Positive Reinforcement: Praise Compared to the Candy Reward

1. Positive Reinforcement: Praise Compared to the Candy Reward Marjorie Barnes EDU 703.22 Fall 2008-Spring 2009

2. Table of Contents • Introduction 3 • Statement of the Problem 6 • Review of Related Literature 7 • Statement of Hypothesis 11 • Method • Participants (N) 12 • Instruments 13 • Experimental Design 14 • Procedure • Result • References 23

3. Introduction • Candy is the main reinforcer used inside the elementary classroom to manage the behavior problems. • Teachers start out with other token or symbolic rewards such as stars, coupons, and play money but in the end use candies.

4. Introduction • In a fifth grade classroom I witnessed the token start-out. Students were rewarded play money for completing homework assignments and for their behavior inside and outside of the classroom, but the end result was that they added it up to purchase candy at the class shop. • In an art room, if students earned coupon (s) during the art prep then they get to claim a reward for the candy box after they have accumulated five coupons.

5. Introduction • In a kindergarten class I have witnessed the symbolic reward start-out. Each student gets a star for their behavior throughout the day. If students earn five stars during the course of the day, then they get a reward from the prize box, which is full of candies.

6. Statement of the Problem • I will compare two positive reinforcers – candy and praise. • In my reading, I have discovered that praise can be just as effective as tangible rewards. So, why haven’t elementary teachers eliminated the use of candy as their main reinforcer and take greater measures to implement the praise reward?

7. Review of the Literature (Researchers) • One alleged effect of reinforcement is that it undermines intrinsic interest in task; findings show that verbal praise produces and increase intrinsic motivation. The only negative effect appears when expected tangible rewards are given to individual simply for doing a task (Cameron & Pierce, 1994).  • Praising student’s intelligence gives them a short burst of pride (“you must be smart at these problems”); rather, students must be praised for their effort (“you must have worked hard at these problems” or “I know it was a hard assignment, but you stuck to it and got it done”). Effort praised students will remain on task, confident, and eager (Dweck, 2007).

8. Review of the Literature (Researchers) • There are different effects of reinforcement with different kind of students. Student with an external locus of control (those who believe that their actions are determined more by outside events and other people than themselves) perform better with tangible reinforcement than with verbal reinforcement. (Cotton,1988)

9. Review of the Literature (Theorist) • According to the reinforcement theory, reinforcement is the process of shaping behavior by controlling the consequences of the behavior. In addition, individuals can choose from several responses to a given stimulus. • Theorist E.L. Thorndike (1911) law of effect states that all things being equal, responses to stimuli that are followed by satisfaction will be strengthened. In addition, behaviors that are followed by good consequences are likely to be repeated in the future.

10. Review of the Literature (Theorist) • Skinner (1937) a key contributor in the development of the reinforcement theory, added that people can choose to exhibit certain behavior on what happens to them as a result of their behavior. • “…behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the organism tendency to repeat the behavior in the future” (B. F. Skinner 1973).

11. Research Hypothesis • HR1:  If praise can be just as effective as candy as a reinforcer, teachers with the proper implementation and continuity of praise can reduce or eliminate candy as the primary reinforcer inside their elementary classrooms.

12. Methods • The participants are 16 students in the District 75 special education school. • Eight students selected from a praise contingent classroom. • The other eight students selected from a candy rewarded classroom. • Demographic Factor: Grade level K-2

13. Instruments • Consent forms • Qualitative Data • Surveys • Teacher Questionnaires • Work sheets (Checking for compliance and stamina) • Quantitative Data • Test • Students’ point sheet • Weekly points tally sheet

14. Research Design • Quasi Experimental: Two groups • Designated treatment group (X1) & control group (X2)

15. Quasi-Experimental Design • Nonequivalent Control Group Design: • Two groups are pretested, exposed to a treatment (x), and post tested (o). • Symbolic design: • O X1 O • O X2 O

16. Internal validity that are a possible threats to my action research project • History – Due to the naturally curious age of my participants, history will be a possible threat to my action research project. • Maturation – As the participants attend school daily, grow daily, and learn daily maturation may be a possible threat to my action research project. • Instrumentation – Using a single instrument or multiple instruments may be a possible threat to my action research project because I plan tocontinually modify a single work activity to test for work compliance. • Differential Selection of Subjects – Due to the differences in age level of all 16 participants differential selection of participants will be a possible threat to my action research project. I have non- randomly selected 8 students from one classroom and 8 students from another.

