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

Table of Contents ◦ Statement of Hypothesis3 Method ◦ Participants (N)4 ◦ Instruments5 ◦ Experimental Design6  Threats to validity8  Pre-post test17  Sample surveys20  Correlation22 References25

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.

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

Instruments Consent form Qualitative Data ◦ Surveys ◦ Teacher Questionnaires ◦ Work sheets Quantitative Data ◦ Test ◦ Weekly Points Tally sheet

Research Design Quasi Experimental ◦ Designated treatment group (X 1 ) & control group (X 2 )

Quasi-Experimental Design Nonequivalent Control Group Design: Two groups are pretested, exposed to a treatment (x), and post tested (o). Symbolic design: ◦ O X 1 O ◦ O X 2 O

Statistical Format Sources of Invalidity InternalExternal Designs History Maturation Testing Instrumentation Differential Selection of Subject Statistical Regression Mortality Selection – Maturation Interaction Pretest Treatment Interaction Multiple Interference Treatment Diffusion Generalizable Nonequivalent Control Group Design Ox 1 O O 2 O +++++_++++__

Possible Threats to Internal Validity History – Due to the naturally curious age of my participants. Maturation – As the participants attend school daily, grow daily, and learn daily. Instrumentation – I plan to continually modify activities to test for work compliance. Differential Selection of Subjects – Differences in age level of all 16 participants.

Possible Threats to Internal Validity 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 – Differences in maturity rate in boys and girls. Testing/Pre-test Sensitization - I will need to respect the testing sensation of the participants’ IEP.

Not a Possible Threat to Internal Validity Statistical Regression – Statistical regression may not be a possible threat to my action research project because N is less than 15,000.

Possible Threats to External validity Selection-Treatment Interaction – The participants in my action research were not randomly selected. Multiple Treatment Interference –I plan to administer surveys, questionnaires, daily activities and an assessment to measure students’ compliance, work readiness, and work stamina. Experimenter Effects – 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 may be an unconscious action during the action research.

Possible Threats to External Validity 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.

Not Possible Threats to External Validity Ecological- Base on the literatures this research seem generalizable and could be conducted at many levels of education. Generalizable Conditions- 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 –I believe that the variables are easily generalized.

Not Possible Threats to External Validity 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 routine distribution of candy. ◦ Compensatory Rivalry Effect-( not applicable) The participants are from two separate classes and neither of them have knowledge or will witness what is been administered to each group.

Pretest-Posttest Weekly Points Tally Sheet Candy RewardContingent PraiseCandy RewardContingent Praise n= Week 1 Week

Pre-post Graph and Analysis

Pre-Post Data The analysis of the data shows that the distribution for the praise contingent classroom has a positive skew, where the mean is larger than the median. {mode<median<average} While the distribution for the candy rewarded classroom has a negative skew, where the median is larger that the mean. {average <median<mode} Average Median Mode Maximum Minimum Candy RewardContingent PraiseCandy RewardContingent Praise Week 1 Week 6

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 reduced by week six. On the other hand, students' average in the contingent praise classroom pretty much remain consistent with no significant change. The data also indicated that the median for students in a candy rewarded classroom also reduced 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 the two non consecutive weeks. We will notice that 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. While the distribution for the candy rewarded classroom is negatively skewed; thus, average <median<mode.

A TTITUDE TOWARDS S CHOOL S URVEY (K-2) Complete the statements: 1. I like school… {4} A lot{3} Most times{2} Not so much{1} Not at all_____ 2. My favorite thing to do in school is… {4}Journal writing {3} Math{2} Circle-time{1} Recess _____ 4. I have _________at school. {4} Many friends{3} Three friends{2} One friend{1} No friends _____ 5. My favorite teacher is… {4}Your classroom teacher{3} The science teacher {2} The music/art teacher{1} The gym teacher _____ 6. I think ___________ is great reward to get in school. {4} A compliment/praise{3} A star{2} Free-time{1} a piece of candy _____ 7. My teacher gives me plenty of… {4} A compliment/praise{3} A star{2} Free-time{1} a piece of candy _____ 9. I participate ______________ in the lessons? {4}Most times {3} Sometimes{2} Not so much {1} Not at all _______ Scale:30-40; 20-29; 10-19;0-9 Excellent attitudeSatisfactory attitude Poor/strugglingNeed to develop a better towards schooltowards school attitude towards schoolattitude towards school

A TTITUDE TOWARDS C LASS WORK S URVEY (K-2) Complete the statements: In school my favorite subject is… {4}Journal writing{3} Math/Science{2} Art/Music{1} Gym_____ I like to work in a group… {4} Most of the times{3} Sometimes{2} Not so much{1} Not at all _____ 5. I like to use a… {4}Pencil{3} Crayons{2} Markers{1} Play-Doh _____ 6. In school I like to … {4} work in my notebook {3} work on the computer {2} Play with table-top toys {1} Put my head down on the table _____ 7. I think _____________ is great reward for completing your work. {4} A compliment/praise{3} A star{2} Free-time{1} a piece of candy _____ The class work I like best is… {4}Hands on project {3} Writing in my journal {2} Reading a book {1} Nothing _____ 10. How many times during the day do sharpen your pencil? {4}None at all{3} Once or twice {2} More than three times {1} Until my teacher is steaming out the ear _____

Correlation Table 1 nAttitude Towards School Classwork Correlation

Correlation Data 1 The scatter plots show a distribution where the scores trail off to the right; thus, the distribution is positively skewed.

Analysis 1 The scatter plots shows a positive r: X Y. Students who scored high x-scores also scored high y-scored. To restate, students who like school also like class work. They scored high 4s and 3s for preferring journal writing and math/science as suppose to preferring circle-time and recess; which were assigned scores of 2s and 1s. Ex: 2. My favorite thing to do in school is… {4}Journal writing {3} Math/Science {2} Circle-time {1} Recess They also preferred to receive a compliment or a star for completing their class work that were assigned 4s and 3s as supposed to receiving free-time or a piece of candy that were assigned scores of 2s and 1s. Ex:7. I think ___________ is great reward for completing your work. {4} A compliment/praise{3} A star{2} Free-time {1} a piece of candy

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