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 • Abstract • Introduction • Statement of the Problem • Review of the Literature • Statement of the Hypothesis • Method • Participants • Instruments • Experimental Design • Procedure • Results • Discussion • Implications • References 25

3. Abstract • Praise is just as effective as candy as a reinforcer and does yield a more consistent result in desired behaviors. Typically praise is used infrequently, without contingency, specificity, or credibility. However, teacher praise could be made much more effective if teachers were to use the reinforcement theory for suggested guidelines for praising effectively.

4. Statement of the Problem • Researchers have reported 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 contingent praise?

5. Review of Literature • Verbal praise produces and increases intrinsic motivation. Also effort praised students will remain on task, confident, and eager (Dweck, 2007; Cameron & Pierce, 1994). • Reinforcement is the process of shaping behavior by controlling the consequences of the behavior. However, it is the individuals who choose from several responses to a given stimulus. There are different effects of reinforcement with different kind of students. (B. F. Skinner, 1973; Cotton, 1988)

6. 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.

7. Method • The participants included two teachers and 16 students in the District 75 special education school. • Eight of students were selected from a mandated point sheet classroom. • Eight other students were selected from a symbolic start out to candy reward classroom. • Demographic Factor: Grade level K-2

8. Instruments • Consent forms • Schedule for Reinforcement • Qualitative Data • Student Surveys • Teacher Questionnaire • Work sheets • Quantitative Data • Weekly Points Tally sheet

9. Research Design • Quasi Experimental • Designated treatment group (X1) & control group (X2)

10. 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

11. Possible Threats to Internal Validity • History – Participants were absent frequently due to a variety of reasons. -Related services • Maturation – participants adhered to their class routines. • Instrumentation – I kept modifying the activities to test for work readiness and work stamina. • Differential Selection of Subjects–a mixture of kindergartners, first, and second graders.

12. Possible Threats to External Validity • Selection-Treatment Interaction – The participants in my action research were not randomly selected. • Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects: • Hawthorne effect- Participants may respond to arranged seating or the rearranging of students’ desks and not necessarily to my independent variable.

13. Procedure • To administer lengthy journal writing activity each morning and to have the students complete task. Kindergarteners were given the option to trace or write under the words. • Teacher in the control group was asked to give the students the journal writing activity and to proceed as normal. • Teacher in the experimental group was asked to follow the schedule for praise • Requires a compliment/praise to the entire class before administering the instrument.

14. Pretest-Posttest • Weekly Points Tally Sheet

15. Pre-post Data

16. Pre-Post: Measures of Central Tendency

17. Analysis • The maximum for the candy reward classroom indicated that students are responding well to candy as reinforcement and the maximum for praise contingent indicated that this too is true with a pattern of consistent behavior. • The minimum for the praise contingent classroom shows that any given week one of more of the students may not have a good day or period, but on the other hand; students in a candy rewarded classroom had a huge range between its maximum and minimum scores for the two non consecutive weeks. • In week one of the candy reward classroom the range was a 27 point difference and by week six the range was a 68 point difference. The range in the praise contingent room were 15 point in week one and 11 point by week six. Thus, an increase in desired behavior.

18. Correlation Table 1

19. Correlation Data The scatter plots show a distribution where the scores trail off to the right; thus, the distribution is positively skewed.

20. Analysis • The scatter plots shows a positive r: X Y • Students who scored high x-scores also scored high y-scores in both groups • Both reinforcements are positive and students do respond well to each reinforcer • To yield a more consistent result the preferred reinforcer is contingent praise

21. Results • Candy does work as a positive reinforcer but so does praise. • Brophy (1981) established that teacher with the proper implementation of contingent praise can eliminate candy as their main behavior modification inside the classroom. They can implement the schedule for praise in their classrooms to get more desired consistent behaviors.

22. Discussion • Some students do need tangible rewards; however, the teacher can offer students more than just candy at the end of the day. They can try tangibles such as toys, pencils, erasers, coloring book pages, or other pintables. • Cotton (1988) concluded her research by stating that 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.

23. Discussion • Brophy (1981) explains: • Much teacher praise is determined more by the teachers’ perceptions of the student needs than by the quality of the student conduct or performance. Praise could be made much more effective if teachers were to use the reinforcement theory for suggested guidelines for praising effectively. Praise statement should express positive teacher affection (surprise, delight, excitement), and /or place student’s behavior in context by giving information about its value or its implication about the student’s behavior. Praise does not include criticism. In addition, there is no need to provide negative feedback if the behavior is inappropriate or the answer is incorrect; there is also no need to express disgust or disapproval or rejection. Individual differs from one another and consequences capable of controlling behavior of most people will not work with certain individuals, and thus will not function as reinforcers for those individuals.

24. Implications • Theorist and researchers (Skinner, 1938; Barnett, 2007; Siegel, 2008) prepositioned that reinforcement is the process of shaping behavior by controlling the consequences of the behavior and that individuals may choose from several responses to a given stimulus. • However, according to researchers Hovland, Janis, & Kelly (1967) the reinforcement theory will work marvelously when it is properly employed, and under the correct conditions, monkeys and pigeons, boys and girls, and men and women will be strongly influenced through the skillful use of reinforcement principles.

25. References • O’Connor-Petruso, Sharon. A. (2009, February 5). Descriptive & Inferential Stats, Analyses, Threats, & Designs. PowerPoint. Brooklyn College, Graduate Department of Education.