Positive Reinforcement: Praise Compared to the Candy

Reward

Marjorie BarnesEDU 703.22

Fall 2008-Spring 2009

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

AbstractPraise 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.

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?

Review of LiteratureVerbal 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)

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.

MethodThe 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

InstrumentsConsent formsSchedule for Reinforcement

Qualitative Data◦ Student Surveys◦ Teacher Questionnaire◦ Work sheets

Quantitative Data◦ Weekly Points Tally sheet

Research DesignQuasi Experimental

◦ Designated treatment group (X1) & control group (X2)

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

Possible Threats to Internal ValidityHistory – 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.

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.

ProcedureTo 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.

Pretest-PosttestWeekly Points Tally Sheet

Control groupExperimental

group Control groupExperimental group

n= Week 1 Week 1 Week 6 Week 6

1 239 238 181 248

2 246 240 236 245

3 235 240 239 240

4 247 243 249 239

5 226 248 247 250

6 247 235 237 240

7 220 250 235 242

8 229 247 239 242

Pre-post Data

n= 1

23

45

67

8

0

50

100

150

200

250Pre-post Data

Control GroupExperimental GroupControl GroupExperimental Group

# of participacts in each group

Sco

res

of

the W

eekly

Po

ints

Tall

y S

heet

Pre-Post: Measures of Central Tendency

Average 236.5 242.6 232.8 243.2

Median 237 241.5 238 242

Mode 247 240 239 240

Maximum 247 250 249 250

Minimum 220 235 181 239

Control Group

Experimental Group

Control Group

Experimental Group

Week 1 Week 1 Week 6 Week 6

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.

Correlation Table 1 n Attitude Towards Attitude Towards

School Class work1 16 192 11 153 19 184 26 245 19 206 32 287 17 228 21 229 18 18

10 21 2511 26 2912 21 2313 13 1714 17 2615 18 2116 17 13

Correlation 0.75

Correlation Data The scatter plots show a distribution where the scores trail off to the right; thus, the

distribution is positively skewed.

5 10 15 20 25 30 350

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Correlation

Series1Linear (Series1)

Scores of Attitude Towards School Questionnaire

Score

s o

f th

e A

ttit

ud

e T

ow

ard

s C

lass

work

Qu

esti

on

nair

e

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

ResultsCandy 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.

DiscussionSome 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.

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.

ImplicationsTheorist 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.

References O’Connor-Petruso, Sharon. A. (2009, February 5).

Descriptive & Inferential Stats, Analyses, Threats, & Designs. PowerPoint. Brooklyn College, Graduate Department of Education.