Positive Reinforcement:
Praise Compared to the Candy Reward
Marjorie Barnes
EDU 703.22
Fall 2008-Spring 2009
Table of Contents


Introduction
3
◦ Statement of the Problem
6
◦ Review of Related Literature
7
◦ Statement of Hypothesis
11
Method
◦ Participants (N)
12
◦ Instruments
13
◦ Experimental Design
14
◦ Procedure

Result

References
23
Introduction

Candy is the main reinforcer used inside
the elementary classroom to manage the
behavior problems.

Teachers start out with other token or
symbolic rewards such as stars, coupons,
and play money but in the end use
candies.
Introduction

In a fifth grade classroom I witnessed the
token start-out. Students were rewarded
play money for completing homework
assignments and for their behavior inside
and outside of the classroom, but the end
result was that they added it up to purchase
candy at the class shop.

In an art room, if students earned coupon (s)
during the art prep then they get to claim a
reward for the candy box after they have
accumulated five coupons.
Introduction

In a kindergarten class I have witnessed
the symbolic reward start-out. Each
student gets a star for their behavior
throughout the day. If students earn five
stars during the course of the day, then
they get a reward from the prize box,
which is full of candies.
Statement of the Problem

I will compare two positive reinforcers –
candy and praise.

In my reading, I have discovered 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 the praise
reward?
Review of the Literature
(Researchers)

One alleged effect of reinforcement is that it undermines
intrinsic interest in task; findings show that verbal praise
produces and increase intrinsic motivation. The only negative
effect appears when expected tangible rewards are given to
individual simply for doing a task (Cameron & Pierce, 1994).

Praising student’s intelligence gives them a short burst of
pride (“you must be smart at these problems”); rather,
students must be praised for their effort (“you must have
worked hard at these problems” or “I know it was a hard
assignment, but you stuck to it and got it done”). Effort
praised students will remain on task, confident, and eager
(Dweck, 2007).
Review of the Literature
(Researchers)

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. (Cotton,1988)
Review of the Literature (Theorist)

According to the reinforcement theory,
reinforcement is the process of shaping behavior
by controlling the consequences of the behavior.
In addition, individuals can choose from several
responses to a given stimulus.

Theorist E.L. Thorndike (1911) law of effect states
that all things being equal, responses to stimuli
that are followed by satisfaction will be
strengthened. In addition, behaviors that are
followed by good consequences are likely to be
repeated in the future.
Review of the Literature (Theorist)

Skinner (1937) a key contributor in the
development of the reinforcement theory,
added that people can choose to exhibit
certain behavior on what happens to them
as a result of their behavior.

“…behavior is followed by a consequence,
and the nature of the consequence modifies
the organism tendency to repeat the
behavior in the future” (B. F. Skinner 1973).
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 forms
 Qualitative Data
◦ Surveys
◦ Teacher Questionnaires
◦ Work sheets (Checking for compliance and stamina)
 Quantitative Data
◦ Test
◦ Students’ point sheet
◦ Weekly points tally sheet

Research Design

Quasi Experimental: Two groups
◦ 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
Internal validity that are a possible threats
to my action research project




History – Due to the naturally curious age of my participants,
history will be a possible threat to my action research project.
Maturation – As the participants attend school daily, grow daily,
and learn daily maturation may be a possible threat to my action
research project.
Instrumentation – Using a single instrument or multiple
instruments may be a possible threat to my action research project
because I plan to continually modify a single work activity to test
for work compliance.
Differential Selection of Subjects – Due to the differences in
age level of all 16 participants differential selection of participants
will be a possible threat to my action research project. I have nonrandomly selected 8 students from one classroom and 8 students
from another.
Internal validity that are a possible threats
to my action research project



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 –Due to the different
maturity rate in boys and girls, and the understanding that each
child will have different rate at which they learn.
Testing/Pre-test Sensitization – Due to the instruments I will
administer in my action research project such as testing for work
stamina and work compliance through praise, testing sensitization
may be a possible threat to my action research. However, I will
respect the testing sensation of the participants’ IEP.
Internal validity that are not a possible
threats to my action research project

Statistical Regression – Statistical regression may not be a
possible threat to my action research project because N is less
than 15,000.
External validity that are a possible
threat to my action research project

Selection-Treatment Interaction – The participants in my
action research were not randomly selected.

Multiple Treatment Interference –I plan to administer surveys,
questionnaire, daily work activities and an assessment to measure
students’ compliance, work readiness, and work stamina.

Experimenter Effects – This 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 maybe an
unconscious action during the action research.
External validity that are a possible
threat to my action research project

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.
External validity that are not a possible
threat to my action research project



Ecological- Base on the literatures I have read
comparing the effects of praise against those of the
candy reward, this research seem generalizable and
could be conducted at many level 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 – This may not be a possible
threat to my action project because I believe that the
variables are easily generalized.
External validity that are not a possible
threat to my action research project

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 promise + the distribution of candy.
◦ Compensatory Rivalry Effect-( not applicable) The participants
are two separate grades of students and neither of them have
knowledge or will witness what is been administered to each
group.
Pre-post Graph and Analysis
Pre-Post Analysis
300
Weekly Progress Scores
250
200
Candy Reward
150
Week1
Contingent Praise Week1
Candy Reward
100
Week6
Contingent Praise Week6
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
# of participants (n)
12
13
14
15
16
Table

Candy Reward
Contingent Praise
Candy Reward
Contingent Praise
Week1
Week1
Week6
Week6
235.75
242.25
231.25
242.1875
237
241.5
237
241.5
247
239
238
240
Maximum 247
250
249
250
Minimum 220
232
181
Mean
Median
Mode

231
The analysis of the data shows that the distribution for the praise contingent
classroom is positively skewed, where the mode<median<average. However, the
distribution for the candy rewarded classroom is negatively skewed; thus, average
<median<mode.
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 reduces by the sixth week within the class. On the
other hand, students' average in the contingent praise classroom pretty much remain consistent; there
were no significant change.

