Praise as classroom communicative reinforcing device perception of Haiphong University students = Nhận thức của sinh viên trường Đại học Hải Phòng về lời khen n

Most educational psychologists and other sources of advice to classroom teachers stress the significance of teacher praise in communication transaction as it positively influences studen

ĐỖ THỊ THÙY LINH

PRAISE AS CLASSROOM COMMUNICATIVE REINFORCING DEVICE: PERCEPTION OF HAIPHONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

(Nhận thức của sinh viên trường Đại học Hải Phòng về lời khen ngợi như là

một phương tiện tăng cường giao tiếp trong lớp học)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60.14.10

HANOI - 2010

ĐỖ THỊ THÙY LINH

PRAISE AS CLASSROOM COMMUNICATIVE REINFORCING DEVICE: PERCEPTION OF HAIPHONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

(Nhận thức của sinh viên trường Đại học Hải Phòng về lời khen ngợi như là

một phương tiện tăng cường giao tiếp trong lớp học)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60.14.10

Supervisor: Phùng Hà Thanh, M.Ed

HANOI - 2010

Page

Acknowledgements i

Declaration ii

Abstract iii

Table of contents iv

List of figures and tables vi

INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Purpose of the study 2

3 Research questions 2

4 Methodology 2

5 Significance of the study 3

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

1.1 Teacher praise: definition and functions 4

1.1.1 Definition of teacher praise 4

1.1.2 Functions of teacher praise 4

1.2 Classification of teacher praise 6

1.3 Students’ perception of teacher praise 8

1.3.1 A framework of students’ perception 8

1.3.2 Students’ perception of teacher praise 8

1.4 Resistance to teacher praise 11

1.5 Guidelines for effective teacher praise 11

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 15

2.1 Sampling and defining the case 15

2.2 Data collection 16

2.2.1 Instruments 16

2.2.2 Procedures 18

2.3 Data analysis 18

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 20

3.1 Different types of teacher praise 20

3.2 Students’ preference for different types of teacher praise 21

3.3 Students’ emotional responses to different types of teacher praise 24

3.4 Influences of different types of teacher praise on students’ self-concept 25

3.5 Influences of different types of teacher praise on students’ behaviour 25

3.6 High-achievers versus low-achievers in preference for teacher praise 26

3.7 Implications 27

CONCLUSION 31

1 Summary of the study 31

2 Limitations and future research 32

REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX I

Page

Figure 1.1: Constructs of three components of mind……… ………… 8 Figure 1.2: Guidelines for effective praise……… 13 Table 2.1: Teachers’ profile……… 16 Table 3.1: Means and Standard Deviation for different types of teacher praise…… …20 Table 3.2: Percentages of students’ cognition……… 22 Table 3.3: Students’ preference for different types of teacher praise………22

Table 3.4: High – achievers’ and low – achievers’ preference for teacher praise……….26

INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

It is human nature that actions bringing pleasure tend to be repeated When a person earns praise for having done something right, that praise acts as a reinforcer stimulating that person to repeat the desirable behaviour Every one of us desires praise at some level, and in one form or another In a working environment, being praised for working well helps people to feel worthwhile They will feel motivated to continue working hard and will be encouraged to do whatever needs to be done to support the business In educational settings, being noticed and appreciated for their good behaviour, students are willing to do more than they are asked, volunteer ideas and become more involved and committed to what they are doing

Most educational psychologists and other sources of advice to classroom teachers stress the significance of teacher praise in communication transaction as it positively influences students’ academic achievement (Gettinger, 1983; Luiselli & Downing, 1980), on-task behaviour (Ferguson & Houghton, 1992; Vollmeyer & Rheinberg, 2005), pupil’s speech (Moore, Knott & McNaughton, 1989), students’ perceptions (Baker & Graham,

1987, Stipek & MacIver, 1989) and helps to provide encouragement to students, to build self – esteem and a close teacher-student relationship (Brophy, 1981) Indeed, it is reported

to be one of the most long – recognized and essential skill for language teacher and the strategy teachers find easiest to employ (Munroe, 1982) Research findings tend to indicate that the simple act of praising a student can have both reinforcing and informative qualities

