positive reinforcement: praise compared to the candy reward
DESCRIPTION
Positive Reinforcement: Praise Compared to the Candy Reward. Marjorie Barnes EDU 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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.