The data also indicated that the median weekly progress score for students in a candy
rewarded classroom also falling 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 both week.


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. However, the distribution
for the candy rewarded classroom is negatively skewed; thus, average <median<mode.
Correlation
35
Scores of the Attutude Towards Class work Questionnaire
Correlation
30
25
20
15
Series1
Linear (Series1)
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Scores of Attuitude Towards School Questionnaire
35
Correlation
 Correlation =0.758115106
Analysis

Base on the scatter plots above, students who like
school also like class work. They score high 4s and 3s
for preferring journal writing and math/science as
oppose to preferring circle-time and recess; which
were assigned scores of 2s and 1s.

They also preferred to receive a compliment or a star
for completing their class work; which were assigned
4s and 3s as opposed to receiving free-time or a
piece of candy that were assigned scores of 2s and 1s.

The scatter plots also show a distribution where the
scores trail off to the right; thus, the distribution is
positively skewed.
References

Cotton, K. (1988, May). Instructional reinforcement. School improvement research series (SIRS). Retrieved
September 22, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/2/cu3.html

Reinforcement theory. (1996, September). Retrieved September 22, 2008, from The Eberly College of Arts and
Science
Web site: http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/rf.htm

Blumenfelf, S.L. (1999). NEA: Trojan horse in American education. Retrieved September 22,2008, from
http://www.sntp.net/behavorism.htm

Wise, R. Dr., (2008, May 9). Reinforcement. Scholarpedia . Retrieved September 22, 2008, from
http://www.scholarpedi.org/article/Reinforcements

Rozycki, G., (2004, July 26). Reinforcers and voluntary behavior. New foundations. Retrieved September 22, 2008,
from http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/RewRein.html

Barnett, T. (2007). Reinforcement theory: Background and Development of Reinforcement theory. Retrieved September
22, 2008, http://www.refernceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-Sa/Reinforcement-Theory.html


Siegel, Chelsea T. (2008, August) School-wide positive behavior support programs in elementary schools. Online
submission.38pp. School of education Dominican University of California. Retrieved September 29,
2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail
Kauffman, J., Conroy, M., Gardner, R. III, & Oswald, D. (2008, April). Cultural sensitivity in the application of
behavior principle to education. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 239-262. Retrieved September
29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail
References

Dweck, Carol S. (2007, October). The perils: The wrong kind of praise creates self-defeating behavior. The right kind
motivates students to learn. Stanford University. Educational Leadership. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail

Scott, T.M., Anderson, C.M., & Spaulding S.A (2008). Strategies for developing and carrying out functional assessment
and behavior intervention planning. Preventing School Failure, 52, 39-49. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail

Buckholdt, D.R. & Ferritor, D.E. (1974). Effect of token reinforcement on two attending behaviors of adults in a
continuing education program. Adult Education Quarterly, 24, 208-219. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from
SAGE database.

Thomas, S.M. (1973). Using reinforcement and social modeling with delinquent youth. Review of Educational Research,
43, 323-340. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from SAGE database.

Ryans, D.G, Travers, R.M.W., Reid, I.E., & Van Wagenen, R.K. (1964). Research on reinforcement and its implication
for education. Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 223-227. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from SAGE database.

Cameron, J. & Pierce, W.D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 363-394. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from the SAGE database.

Wold, D.C. & Windsor, R.E. (1981). Student management through incentives- Positive reinforcement. NASSP Bulletin,
65, 46-59. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from the SAGE database.
References

Barth, R. (1979). Home-based reinforcement of school behavior: A review and analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 49, 436-458. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database.

Bates, J. A. (1979). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: A review with implications for the classroom. Review
of Educational Research, 49, 557-576. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database.

Morgan, M. (1984). Reward-induced decrements and Increments in intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational
Research, 54, 5-30. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database.

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32. Retrieved
November 6, 2008, from SAGE database.

Schultz, C. B. & Sherman, R. H. (1976). Social class, development, and differences in reinforcer effectiveness. Review
of Educational Research, 46, 25-59. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from SAGE database.

Barringer, C. & Gholson, B (1979). Effects of type and combination of feedback upon conceptual learning:
Implications for research in academic learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 459-478. Retrieved
November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database.

Lipe, D. & Jung, S.M. (1971). Manipulating incentives to enhance school learning. Review of Educational Research, 41,
249-277. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database.
References

Micheals, J.W. (1977). Classroom reward structures and Academic Performance. Review of Educational Research,
47, 87-89. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE database

Coates, T. & Thoresen, C.E. (1979). Behavioral self-control and educational practice or do we
really need self-control? Review of Educational Research, 7, 3-17. Retrieved November 13,
2008, from he SAGE database

Glickman, C. D. & Wolfgang, C.H. (1979). Dealing with student misbehavior: An Eclectic review.
Journal of teacher education, 30, 7-13. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the SAGE
database.