Victoria Leindecker

Group Rewards: Impacts on Student Achievement

Grand Valley State University

GTC Program Winter 2018

Group Rewards: Impacts on Student Achievement

The Current Problem

GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Through Grand Valley State University’s Graduate Teaching Certification program, I

have had the unique opportunity to spend close to an entire school year in a single classroom.

Since day one, I have been in the classroom observing, learning and teaching. Through

observation, I noticed that one time within the daily routine appeared to be less productive than

desired: independent station time.

As many teachers know all too well, station time is critical for allowing the teacher to

work with small groups of students while other students are practicing applying skills that they

have learned within the classroom. However, being sure that work is being completed and being

completed to the best of student ability without direct teacher supervision can be difficult. Many

students spend this time socializing or avoiding completing work. The research conducted here

set out to incentivize groups of students to be more on task during this independent work time.

Related Literature

Before changing anything within the classroom, I began by researching effective methods

of increasing on task behaviors. One such method is providing an incentive to increase on task

behaviors. Within the classroom, there were already independent contingencies (individual

rewards) such as clipping up on the clip chart and earning blue tickets, in place. The system

seemed effective for altering behaviors on an individual basis, thus giving merit to the idea that it

could work in small groups as well. Skinner, Williams, and Neddenriep, suggest in their 2004

publication titled Using Interdependent Group-Oriented Reinforcement to Enhance Academic

Performance in General Education Classrooms that there are three different types of group

rewards: independent group oriented rewards, dependent group oriented rewards and

interdependent group oriented rewards (Skinner, Williams & Neddernriep, 2004). Each type of

group differs in how individual performances affect the rewards provided to individuals and the

1
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

whole group. The option I chose to use for the classroom is interdependent group oriented

rewards which involves all members of a group getting the same reward based on the overall

group effort. Interdependent group oriented rewards encourage group cohesion, lack of

competition, increased support from peers, and decline in disruptive behavior (Cashwell,

Skinner, Dunn & Lewis, 1998). Another element of providing interdependent group rewards is

that students who perform poorly may receive rewards, which can be viewed as a strength if it

helps that particular student to find more enjoyment within the school building (Cashwell et al.,

1998).

This method fits well into the PBIS model of behavior management currently

implemented by the school and research supports its effectiveness with diverse age groups and

populations (Pokorski, Barton, & Ledford, 2016). Within the interdependent group reward

model, there are many options for implementation. A teacher may choose to keep track of the

contingencies by using common tactics, such as verbal rewards, level charts, or token economies

(Pokorski et al., 2016). However, there are also digital alternatives available to the teacher such

as educational games and digital badges (Filsecker & Hickey, 2014). Randomizing the intervals

that the teacher is checking on the students’ execution of the current behavior being modified,

increases the likelihood of the behavior being exhibited more frequently (Cashwell et al., 1998).

Objective of Research

With the current research, the hope is to increase the amount of on task behavior. For

purposes of this research, the factors identified as indicators of on task behavior are completion

of work to best of individual student ability, and neatness of work station. Other factors being

monitored but not mentioned to students will include overall classroom noise level, and number

2
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

of reminders given to groups during station rotations. By increasing on task behaviors, the

desired result will be more work accomplished and higher student achievement.

Implementation

The action research will be conducted for three weeks. The first week will consist of data

collection of the system before implementation of the action research, the second week will have

rewards provided at the end of each day, and the third and final week will have rewards given at

random intervals. Data on station neatness and work completion will be collected at the end of

each 15 minute station rotation for each group. Data on overall noise level will be collected

every 5 minutes and the number of reminders will be noted as they happen.

The interdependent group reward system used will incorporate a ticket system indicating

the neatness and the quality of work completed. The groups will be rated using a scale from 1 to

3 tickets. When introducing this system to the students, the teacher needs to emphasize the

importance of working together as a group to be successful and provide the students with phrases

that could be used to conduct conversations between group members.

Students will be told that the teachers in the room will be adding tickets to their cause

when they observe neat stations and work completed to the best of each student’s ability. In

order to keep the reward interesting to the students, the teacher will have a prize box that

contains mystery items. The group or groups with the most tickets from the daily competition

will be allowed to choose one item out of the prize box or choose to take a token with hopes of

winning a second day to receive a larger prize. More than one group can win on any given day,

making it so that the groups are not competing against each other, but rather against their own

abilities.

