Options
The effects of positive reinforcement and punishment on upper primary pupils' disruptive behaviour and their perceptions of the classroom environment
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Author
Ong, Pheng Yen
Supervisor
Lam, Peter Tit Loong
Abstract
The study focused on the comparative effects of a token economy programme of positive reinforcement and punishment (Treatment 1) and a token economy programme of positive reinforcement only (Treatment 2) on upper primary pupils' disruptive behaviour and their perceptions of the management and maintenance function dimension of the classroom environment. Both programmes which took the form of the Good Behaviour Game consisted of class rules, tokens, rewards, response cost and pupil behavioural self-monitoring procedures. Four upper primary Normal classes, that is, two Primary 4 and two Primary 6 classes comprising 164 pupils from one government primary school were involved in this quasi-experimental study. Each treatment group consisted of a Primary 4 class and a Primary 6 class.
The class was taken as a unit of analysis in this study. Occurrences of disruptive behaviour were based on teachers' observations of seven disruptive behavioural categories. Pupils' perceptions of the management and maintenance function dimension of the classroom environment were based on their responses to the Classroom Environment Study (CES) questionnaire which comprised four classroom environment parameters. They were order and organisation (OO), rule clarity (RC), teacher control (TC) and task orientation (TO).
Percentages and graphs depicted the findings on pupils' disruptive behaviour while the t-test and the analysis of covariance determined pupils' perceptions of the classroom environment.
The main findings of the study were :
1) Mean daily occurrences of disruptive behaviour decreased in classes which reported higher mean baseline occurrences of disruptive behaviour for three categories where class rules had been introduced and enforced.
2) For each treatment group, the Primary 6 class recorded a higher percentage reduction of disruptive behaviour as a result of Treatment 1 while the Primary 4 class reported a higher percentage reduction as a result of Treatment 2.
3) For classes of the same level across treatment groups, the Primary 6 class responded more readily to Treatment 1 while the Primary 4 class reported a greater percentage reduction of disruptive behaviour as a result of Treatment 2.
4) The main gain scores of the 4 classes on classroom environment were reported to be significantly different for RC and TO. However, the classes in Treatment Group 1 reported greater significant differences for RC and CES in terms of larger mean gain scores.
5) For each treatment group concerning the classes' perceptions of the classroom environment, the Primary 6 class in Treatment Group 2 responded more significantly than the Primary 4 class. With regard to Treatment Group 1, no significant difference was reported except for RC.
6) For classes of the same level across treatment groups, Treatment 1 influenced the perceptions of the Primary 4 class more significantly than Treatment 2. However, Treatment 2 affected the perceptions of the Primary 6 class more significantly than Treatment 1.
Both treatment conditions allowed the teachers to succeed in exercising their controlling influence of the classroom environment. By affecting changes in the environment through the introduction of environmental stimuli such as reinforces, pupils' misbehaviours could be changed and reshaped in a socially acceptable manner.
The class was taken as a unit of analysis in this study. Occurrences of disruptive behaviour were based on teachers' observations of seven disruptive behavioural categories. Pupils' perceptions of the management and maintenance function dimension of the classroom environment were based on their responses to the Classroom Environment Study (CES) questionnaire which comprised four classroom environment parameters. They were order and organisation (OO), rule clarity (RC), teacher control (TC) and task orientation (TO).
Percentages and graphs depicted the findings on pupils' disruptive behaviour while the t-test and the analysis of covariance determined pupils' perceptions of the classroom environment.
The main findings of the study were :
1) Mean daily occurrences of disruptive behaviour decreased in classes which reported higher mean baseline occurrences of disruptive behaviour for three categories where class rules had been introduced and enforced.
2) For each treatment group, the Primary 6 class recorded a higher percentage reduction of disruptive behaviour as a result of Treatment 1 while the Primary 4 class reported a higher percentage reduction as a result of Treatment 2.
3) For classes of the same level across treatment groups, the Primary 6 class responded more readily to Treatment 1 while the Primary 4 class reported a greater percentage reduction of disruptive behaviour as a result of Treatment 2.
4) The main gain scores of the 4 classes on classroom environment were reported to be significantly different for RC and TO. However, the classes in Treatment Group 1 reported greater significant differences for RC and CES in terms of larger mean gain scores.
5) For each treatment group concerning the classes' perceptions of the classroom environment, the Primary 6 class in Treatment Group 2 responded more significantly than the Primary 4 class. With regard to Treatment Group 1, no significant difference was reported except for RC.
6) For classes of the same level across treatment groups, Treatment 1 influenced the perceptions of the Primary 4 class more significantly than Treatment 2. However, Treatment 2 affected the perceptions of the Primary 6 class more significantly than Treatment 1.
Both treatment conditions allowed the teachers to succeed in exercising their controlling influence of the classroom environment. By affecting changes in the environment through the introduction of environmental stimuli such as reinforces, pupils' misbehaviours could be changed and reshaped in a socially acceptable manner.
Date Issued
1987
Call Number
LB3013 Ong
Date Submitted
1987