My own thinking was no exception until one day, when I offered a student a statement of praise, he seemed indifferent to it His facial expression and behaviour revealed that he did not like that praise at all I felt quite embarrassed, and then I hooked on research of praise right after getting home In study after study, I find out that teacher praise is not always beneficial; even it does more harm than good when teacher praise does not meet student’s expectation Such researchers as Denny (1986), Gordon (1989), Mueller

& Dweck (1998), Kamins & Dweck (1999), and Burnett (2002) argued that praise,

whether intended or unintended, can produce a number of negative outcomes to students’ learning environments

Being urged by the situation, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to conduct a research study on students’ perception of different types of teacher praise in a university in Vietnam to see whether it motivates or demotivates students in classroom communication

2 Purpose of the study

This research is designed to investigate into teacher praise and students’ perception

in a case of Haiphong University The purposes of the study are:

+ to recognize different kinds of praise used by teachers at Haiphong Univeristy + to see how students at Haiphong University perceive different kinds of teacher praise

3 Research questions

For such purposes, the study aims at answering the following questions:

3.1 What are different types of praise that the teachers at Haiphong University offer in classroom?

3.2 What is students’ preference for different types of teacher praise?

3.3 What are students’ emotional responses to different types of teacher praise?

3.4 To what extent is students’ self – concept influenced by different types of teacher praise?

3.5 To what extent is students’ behaviour influenced by different types of teacher praise?

3.6 To what extent are high – achievers different from low – achievers in terms of their preference for different types of teacher praise?

4 Methodology

The research employed case study, using observations and semi – structured interviews as instruments of data collection

5 Significance of the study

Although studies of teacher praise are numerous in Western cultural and educational settings, such studies of teacher praise in Vietnam are extremely scarce The study is undertaken to find out the teacher praise and how students perceive it in Vietnamese context, particularly in Haiphong University Therefore, this study contributes

to enriching the researches on this area in the context of university English classrooms in our country The findings and implications of this study will be of much help to both teachers and students of English teacher training

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter sets out to review the literature related to teacher praise, its functions, then discuss the classifications of teacher praise and students’ perception in previous studies

1.1 Teacher praise: definition and functions

1.1.1 Definition of teacher praise

The term “praise” is derived from the Latin verb “pretiare”, which means to value highly (Burnett, 2002), and involves “commending the worth of or to express

approval or admiration” (Brophy, 1981) By definition, praise is “positive evaluation made by a person of another’s products, performances or attributes, where the evaluator presumes the validity of the standards on which the evaluation is based” (Kanouse,

Gumpert & Canavan – Gumpert, 1981, p 98) This was selected in part because it is comprehensive, and resonates well with commonsense conception of praise According to Hitz & Driscoll’s research on the use of teacher praise in the classroom (1989), effective praise was thought to occur when the teacher positively acknowledged students’ work They pointed out that this required teachers to be non – judgemental to prevent status being assigned to students

1.1.2 Functions of teacher praise

There are two main functions of teacher praise: praise as reinforcement and

praise as informational feedback Along with the development of language teaching,

different methods and approaches have emphasized on different functions of teacher praise

Praise as reinforcement

As a behaviorist, Skinner (1974) was forming the belief that language was learnt through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement Reinforcement is the process by which the likelihood of a certain response following certain stimuli is increased Hence, in the time of Audio-Lingual Method, reinforcement as the extrinsic approval and praise of the teacher or fellow student or the intrinsic self-satisfaction of target language use is a vital element in the learning because it increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur

again and become a habit When administered properly, such positive reinforcement can successfully modify behaviour and stimulate learning

In the educational settings, this use of praise as a positive reinforcement has been

widely recommended as a teaching strategy Stringer & Hurt (1981, p 1) stated that “the

communication transaction of verbal praise is an interpersonal experience and plays an important role in the reinforce ment process, which in turn affects the learning and behavioral activity of students.” Furthermore, Thomas (1991) referred to praise as a kind

of positive reinforcer, with consistent praise thought to encourage desirable behaviour, while extinguished undesirable behaviour He suggested that praise could be a motivational tool in the classroom if reinforcement was descriptive and involved using the students’ name, choosing appropriate praise words carefully and describing precisely the behaviour that merits the praise Similarly, Woolfolk (1987), quoted in Moore (2007, p 202), discussed praise as reinforcement that teachers use a rewarding stimulus to motivate some action or behaviour Numerous researchers have demonstrated that teacher praise can improve academic behaviour Blaney (1993) investigated the effects of teacher praise on academic achievement of elementary students, comparing groups that were taught using high (i.e., praising correct responses, providing corrective feedback for incorrect response) versus low (i.e., neutral feedback, such as “OK” for correct responses and “No” for incorrect responses) levels of teacher praise The author found that students in the groups that received higher rates of praise for correct responding performed significantly better on academic tests than did students who received lower praise rates for correct responding

