an approach in which children with mild intellectual disabilities are given a mark for reward, token can be a highly effective method for changing or controlling children with mild intellectual disabilities. Wilson (2006) opined that token involves reinforcing a child for compliance with previously agreed upon behaviour. Punishment is designed to remove awkward dangerous or otherwise unwanted behviour from a repertoire on the assumption that a person who has been punished is less likely to behave in the same way again. Punishment is perhaps the most misunderstood and emotionally explosive of the behaviour modification interventions. Nelson (2013) viewed that positive punishment is designed to encourage children and to teach them self-control and self discipline. Token and punishment do not differ merely in the direction of the changes they include. A child who has been severely punished for sex play is not necessarily less inclined to continue. 5.2 Conclusion from the Findings From the above research findings it could be deduced that the treatment of token and punishment, when applied well has a long way to go in shaping and moulding children with mild intellectual disabilities. The research findings also revealed that bullying behaviour exhibited by male children with mild intellectual disabilities is higher than that of their female counterparts. The study also reveals that gender difference does not have any interaction on treatment in respect of the behaviour exhibited by children with mild intellectual disabilities. 5.3 Limitation of the study This study had some limitations, which include; Limited scope: The study is restricted to Oyo School for the Handicapped Durbar in Oyo town because of time factor. This study is designed to cover token and punishment strategies on bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disability. Limited participant: the researcher makes use of fifteen (15) participants from Oyo School for the Handicapped, Durbar, Oyo state, due to time constraint. 5.4 Implication of the Study The following are the implications of the study Children with mild intellectual disabilities are educable and can be trained Children with mild intellectual disabilities exhibit bullying behaviour Bullying behaviour can be controlled or reduced if necessary actions are taken Reinforcement such as token and punishment can be used to check bullying behaviour Token treatment reduces bullying behaviour much more than punishment 5.5 Recommendations. Based on the findings of this research work, the following recommendations are made: Both Token and punishment strategies should be inculcated into the school activities in anti social behaviour of managing children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour. Token strategy and positive punishment should be used interchangeably as at when due to check children with mild intellectual disabilities on bullying behaviour, Seminars, Workshops and in-house training on how to use Token and punishment strategy in managing bullying behaviour among children with mild intellectual disabilities should be organized. 5.6 Contributions to Knowledge The findings have shown that a punishment strategy is more effective in correcting bullying behavior among children with mild Intellectual disability than token strategy. Thus, punishment strategy should be employed in schools. 5. 7 Conclusion Based on the research findings it could be deduced that intellectual disability is a state of incomplete mental development of such a kind and degree that the individual is incapable of adapting himself to the normal environment of his fellows in such a way to maintain existence independently of supervision, control or external support, biochemical impairment can retard on individuals development or to the internal or external sources of stimulation. The study also revealed that bullying behaviour is a major public health problem that is increasing all over the world, causing serious individual and social damages and that these acts can be checked and reduced if not total eradicated among children with mild intellectual disabilities by introducing treatments of token and punishment to them. 5.8 Suggestions for further Research The study is by no means exhaustive, further studies can be carried out using token and punishment strategies on both children with intellectual disability and the atypically developed children. Reference Adejumobi, A A.(2001). Psychology of learning, Ibadan ,Akinade, E.A. (2012). Modern Behaviour Modification: Principles and practices. Ibadan- Nigeria: Brightways Publishers. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundation of Thought and Action; A Social Cognitive Theory. Eagle Wood Cliffs. MJ: Pentice Hall Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248- 287. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory.Englewood Cliffs. N.J: Prentice Hall. Baron, R. and Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human Bullying.2nd edition. New York: Plenum Press. Barry, T.D. and Lochman, J.E. (2004). Bullying in adolescents: Strategies for parents and educators. Alabama: National Association of School Psychologist. Bartusch, D. R.J., Lyanam, D.R., Moffitt, T.E. and Silva, P.A. (1997). Is age important? Testing a general versus developmental theory of antisocial behaviour, criminology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berkowitz, L. (1963). Bullying.A social psychological Analysis. New York: Mcgraw Hill. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-bullying hypothesis: Examination and reformation. Psychol Bull. 106:59-73. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and bullying: a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. AM. Psychol. