1. EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL INCENTIVES ON INTRINSIC MOTIVATION OF STUDENTS An Action Research Project by Cassandra Caceres Spring 2011 7202T

2. Table of Contents  Research Design  Threats to Internal Validity  Threats to External Validity  Pretest and Post-test  Results of Pretest and Proposed Results of Post-test  Correlation  Proposed Data Analysis

3. Research Design  Pre-Experimental Design: Static Group Comparison  Two groups: The Control group (X1) receives the standard treatment(no experimental methods). The Experimental group (X2) receives the new experimental treatment.  Symbolic Design: X1O X2O  Groups not randomly assigned

4. Threats to Internal Validity  History: Classroom interruptions (announcements, issues that arose outside of classroom, conflict with routines, students not receiving the same conditioning with other teachers.  Maturation: Students from the experimental group may lose interest in lesson over time as they are not receiving a reward.  Testing/Pretest Sensitization: Pretest may provide insight as to the inquiry about rewards vs. praise.  Mortality: Some students who fill out surveys may miss class on the days during experimentation.  Differential Selection of Subjects: Working with 2 different classrooms that have been exposed to 2 different teaching styles

5. Threats to External Validity  Pretest Treatment: Students may not behave as expected because of the insight given by the pretest.  Selection-Treatment Interaction: Students did not volunteer and were not randomly selected.  Multiple Treatment: Doling out of praise could make students lose focus of lesson anyway and only rely on verbal acknowledgement.  Treatment Diffusion: The two classes can speak with each other during recess and lunch.  Experimenter Effects: Researchers mere presence can lead to a threat. (Unfamiliar authority figure, different age or gender of teacher)  Reactive Arrangements/Participant Effects: Hawthorne Effect, Compensatory Rivalry Effect, and Novelty Effect.

6. Pre Test and Post Test  Two 3 rd grade classrooms  Pre test survey on Rewards/Praise at home and at school. Will record student scores from prior unit.  Both receive a 5 day science/technology unit.  Students are given an assessments daily.  Will record student scores from given science unit. Students will be given a Post test survey on the unit and praise/rewards.

7. Pretest Results and Proposed Results of Post Test 5 day Science Unit before Intervention After 5 day Science Unit Intervention Class AClass B Assignment 12.73.5 Assignment 23.33.2 Assignment 32.83.9 Assignment 42.92.8 Assignment 53.23.4 Class AClass B Assignment 12.82.9 Assignment 23.23.5 Assignment 333.6 Assignment 43.33.7 Assignment 52.23.8

8. Correlation Correlation Class ACorrelation Class B Negative Correlation of -0.1006 Negative Correlation of -0.03785

9. Proposed Data Analysis  “Since the use of Coercion engenders negative feelings, such external approaches are counterproductive to good relationships and are only effective temporarily.” (Marshall, 2005)  Confusing the student who is already motivated or even worse motivated to learn by cultural/social norms may damage the intrinsic drive ( Wang & Guthrie 2004; Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac 2009).  Students when required to take certain classes often bring an unmotivated and negative attitude.However, teachers who can facilitate interesting discussions and involve their students in activities may be able to motivate them to learn.(Docan, 2006; Lepper. Corpus, & Iyenger 2005).  The post treatment bar graphs show Class A and Class B perform about the same level.  I propose that after treatment class B’s performance will gradually increase and Class As will increase then fall sharply.  The Correlation showed that the more teachers bribe their students with tangible incentives the less productive they will become overtime.