Praise as informational feedback

In contrast to behaviourists, constructivists in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emphasize interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning

a language Therefore, the teacher acts as an advisor during communicative activity, a facilitator of students’ learning, or a co-communicator, and helps learners in any way that motivates them to work with the language So, praise in this approach is regarded as both

communicative reinforcer and informational feedback

In its essence, praise is “a form of feedback that conveys information about the

correctness or appropriateness of answers and other behaviours, as well as information about the teacher’s positive regard for the behaviours” (Emmer, 1988, p 32) For

example, a teacher praises his student with such a statement as “Wow, you’ve done great

on your presentation!”

However, it is noticeable to make a distinction between praise and feedback Whilst praise always provides feedback, not all feedback is praise That is, when a teacher gives a praise statement, he informs the student about whether his answer is favourable/ acceptable or not On the other hand, there are many cases in which teacher feedback does

not include praise Just by saying “okay”, “right”, “correct” or giving a letter grade or

percentage score, teachers are providing feedback Moreover, praise is more personal than feedback in the sense that it also expresses positive teacher emotions such as surprise, pleasurability, excitement and admiration and/or place the student’s behaviour in context

by giving information about its value or its implication about the student’s status Flander (1970), cited in (Brophy, 1981), regards praise as teacher reactions that go beyond simple feedback about appropriateness or correctness of behaviours Sharing the same view, Blote (1995) holds that teacher praise contains positive affect and is a more intense, detailed response to students’ behaviour than feedback

1.2 Classification of teacher praise

There exist many ways to classify teacher praise, among which content (what to praise) and manner (how to praise) can be utilized as the bases for categorizing it in educational settings In terms of what to praise and levels of praise detail, teacher praise can be sorted out as effort or ability praise, general or effort praise Considering how to praise, teacher praise can be classified as verbal or non – verbal praise Thus, three facets

of praise are effort versus ability, general versus specific, and verbal versus non – verbal

Effort versus ability praise

Effort, which is often used synonymously with strategy or process praise, is a type of praise that focuses on a specific strategy the student used to complete a task An

example of a teacher giving a student effort praise would be, “Wow! You did great! You

must have worked hard on this.” On the other hand, ability praise, which is used

synonymously with trait – oriented or person praise “Wow! You did well on this task! You

are very smart,” would be an example of a teacher offering a student ability praise

General versus specific praise

Based on the way teacher praise is administered, it is also often divided into one

of two categories, general or specific praise The first type is the form of praising which is directed either at no one in particular or if directed at an individual, it is generic in its use

Some illustrations of this type are “Great job, class!” or “Well done, Jonny” General

praise also lacks credibility because it takes no effort at all for a praiser to give a compliment without having paid any attention to the performance of the person In contrast, specific praise is both directed at an individual student and very specific in what

is being praised Considering the following statements as examples of specific praise,

“Nice job explaining absolute value, Rita” or “Amy, I really like how you used deductive

reasoning to answer that question” It is obvious that specific praise not only lets the

student know they are correct, but it is also meaningful because it allows them to see exactly what specific behaviour the teacher is praising and to know that the teacher has been paying attention to their performance

Verbal versus non – verbal praise

Coooper et al., (1994) looked at the different ways praise can be delivered, verbally and non – verbally Verbal praise occurs when the teacher follows a student action

or response with some type of positive comment The common type is one – word praise or brief phrases such as “Good,” “Excellent,”, “Correct,” or “That’s right” Another commonly overlooked form is the use of student ideas This technique can be used by applying, comparing or building on student contributions during a lesson Incorporating student ideas shows that what they say is important and usually increases the degree of student participation Non – verbal praise refers to the use of some physical action to send

a message of approval for some student action or response The physical action can be in the form of eye contact, a nod, a smile, a movement toward the student, a relaxed body, a pat on the back or such positive gesture as “thumb – up” or OK sign

