TOKEN ECONOMY REWARD SYSTEM

1. CBSE 7202.NET TOKEN ECONOMYREWARD SYSTEM By: Melanie Ma CBSE 7202. NET

2. Table of Contents Statement of Problem 3 Review of the Literature 4 Hypothesis and Research Design 5 Threats to Internal and External Validity 6 Methods 8 DataAnalysis 9 Discussions and Implications 11 & 12 References 13

3. Problem Statement Teachers are generally unprepared to manage the classroom. As a result, an easy-to-implement program is necessary to minimize student intervention in the classroom (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). Not all schools provide teachers with professional development training in managing student disruptive behaviors. Educators need to search for an effective method for classroom management. ResearchQuestion: Will the implementation of a token economy reward system minimize disruptive behavior in the classroom?

4. Review of Literature In the 19th century token reinforcement is a popular behavior modification method in England and the United States. (Stilitz,2009). This system has been implemented to improve on and off task behaviors by distributing tangible rewards. The token economy system has been a behavior modifier for at least 40 years. It is often used to help create a therapeutic environment. Reeve, S., Reeve, K., Dawn, & Poulson (2007) conducted a study to determine whether token reinforcement can be used to encourage students students with autism to perform on task activities and learn to perform appropriate classroom behavior such as putting materials away, setting up an activity, waiting for their turn to speak and etc. Results indicated that participants are able to engage in less disruptive activities .

5. Hypothesis Statement The implementation of a token economy reward system 45 to 60 minutes, twice a week for six weeks, to two first grade and three second grade students in a private afterschool tutoring center located in Manhattan, New York will minimize disruptive behavior in the classroom. Research Design • Pre-Experimental Design: One-Shot Case Study • Symbolic Design: XO • The experimental group is exposed to a treatment (X) and then observations (O) are made.

6. Threats to Internal Validity • History: Unforeseeable events such as the principal implementing a reward system can affect the students’ behavior. • Maturation: As students mature or as time progress, students might lose interest in the rewards. • Novelty: The teacher’s concern about the students’ behavior can cause students to be more aware of their behavior. • Experimental Mortality: Students changing classes can lower the amount of participants in the research. • Instrumentation: The observation period is too short to determine how students act throughout the whole afterschool session. • Differential Selection of Subjects: Socioeconomic status affects the attractiveness of the rewards distributed.

7. Threats to External Validity • Multiple Treatment: It is difficult to determine if a positive behavior occurs because the student wants a reward or because the act of the positive behavior is appropriate in a certain situation. • Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effect: Hawthorne Effect- Students behave well due to being observed by the researcher. • Treatment Diffusion: Students might discuss with each other about their reasons why they behave the way they do in the classroom during the research. • Experimenter Effects: A strict experimenter might decrease the occurrence of negative behavior.

8. Methods Participants: 2 First Graders and 3 Second Graders Observations: 45-60 minutes observations (twice a week) for 5 weeks

9. Data Analysis Independent variable: Reward Preference Dependent Variable: Importance of Receiving Rewards There is a strong negative correlation (rxy=-0.5) between reward preference and the importance of receiving rewards in First graders.

10. Data Analysis Independent variable: Reward Preference Dependent Variable: Importance of Receiving Rewards There is a strong negative correlation (rxy=-1) between reward preference and the importance of receiving rewards in secondgraders.

11. Discussion Results did not support hypothesis or studies mentioned in the literature review stating that token reinforcement is an effective approach to minimizing disruptive behavior. Possible Reasons: -Noisy learning environment -Many distractions -Teachers did not strictly implementtheir own classroom reward system.

12. Implications From conducting this ARP, results show that token reinforcement may not always be effective in modifying behavior in every classroom environment. Anderson and Spaulding (2007) wrote an article to present effective classroom management strategies in which teachers can implement in the classroom to monitor behavior. If behavior were managed correctly with reinforcement, the ongoing problems would diminish. Therefore, more research can be conducted to determine whether or not educators’ implementation of behavior modification techniques along with token reinforcement will increase the efficacy of minimizing student disruptive behavior in the classroom. .

13. Anderson, C., & Spaulding, S. (2007). Using positive behavior support to design effective classrooms. Beyond Behavior, 16(2), 27-31. • Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Dawn, B. T., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). Establishing a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 123 • Stilitz, I. (2009). A token economy of the early 19thcentury. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 925. doi:10.1901/jaba. 2009.42-925 References