EDOL 630 UCumberlands First Grade Reading Scores of Children Paper

Class Fall 2020 Research Methods in Education EDOL 630-810

Literature Review Must include annotated bibliography

Must be APA format

Example of Literature Review

Notice that the researcher divides the paper into sub-categories, moving general to specific, which is the expectation. As well, gaps that exist in the literature and how the literature review informs the action research is found in the Summary and Conclusions. The Literature Review needs to start on its on page. This one does not because of the notes I have added to the paper.)

Introduction

Educators constantly strive to find efficient methods to gain desired behaviors and results from students. Generally, the goal of any classroom management strategy or intervention is to motivate students to participate in class, maintain good grades, and score well on standardized testing. As such, it is not surprising that the study of behavior, also known as behaviorism, is so strongly entrenched in classroom management strategies. Various behavioral techniques and interventions have been implemented in numerous classroom settings, studied, and scrutinized; yet, educators and psychologist continue to deliberate about ways to increase students’ motivation, participation, and academic achievement.

Individuals such as John Locke, Albert Einstein, Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B.F. Skinner studied behaviorism, and generally, the effects of rewards and punishments as incentives that predict and control behavior. However, their theories and opinions regarding incentives varied. Individuals like John Locke believed that incentives are effective motivational tools, and perhaps the only motivational tools, that regulate individuals in their pursuit of self-interest (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011). Conversely, individuals like Albert Einstein believed that incentives undermine autonomy, authenticity, and the true motive to be good (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011). In the past century, psychologists like John Watson and B.F. Skinner focused a great deal of research on behaviorism. Their studies show that reinforcements and punishments are important methods that promote learning and performance (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011). As a result, behaviorism is strongly entrenched at the root of educational tactics and instructional management techniques, most commonly in the form of a token economy intervention.

Prevalence of Token Economies in Classrooms

One of the most common educational tactics utilized by teachers to enhance student engagement and achievement involves the use of an intervention in which a form of reward is given after a student exhibits a targeted behavior, also known as a token economy (Schunk, 1984; Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005). Token economies have been successfully implemented at various grade levels and in a variety of school populations for decades (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998). The prevalence of token economies in our schools has been the catalyst of research concerning whether there is a positive relationship between token economies and student achievement. As such, there is an extensive amount of research related to the effectiveness of token economies.

The majority of those studies have produced data that affirmed the effectiveness of token economies (Schunk, 1984; Swain & McLaughlin, 1998; Boniecki & Moore, 2003; Zlomke & Zlomke, 2003; Alter, Wyrick, Brown, & Lingo, 2008; Nelson, 2010). Despite its popularity and continued use, the token economy has also received significant criticism from various educators and psychologists who question its effectiveness and the problems associated with techniques that rely on extrinsic rewards to control behavior and motivate students. At the center of that criticism is the concern that external rewards for students’ performance at school motivates students to perform for external factors rather than the genuine interest in the material (Davis, Winsler, & Middleton, 2006). Several studies have noted that although the token economy is one of the most effective and empirically endorsed classroom management procedures utilized by teachers, it may not help students learn to respond to their own needs, learn acceptable social behaviors, and become effective learners throughout life (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005; Davis, Winsler, & Middleton, 2006; Sears & Pai, 2012). Not surprisingly, educators and psychologists continue to study, analyze, and debate the use of rewards to promote desired behavior.

Despite the criticism and continued debate, token economy interventions are common in all states. A specific example is the state of Missouri. Moberly, Waddle, and Duff (2005) studied the use of token economy interventions by teachers in Missouri. The purpose of their study was to explore the most common motivational practices and classroom management strategies being used by prekindergarten to third grade teachers in Missouri public schools. The study also sought to determine what influenced teachers’ choices of behavior management strategies.

Moberly, Waddle and Duff chose a survey model design and collected information from a statewide survey of a cross-section of prekindergarten through primary classroom teachers (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005). The sample included 374 teachers chosen randomly and the questionnaire included five items related to motivational practices and classroom management strategies. The results of the study showed the majority of the teachers used extrinsic rewards and punishment, a form of a token economy intervention, to achieve acceptable behavior and motivate students. Specifically, 98 percent of the teachers who responded indicated they use some kind of extrinsic reward (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005). The rewards included stickers, candy, soda, and tickets that could be used to purchase a tangible object. Several teachers also considered verbal or nonverbal praise or recognition as well as an additional privilege to be extrinsic rewards.

Moberly, Waddle, and Duff (2005) also found that although 98 percent of the participants used rewards to attain desired behavior, 79 percent of the teachers surveyed believed the instructional practices of the teacher was the most positive influence on their students’ behavior (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005). The data collected also showed that a substantial amount of money is spent from the teachers’ own pockets to provide rewards for students. The researchers opined that the data from their study likely indicates that it is more expedient to use rewards to attain the desired results than to plan and conduct learner-based instructional activities (Moberly, Waddle, & Duff, 2005).