Three mentioned subscales, effort versus ability praise, general versus specific praise, and verbal versus non – verbal praise are all taken into consideration in this research study

1.3 Students’ perception of teacher praise

1.3.1 A framework of students’ perception

All three aspects of human mind, cognition, affection and conation, work together and affect the learning process Snow, Corno and Jackson (1996, p 247) presented a provisional taxonomy of individual different constructs that links cognition (procedural and declarative knowledge), affection (temperament and emotion) and conation (motivation and volition), as shown in the following figure:

Figure 1.1: Constructs of three components of mind

Cognition refers to the process of coming to know and understand; the process of encoding, storing, processing and retrieving information It is generally associated with the

question of “what” Affection concerns about the emotional interpretation of perceptions,

information and knowledge It is generally associated with one’s attachment, either

positive or negative, to people, objects, ideas…and asks the questions with “How do I feel

about this knowledge or information?” Conation refers to the connection of knowledge and

behaviour It is the personal, intentional, deliberate, goad – oriented, or striving component

of motivation, the proactive aspect of behaviour In this paper, interpretation and analysis

of students’ perception of teacher praise involves integration of thinking (cognition), feeling (affection) and acting (conation)

1.3.2 Students’ perception of teacher praise

In a series of related studies, various researchers have to do much work to explore how students perceive teacher praise in classrooms

Regarding students’ preference for ability versus effort praise, a study performed

by Burnett in 2001 (n=747) measured Australian primary school students’ preferences for teacher praise Results showed that 91% of students preferred to be praised often or sometimes while 9% said that they never wanted any praise It was found that most students (84%) had a preference of effort praise, rather than ability praise (16%) The findings of Burnett suggested that if teachers meet students’ preferences for praise, they would often give effort type In another study conducted by Merret & Tang in 1994, 1779 British primary students were asked about their preferences for rewards, praise, reprimands, and punishments Again, an astounding 90% of the students preferred to receive praise often or sometimes These results are in line with Burnett’s mentioned earlier

Some psychologists (Apter, 2009) warned that praise for overall ability was harmful because it suggested that any good performance was a result of natural ability, which implied that a poor performance was a result of natural deficiency Praise for an outcome that emphasized ability then made students reluctant to take on a challenge, which always had the possibility of failure, because it signaled lack of ability Failures then threatened one’s overall self – esteem Henderlong and Lepper (2002) argued that ability praise may have unintended consequences for motivation, performance, and determination, especially when students experience continuous setbacks in the areas in which they were praised In six studies, Mueller and Dweck (1998) looked at the effects of praising for ability and effects of praising for effort on fifth – grade students and how they handled these types of praise under conditions of failure and conditions of success Their overall conclusion is that it can be problematic to praise students in terms of their ability or intelligence rather than their hard work or effort However, on the basis of self – efficacy theory, Schunk (1984) reasoned that ability praise should produce higher expectations for future performance than effort praise because of the stronger competence information, particularly for children in the early stages of learning a new task

With respect to gender differences, Koestner, Zuckerman, and Koestner (1989) argued that, in success situation, boys may be comfortable with ability praise, whereas girls may be more comfortable with effort praise They included that perceptions of competence, performance and intrinsic motivation were all enhanced for boys when ability praise was given, and the same were enhanced for girls when effort praise was given

Concerning the impacts of specific and general teacher praise on students’

perception, Burke, cited in Loo (2009), found that giving specific praise reinforced good behaviour in a way that general praise could not In adults, the act of giving a general praise is often dismissed as being insincere because it alludes to the fact that the person was not really noticing in the first place He found that people associated general praise as just a formality of communication, to make the other person sound caring, but nothing more than that He concluded that if we could make our praise much more specific towards the behaviour that warranted the praise to begin with, then the effects of that praise would

be felt by the individual and taken as genuine The result in Burnett’s study (2002) also indicated that general teacher praise was not related to students’ perception of the classroom environment or their relationship with their teachers He believed that whilst general praise did not affect students’ perception, the specific types of praise did