3
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

During the second week of implementation, the students will earn tickets every day but a

prize will not be awarded every day as it was during the first week of implementation. By adding

an element of random rewards, students are encouraged to be on task as the teacher removes

scaffolding, thus encouraging students to adopt the changes they have made. After the two

weeks of implementation, the reward system can be used on any given day as maintenance of the

newly acquired skills or behaviors.

Findings and Suggestions

Collection of data began during the week before implementation. Each group was given a

score of 1 to 3 on both completion of work and neatness of station, just as they will when tickets

are awarded in the upcoming weeks. The average scores after a week which included six 15

minute station rotations, was approximately 1.5 for completion of work and a 1.4 on neatness of

station. Unfortunately, these scores were low, leaving a large amount of room for improvement.

The average noise level, recorded on a scale from 1 (quiet work talk) to 3 (talking needing a

reminder to quiet down), taken every five minutes during the course of stations resulted in a

score of 2.5 with the average number of individual group reminders at 7.5 reminders.

Implementation of interdependent group rewards resulted in an increase in both amount

of work completed and the neatness of the station with work completed averaging at a 2.1 and

the neatness of the station at a 2.5. Students seemed to be able to grasp the concept of expected

neatness better than the idea of completing work to the best of their ability. It was also made

clear that many of the groups who struggled to earn tickets often had only one student who was

not motivated by the reward. In one case, this was an ESL student, which may have been a

contributing factor in his lack of understanding. Though it was observed that his table mates

made a huge effort to encourage and support him to accomplish his work and keep his table

4
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

space clean. When looking at the overall noise level and amount of reminders, there was also

positive changes in both areas. The students’ overall noise level dropped from 2.5 to 1.9 with the

reminders needed dropping from 7.5 to 5 reminders. It was a noticeable change in the amount of

time spent dealing with behaviors versus offering my time to students who may have needed

additional assistance with the assignments.

In the final week, there were few changes. Overall, the work completed and the neatness

of the stations remained similar to the findings of the first week of implementation at 2.2 for

amount of work completed and 2.4 for the neatness. However, there was in increase in the

amount of talking (overall noise level) at 2.1 and the number of reminders increased with the

noise level from 5 to 6 average reminders. The students asked me more often about the rewards

during this week, which was often at inconvenient times when they should have been more

concerned with their assignments.

Overall, I found the technique implemented helped inspire groups to work together and

encourage others. Many students tried to help their peers by pointing out places in the room

where they may be able to find resources to answer their questions and there was more sharing

between table mates. While the students seemed to struggle with the concept of doing work to

the best of their ability, they had a visual model of how I expected their work space to look,

which they worked hard to maintain. It reduced the amount of time I spent cleaning up their

tablespaces freeing up more time for organizing my teaching materials.

However, a limitation was the amount of time I spent dealing with the ticket system. It

was cumbersome adding tickets to the baggie system I created. It took a reasonable amount of

time to count up the tickets at the end of the day and make record of it. It could also become

5
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

expensive quickly if the ante had to be continuously raised. The trinkets in the prize box were not

very expensive, but overall, they entire system cost me around $30 for the two weeks.

Not all prizes were used up, but having multiple group winners each day with each group

having at least 4 members, prizes went quickly. It would have been nice to make the whole thing

a little more private and not hold the entire class to the same standard. Many, if not all, students

made improvements in at least one area, but the bar was set so high that it made it difficult to

reward a group who may have made great gains, but were still not as successful as another table

group.

Future research on this topic could be conducted by having only one item that students

are attempting to accomplish. If the item is clear, and tangible, the students are better able to

follow expectations. Especially with younger students, the visual aid seemed to be a key

component in their success. Within the station rotations, there are many different activities, I

believe that it may have helped them accomplish the completion element more successfully to

have an anchor chart with images of what is expected for each specific activity within the

stations. If the list of expectations is visible, it may help the students meet them.

Works Cited

Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M., & Lewis, J. C. (1998). Group reward programs: A
humanistic approach. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 37(1), 47-53.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/docview/212453297?accountid=39473

Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external
rewards on elementary students motivation, engagement and learning in an educational
game. Computers & Education,75, 136-148. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-

6
GROUP REWARDS: IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/science/article/pii/S0360131514000426?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origi
n=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y

Pokorski, E. A., Barton, E. E., & Ledford, J. R. (2016). A Review of the Use of Group
Contingencies in Preschool Settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,36(4),
230-241. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0271121416649935

Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-
oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms.
School Psychology Review, 33(3), 384-397. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/docview/219655144?accountid=39473