Relationship between Token Economies and Academic Achievement

In addition to researching the popularity of token economies, many studies have also considered the effectiveness of token economies and found that the use of performance contingent rewards improved academic achievement. According to Swain and McLaughlin (1998), the majority of the research concerning token economy procedures has taken place in elementary school settings (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998). For example, Schunk (1984) conducted an action research study to compare the effects of performance-contingent rewards on students’ task motivation, self-efficacy, and skillful performance when solving division problems. Schunk (1984) also considered the effects of proximal goals and the combination of performance-contingent rewards and proximal goals. The participants in the study consisted of 33 children selected from two elementary schools between the ages of nine and eleven. During a division unit, the 33 children were divided into three groups. One group of students was offered performance-contingent rewards (rewards only). The second group was offered proximal goals (goals only), and students in the third group were offered performance-contingent rewards and proximal goals (rewards and goals). The results of the study showed that each of the three groups improved in division performance and self-efficacy (Schunk, 1984). However, the third group of students that received rewards and set proximal goals exhibited the highest performance and self-efficacy (Schunk, 1984). Schunk (1984) opined that one possible explanation for the results is that when compared to goals alone or rewards alone, rewards and goals may stimulate a greater degree of obligation in the students and provide a greater validation when the goal is accomplished and the reward is received.

Many of the studies that analyze token economies also focus on class participation in addition to the students’ test scores. Specifically, research has found that participation increases academic achievement (Nelson, 2010; Sears & Pai, 2012, Boniecki & Moore, 2003). According to Nelson (2010), studies indicate that active classroom participation enables students to perform better in class. Studies also show that a token economy can improve class participation. Nelson studied the effects of a token economy, in the form of bonus points, on class participation in undergraduate psychology classes at a Midwestern commuter university and found a positive relationship between student participation and the token economy (Nelson, 2010). Results from the study also showed a significant relationship between students’ grades and the token economy (Nelson, 2010).

Boniecki and Moore (2003) found similar results in their study, which implemented a token economy in an undergraduate psychology class at the University of Central Arkansas. In their study, a token economy was established that provided students with tokens for participation, which the students could exchange for extra credit (Boniecki & Moore, 2003). Results from the study showed that students’ participation increased during the token economy and returned to the baseline once the token economy was removed (Boniecki & Moore, 2003). A study conducted on 40 undergraduate students also showed that the use of rewards in a cooperative learning instructional setting promoted learning and motivation (Sears & Pai, 2012). Results of the study also found that students’ performance and motivation decreased after the rewards were removed (Sears & Pai, 2012).

The positive relationship between token economies, class participation, and academic achievement is not exclusive to college students or students in a general education setting. Research also shows that token economies improve academic achievement in students who have learning disabilities and behavior disorders (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998; Alter, Wyrick, Brown, & Lingo, 2008; Zlomke & Zlomke, 2003). Swain and McLaughlin (1998) studied the effects of a token economy on math accuracy in middle school students with behavioral disorders. The study implemented a token economy in the form of bonus points. The results showed that students’ math accuracy increased during the token economy compared to their accuracy during the baseline (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998). After the study, students were also interviewed to determine whether they favored the token economy. The students’ reactions were favorable and showed they enjoyed the intervention (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998).

Similarly, research shows that token economies combined with behavior chains improve math problem solving skills for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) (Alter, Wyrick, Brown, & Lingo, 2008). Action research conducted by Alter, Wyrick, Brown, and Lingo (2008) studied whether combining behavior chains with the use of a token economy would improve the problem solving skills of a fourth grade student with ADHD. This study took place in a resource setting and the participant earned points for on-task behavior while solving math problems. The points earned in the token economy could be traded for tangible item from a treasure box or a preferred activity. The results showed an increase in academic achievement (Alter, Wyrick, Brown, & Lingo, 2008).

Zlomke and Zlomke (2003) also studied the effectiveness of a token economy combined with self-monitoring. The participant in their study was a 13 year-old male student with mental illness and severe aggressive and disruptive behaviors. The study was conducted in a resource setting and the token economy consisted of a points system where points were earned for exhibiting targeted behaviors with additional points added for the student being able to accurately monitor himself. The points could then be exchanged every two hours for a reward. The results of this study showed that the token economy was effective in reducing the aggressive and disruptive behaviors, which improved academic achievement (Zlomke & Zlomke, 2003).

Summary and Conclusion

In summary, extensive studies have repeatedly found a positive relationship between token economies and students’ participation and academic achievement. In classrooms where token economies are implemented, students’ participation and academic achievement increases (Schunk, 1984; Swain & McLaughlin, 1998; Boniecki & Moore, 2003; Zlomke & Zlomke, 2003; Alter, Wyrick, Brown, & Lingo, 2008; Nelson, 2010). However, the majority of the research has taken place in an elementary or college setting. The goal of this action research study is to implement a token economy intervention to determine whether it increases students’ motivation, participation, and academic achievement in sixth grade math students at a large public middle school in northern Kentucky.

It is hypothesized that the implementation of a token economy intervention will increase students’ motivation, participation, and academic achievement. As part of this study, the token economy will be implemented and a study of the effects will be conducted. Upon completion, this study will offer additional insight into whether token economies improve students’ motivation, and academic achievement.