17. Internal validity that are a possible threats to my action research project • Mortality –5/16 participants are living in foster homes, so it is possible that they may be discharged from this school due to reunification. • Selection-Maturation Interaction–Due to the different maturity rate in boys and girls, and the understanding that each child will have different rate at which they learn. • Testing/Pre-test Sensitization – Due to the instruments I will administer in my action research project such as testing for work stamina and work compliance through praise, testing sensitization may be a possible threat to my action research. However, I will respect the testing sensation of the participants’ IEP.

18. Internal validity that are not a possible threats to my action research project • Statistical Regression – Statistical regression may not be a possible threat to my action research project because N is less than 15,000.

19. External validity that are a possible threat to my action research project • Selection-Treatment Interaction – The participants in my action research were not randomly selected. • Multiple Treatment Interference–I plan to administer surveys, questionnaire, daily work activities and an assessment to measure students’ compliance, work readiness, and work stamina. • Experimenter Effects – This will be a possible threat to my action research project. • Active Element: For a more experience teacher/action researcher that teaches with an authoritative teaching style, the change in the participants’ performances may be due those factors and not because of the independent variable. • Passive Element: The action researcher biases maybe an unconscious action during the action research.

20. External validity that are a possible threat to my action research project • Pretest-Treatment Interaction- I to administer a pretest follow by a post test to the participants of my action research project. • Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects: • Hawthorne effect- Participants may respond to changes in classroom such as the arranged seating or the rearranging of students’ desks and not necessarily to my independent variable. • Novelty effect- As a first time action researcher this may be a possible threat.

21. External validity that are not a possible threat to my action research project • Ecological- Base on the literatures I have read comparing the effects of praise against those of the candy reward, this research seem generalizable and could be conducted at many level of education. • GeneralizableConditions-Researchers can conducted this action research at the elementary level, middle school level, and the high school level of education in many schools or institutions. • Specificity of Variables – This may not be a possible threat to my action project because I believe that the variables are easily generalized.

22. External validity that are not a possible threat to my action research project • Treatment Diffusion – Due to the grade level of my participants, treatment to diffusion will not be a possible threat to my action research project. The two non-random groups are a mixture of three different grade levels and will be administered different grade level instruments. • Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects: • Placebo effect-(not applicable) All participants will receive an independent V; they will receive continuous-scheduled praise or the promise + the distribution of candy. • Compensatory Rivalry Effect-( not applicable) The participants are two separate grades of students and neither of them have knowledge or will witness what is been administered to each group.

23. Pre-post Graph and Analysis

24. Table • Candy Reward Contingent Praise Candy Reward Contingent Praise Week1 Week1 Week6 Week6 Mean 235.75 242.25 231.25 242.1875 Median 237 241.5 237 241.5 Mode 247 239 238 240 Maximum 247 250 249 250 Minimum 220 232 181 231 • The analysis of the data shows that the distribution for the praise contingent classroom is positively skewed, where the mode<median<average. However, the distribution for the candy rewarded classroom is negatively skewed; thus, average <median<mode.

25. Analysis • The two sets of weekly progress scores were graphed to compare the students weekly progress in a candy as reward classroom and a praise contingent classroom. The data indicated that the students' average score in the candy rewarded classroom reduces by the sixth week within the class. On the other hand, students' average in the contingent praise classroom pretty much remain consistent; there were no significant change. • The data also indicated that the median weekly progress score for students in a candy rewarded classroom also falling over the sixth week and again students' weekly scores in the praise contingent classroom is at a constant. The mode in the candy rewarded classroom is also lower than week one while the mode for students in a praise contingent room moved up by 1 points in the weeks ahead. • The maximum for the candy reward classroom was pretty impressive, and this may indicate that some students are responding well to this reinforcement. The maximum for praise contingent remained constant, and this too indicated a pattern of consistent behavior pattern. The minimum for the praise contingent classroom shows that any given week one of more of the students have a not so great day or period. On the other hand, students in a candy rewarded classroom setting had a big range between its maximum and minimum scores for both week. • In week one of the candy reward classroom the range was a 20points difference and by week six the range was a 68points difference. Ranges in the praise contingent room were 18points in week one and 19 points by week six. The final analysis of the data shows that the distribution for the praise contingent classroom is positively skewed, where the mode<median<average. However, the distribution for the candy rewarded classroom is negatively skewed; thus, average <median<mode.