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berkowitz,L. (1993). Bullying: Its causes, consequences, and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bichi, Y.M. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Statistics. Kano: Debis-Co Press & Publishing Company. Blank, C. (2011).Types of Bullying.Retrieved 15/05/2013 from http://www.livestrong.com.article/144031-type. Bolarin, T.A. and Badejo, A.O. (1998). Principles of Behaviour Modification (A practical Approach) Lagos: Olu-Akin Publishers. Bor, W., Najman, J.M., O‟callaghan, M., Williams, G.M. and Anstey, K. (2001). Bullying and the development of delinquent behaviour in children. Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. Bostow, D.E. and Bailey, J.B. (1969).Modification of severe disruptive and aggressive behaviour using brief timeout and reinforcement procedure. Journal of Applied 140 Brosnan, J. and Healy, O. (2011). A review of behavioural interventions for the treatment of bullying in individuals with developmental disabilities. Galway, Ireland: Elsevier Ltd. Bruno, F.G. (1985). Dictionary of Keywords in psychology.London Routtedge and Kegam Paul. Budhal, R.S. (1998). The socially isolated child. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Bushman, B.J. and Anderson, C.A. (2001). Is it time to pull plug on the hostile versus instrumental bullying dichotomy? Psychological Review. 108:273-279. Campbell, S.B., Shaw, D.S. and Gilliom, M. (2000).Early externalizing behaviour problems: Toddlers and pre-scholars at risk for later maladjustment. Development and psychopathology. Retrieved 30/05/2013 from http://www.nbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc13/11022/ Carlson, N. (1998). Physiology of Behaviour (6thedt). Needham Allyn and Bacon: Height, M.A. Carr, J. E. , Fraizer, T.J. and Roland, J.P. (2005). Token. Encyclopedia of bahaviour modification and cognitive bahaviour therapy. Volume 2: pp1075 – 1079. Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage. Cavell, T. A. (2000). Working with parents of aggressive children: A practitioner’s guide. Washington DC: American Psychology Association. Center for Addiction and Mental Health. (2009). Preventing bullying. Retrieved 30/05/2013 from http://knowledgex.com.net/educators/elementary/aggressive- behaviour/pages/prevent-995session.aspx. Child, D. (1986). Psychology and the Teacher (4thedt). U.K: Mackays of Chaltam ltd. Collings, S. J and Magojo, T.S. (2003). Youth Violence: An analysis of selected aetiological pathways in a sample of South African high schoolmates. ActaCriminolgica. 16(2): 125-137. Colman, A.M (2003). Oxford Dictionary of psychology. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Coloroso, B. (2002). The bully, the bullied and the bystander: Breaking the cycle of violence. Cooper, J., Heron, T. and Heward, W. (2007). Applied Behaviour Analysis. New Jersey; Pearson Education. P.357 Day, S.X. (2004). Theory and Design in Counselling and Psychotherapy. U.S.A: Houghton Mifflin Company. Desmond, T. and Laule, G. (2012).The use of positive reinforcement training in the management of speciesfor reproduction.Retrieved 30/05/2013 from www.activeenvironment.org. Dollard, J.,Doob,L.W., Miller,N.E., Mowrer,O.HandSears, R.R. (1993). Frustration and Bullying.New Haren.Cale University Press. Donaldson, J.M. and Vollmer, T.R. (2011). An Evaluation and Comparison of Punishment procedures with and without Release Contingencies. Retrieved 10/06/2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc 325127/. Donnerstein, E. and Linz, D. (1995).The Media. San Francisco: ICS Press. Downs, W.R and Miller, B.A (1998).Violence and Victims. New York: Springer. 142 Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2007).Educational Psychology Windows on Classrooms. 7thed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, J.R., Cook, J.L., andTraver, J.F. (2000). Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching. Effective Learning 3rdedt. U.S.A: Mcgraw Hill Companies Inc. Erford, B.T. (1999). A modified punishment procedure for children with noncompliant or defiant behaviours: Professional School Counselling Vol. 2 (3). 205 – 210. Essa, E.L. (2000). Preschool teachers‟ use of punishment: Is what they say what they do?; Early Child Development and Care Vol. 162. 85- 94. Feldman, R.S. (2005). Understanding Psychology. 7th ed. Boston: Mcgraw Hill. Felson, R.B. and Odeschi, J.J. (1993).Bullying and Violence: Social Interactionist Ferris, C.F. Grisco, .(1996). Understanding Aggressive Behaviour in Children, Journal of the New York Academy of Sciences.Vol. 794 pp.426-794. Filcheck, H.A. and McNeil,C.B. (2004). The use of token economies in pre-school classrooms: practical and philosophical concerns. The Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioural Intervention, vol. 2, 94-104. 143 Finkelhor, D. (1995). The Victimization of Children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.65.177-193. Firestone, P. (1992). The effects and side effects of punishment on an aggressive Nursery School Child. Great Britain: Pergamon press. Gasa, V.G. (2005). Learners’ Aggressive Behaviour in Secondary School: A Psycho-Social Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov Hackenberg, T.(2009).Token Reinforcement: A Review and Analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour. Higgins, J. W. , Williams, R. L. and Mclaughlin, T. F. (2001). The effects of token employing instructional consequences for a third grade students with learning disabilities: A data based case study. Education and Treatment of Children .24:99 144 Hinrichs, B.H. (2004). Psychology: The Essence of Science. Boston:Pearson. Huesmann, L.R., Eron, L.D., Guerra, N.G. and Crawshaw, V.B. (1994). Measuring Children‟s bullying with teachers‟ predictions of peer nominations. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, Inc. Humphrey, J. (2011). Token for Middle-Aged Children: A Parent Guide. Retrieved 30/05/2013 from http://www.integratedsociopsychology-net/tokeneconomy.html. Kandel, E. (1992). Physical Punishment and the Development of Aggressive and Violent Behaviour: A review. Retrieved 10/05/2013 from http://www.neverhita child.org/areview.html. Kilmas, A. and Mclaughlin, T. F. (2007). The effects of a token system to improve social and academic bahaviour with a rural primary aged child with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education 22(3), 72 -77. Kuppuswamy, B. (2006). Advanced Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers ltd. Loeber, R and Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of bullying and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology. Retrieved 30/05/2013 from http://www.sciencedirect.com, Archives of General Psychiatry. Retrieved 20/05/2013 from www.elsevier.com/locate/jado. Mace, F.C. and Heller, M. (1990). A comparison of exclusion punishment and contingent observation for reducing severe disruptive behaviour in a 7 – year – old boy. Child and Family Behaviour Therapy. 12, 57 – 68. Mackintosh, J. (1990). Theories of bullying in: Buglass, R; Bowdem p(Ed) Principles and Practice of forensic Psychiatric. Edinburgh, Churchill livingstone. Maxwell, C.D, and Maxwell, S.R. (2003). Experiencing and witnessing familial bullying and their relationship to physically aggressive behaviours among Filipino adolescents. Journal of interpersonal Violenece, 18, 1432-1451. Mayer, R. (2002). The Promise of Educational Psychology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Merrian-Webster‟s Medical Dictionary. (2002). Merrian-Webster, Inc. Miltenberger, R.G. (2008). Behaviour Modification: Principles and Procedures. Belmont California: Wardswarth/Thomson learning. Mishra, R.C. (2007). Classroom Behaviour. New Delhi, APH publishing Corporation. Mither A (2002)intellectual disabilities Moeller, T.G. (2001). Youth Bullying and Violence: A psychological approach. London. http://www.cycnet.org/cyn- online/cycol-0902-violence.html. Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M. Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B. andSheldt, P. (2001). Building BehaviourAmong U.S Youth: Prevalence and Associating with Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association.285 (16), 2094- 2100. Nelsen,J.(2013).PositiveDiscipline.Retrieved30/05/2013from http://www.positivediscipline.com/articlesteacher/positivetimeout.ml. Nelson, M. (1997). Effective use of Punishment. Behaviour home page. Retrieved 30/06/2014 O‟connor, D.S. (2011). Aggressive Behaviour Children.retrieved 30/06/2013 from http://www.solutionsforchildproblems.com/aggressive- behaviour- chiildren.html. Obani, T C .(1987(;special education and reading, text ibadan university press Okogbe, T. P. (1987); care for the retared. Text Ibadan university press Prince, K. (2013). How to use punishment Effitively. Retrieved 30/05/2014 from http://www.fragilex.org/treatment-interimention/daily-living- strategi. . Reebye, P. (2005). Bullying During Early Years-Infancy and Preschool. Retrieved30/05/2013 from www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2538723/. Reinke, W.M.and Herman, K.C. (2002). Creating school environment that deter anti-social bahaviour in youth.Psychology in the schools.Retrieved 28/05/2013 from www.elsevier.com/locate/jado. Reiss, A.J. and Roth, J.A. (1993).Understanding and Preventing Violence. Vol. 1. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 150 Reitman, D. and Drabman, R. S. (1999). Multifaceted uses of a simple punishment record in the treatment of a noncompliant 8-year-old boy. Education and treatment of children special issue. Level 1 research: improving our education and treatment through simple accountability procedures, 22. 136-145. Santrock, J.W. (2003). Psychology (7thed). United States of America: McGraw-Hill Companies. Santrock, J.W. (2008). Educational Psychology (3rded). Boston: McGraw- Hill. Smith, P.K. (2000). Victimization and harassment in schools and the rights of children and society.Retrieved 05/05/2013 from www.law.one.edu/faculty/streib. Smith, P.K. (2003). Violence in Schools: The response in Europe. London: RoutledgeFalmer. White, A.G, and Bailey, J.S. (1990). Reducing disruptive behaviours of elementary physical education students with sit and watch. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 23, 353-39. Whittington, R. and Moran, J.S. (1990). Teaching nonviolence through punishment: A curriculum for elementary school classrooms. Social Work in Education. 12. 237-248. Wille, J.R. (2002). Reducing Disruptive Classroom Behaviour with Multicomponent Intervention: A literature review. The Graduate University College University of Wilconsin-Stout. Retrieved 30/04/2013 from www2.uwstout.edu/../2002willej.pdf. Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M. and Derzon, J.H. (2003). The Effects of School- Based Intervention Programs on Aggressive Behaviour: A Meta- Analysis. A Journal of Consulting & ClinicalPsychology Retrieved 10/05/2013from http://knowledgex.comh.net/educators/prevent-bullying.aspx. Winegardner, K.E. (undated). The Case Study method of scholarly research.The Graduate School of America.Retrieved 15/06/2013 from http://www.tqsa.edu/online/cvbrarv/cascl.html.1-9. Wolman, B.B. (1989). Dictionary of Behavioural Science (2nded). New York: Academicpress World health organization (2002) the need for the handicapped. London university press 42