The Candy Economy That Stopped Working
Mr. Alvarez teaches last-period Algebra I to 34 sophomores. In September, 55% of observed intervals were on-task. In October he introduced a token system: a candy for each completed problem set, and raffle tickets for weekly homework. On-task rose to 68% for two weeks, then fell to 51% by week four, below baseline. Students now ask 'what do we get?' before starting, and several negotiate points. Three students - two with IEPs for emotional disturbance and one repeating the course - argue with him daily and have been sent to the office nine times this month. He says the class 'only works for candy.' The assistant principal wants to tighten consequences and increase the reward value; the school counselor suggests a class meeting. The state test is in five months, and the class has covered only four of the first nine units.
1. Interpret the trajectory using at least two motivational theories, and explain why the reward system produced the decline.
Read the worked answer
The trajectory looks like overjustification plus satiation, not proof that rewards never work. In self-determination terms, candy controlled behavior and crowded out autonomy; students redefined the task as a transaction, which is why they ask what they get before starting. Competence and relatedness were not addressed, so the reward had nothing to support once novelty faded. Expectancy-value theory adds that task value was never built, and the reward may have signaled that algebra is unpleasant. Behaviorally, a continuous, predictable reward delivered for completion can lose potency, and the shift from 68% to 51% suggests satiation, inconsistent delivery, or contrast with the arguing episodes. The drop below baseline also suggests the reward became a negotiation and a source of conflict, which is itself reinforcing for some students. Tightening consequences would likely intensify the power struggle, because it treats a motivational design problem as a compliance problem.
2. Propose a plan for the whole class and a separate plan for the three students.
Read the worked answer
Whole class: replace the per-problem candy with a short-term group contingency tied to a specific, attainable behavior, and announce a fading plan from the start. Build autonomy through a choice of practice problems or roles, competence through feedback on strategy rather than speed, and relatedness through a brief class meeting that revisits norms. Use meaningful tasks with a visible purpose. For the three students, conduct a functional behavior assessment rather than applying the group contingency; identify antecedents and the payoff of arguing, teach a replacement response, and give non-contingent attention early in the period. Avoid public reprimands that create an audience. Involve the IEP team for the two students with emotional disturbance. Keep consequences predictable and private, and check whether the work is at an appropriate difficulty level.
3. What would you monitor to know whether the plan is working, and how would you avoid mistaking short-term compliance for improvement?
Read the worked answer
Monitor on-task during fixed intervals, office referrals, work completion, and the frequency of reward-negotiation statements, plus a brief student perception measure of autonomy and competence. Also monitor implementation fidelity, because a new plan delivered inconsistently will look ineffective. Use a baseline and weekly checks for at least four weeks, and compare the three target students separately from the class. A drop in referrals without a rise in on-task might mean students are being removed less but not engaged; a rise in on-task only while the group contingency is active would signal dependence, so plan a fade test. Improvement should also show up in independent work and in unit progress, not only in teacher-directed segments.