26. Correlation

27. Correlation • Correlation =0.758115106

28. Analysis • Base on the scatter plots above, students who like school also like class work. They score high 4s and 3s for preferring journal writing and math/science as oppose to preferring circle-time and recess; which were assigned scores of 2s and 1s. • They also preferred to receive a compliment or a star for completing their class work; which were assigned 4s and 3s as opposed to receiving free-time or a piece of candy that were assigned scores of 2s and 1s. • The scatter plots also show a distribution where the scores trail off to the right; thus, the distribution is positively skewed.

29. References • Cotton, K. (1988, May). Instructional reinforcement. School improvement research series (SIRS). Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/2/cu3.html • Reinforcement theory. (1996, September). Retrieved September 22, 2008, from The Eberly College of Arts and Science Web site: http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/rf.htm • Blumenfelf, S.L. (1999). NEA: Trojan horse in American education.Retrieved September 22,2008, from http://www.sntp.net/behavorism.htm • Wise, R. Dr., (2008, May 9). Reinforcement. Scholarpedia. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.scholarpedi.org/article/Reinforcements • Rozycki, G., (2004, July 26). Reinforcers and voluntary behavior. New foundations. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/RewRein.html • Barnett, T. (2007). Reinforcement theory: Background and Development of Reinforcement theory. Retrieved September 22, 2008, http://www.refernceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-Sa/Reinforcement-Theory.html • Siegel, Chelsea T. (2008, August) School-wide positive behavior support programs in elementary schools. Online submission.38pp. School of education Dominican University of California. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail • Kauffman, J., Conroy, M., Gardner, R. III, & Oswald, D. (2008, April). Cultural sensitivity in the application of behavior principle to education. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 239-262. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail

30. References • Dweck, Carol S. (2007, October). The perils: The wrong kind of praise creates self-defeating behavior. The right kind motivates students to learn. Stanford University. Educational Leadership. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail • Scott, T.M., Anderson, C.M., & Spaulding S.A (2008). Strategies for developing and carrying out functional assessment and behavior intervention planning. Preventing School Failure, 52, 39-49. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail • Buckholdt, D.R. & Ferritor, D.E. (1974). Effect of token reinforcement on two attending behaviors of adults in a continuing education program. Adult Education Quarterly, 24, 208-219. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from SAGE database. • Thomas, S.M. (1973). Using reinforcement and social modeling with delinquent youth. Review of Educational Research, 43, 323-340. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from SAGE database. • Ryans, D.G, Travers, R.M.W., Reid, I.E., & Van Wagenen, R.K. (1964). Research on reinforcement and its implication for education. Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 223-227. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from SAGE database. • Cameron, J. & Pierce, W.D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-394. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from the SAGE database. • Wold, D.C. & Windsor, R.E. (1981). Student management through incentives- Positive reinforcement. NASSP Bulletin, 65, 46-59. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from the SAGE database.

31. References • Barth, R. (1979). Home-based reinforcement of school behavior: A review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 49, 436-458. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database. • Bates, J. A. (1979). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: A review with implications for the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 49, 557-576. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database. • Morgan, M. (1984). Reward-induced decrements and Increments in intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 54, 5-30. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database. • Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database. • Schultz, C. B. & Sherman, R. H. (1976). Social class, development, and differences in reinforcer effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 46, 25-59. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database. • Barringer, C. & Gholson, B (1979). Effects of type and combination of feedback upon conceptual learning: Implications for research in academic learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 459-478. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database. • Lipe, D. & Jung, S.M. (1971). Manipulating incentives to enhance school learning. Review of Educational Research, 41, 249-277. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database.

32. References • Micheals, J.W. (1977). Classroom reward structures and Academic Performance. Review of Educational Research, 47, 87-89. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database • Coates, T. & Thoresen, C.E. (1979). Behavioral self-control and educational practice or do we really need self-control? Review of Educational Research, 7, 3-17. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from he SAGE database • Glickman, C. D. & Wolfgang, C.H. (1979). Dealing with student misbehavior: An Eclectic review. Journal of teacher education, 30, 7-13. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database.