As regards to verbal and non – verbal praise, some researches claimed that

verbal praise, when used correctly, can enhance the learning process In two separate studies, Hancock (2000, 2002) found that undergraduate and graduate students who were exposed to verbal praise reported that they studied significantly more outside the classroom than students who were not exposed to verbal praise He believed that verbal praise is an important mediator in the enhancement of students’ motivation to learn However, other researchers have argued that verbal praise can have potential negative consequences They have wrapped up that not all students prefer to be praised verbally For example, Elwell & Tiberio (1994) realized that while adolescents perceive praise to be important to academic achievement, they do not want to be praised verbally in front of their classmates It may be even more powerful than verbal praise Research suggests that when verbal and non – verbal messages differ, students tend to respond to the non – verbal message (Moore, 2007, p 204)

The results of the previously described studies suggest that different types of teacher praise is perceived differently by different groups of people It is also recommended as a powerful tool in the classroom for producing desirable academic responding As such, one might expect that teachers use praise effectively as part of their teaching repertoire

1.4 Resistance to teacher praise

Whereas the empirical literature has demonstrated the positive effects of teacher praise, there are some opposing the use of praise in the educational settings Most of those are individuals who believe that learning is intrinsically worthwhile and rewarding, at least when learners are allowed to follow their own interests at their own pace (Montessori, 1964) They consider all elements to control through extrinsic reinforcement as unnecessary, intrusive and perhaps harmful Farson (1968) stated that it was questionable

as a motivator since verbal praise was an evaluation, and judgement of any kind which

causes people to feel uncomfortable Farson labeled praise as “a piece of psychological

candy” and contends that rather than being a reward, praise is in fact a threat, because of

the user’s intent to motivate, move, or change the recipient (cited in Stringer, B and Hurt,

T (1981)) Similarly, some teachers avoid praise because they want to train their students

to think for themselves rather than depend on the teachers for guidance

Other arguments against using praise for improving achievement were put forth by Rowe (1974) Through her three observations, she noticed that praise inhibited the verbal performance of her students, lowered the number of alternative explanations offered by her students, and apparently undermined their confidence in their answers Praise also fostered competition and therefore cut down on cooperation and exchange of ideas among the students And finally verbal praise cut into the students’ task persistence It is apparent that the fact that praise can function as a reinforcer does not necessarily mean that it always or even usually does (Brophy, 1981)

1.5 Guidelines for effective teacher praise

Teacher praise has long been an educational concern Although researchers hold

different points of view about praise, the author still recognizes that qualified teacher

praise can best reinforce students’ academic and behavioural performance

Quality of teacher praise

O’Leary and O’Leary (1977) indicated that effective teacher praise as reinforcement must have the following qualities:

- contingency: the praise must be contingent on performance of the behaviour to be reinforced

- specificity: the praise should specify the particulars of the behaviour being reinforced

- sincerity/ variety/ credibility: the praise should be sincere Among other things, this means that the content will be varied according to the situation and the preferences of the student being praised

Other guidelines for praising effectively were given by Brophy (1981, p 26) as follows:

Effective Praise Ineffective Praise

1 Is delivered contingently

2 Specifies the particulars of the accomplishment

3 Shows spontaneity, variety and other signs of credibility;

suggests clear attention to the student’s accomplishment

4 Rewards attainment of specified performance criteria

(which can include effort criteria, however)

5 Provides information to students about their competence or

the value of their accomplishments

6 Orients students toward better appreciation of their own task

– related behaviour and thinking about problem solving

7 Uses student’s own prior accomplishments as the context

for describing present accomplishments

8 Is given in recognition of noteworthy effort or success at

difficult (for this student) tasks

9 Attributes success to effort and ability, implying that similar

success can be expected in the future

10 Fosters endogenous attributions (students believe that they

expend effort on the task because they enjoy the task and/or

want to develop task – relevant skills)

11 Focuses students’ attention on their own task – relevant

behaviour

12 Fosters appreciation of, and desirable attribution about, task

– relevant behaviour after the process is completed

1 Is delivered randomly or unsystematically

2 Is restricted to global positive reactions

3 Shows a bland uniformity that suggests a conditioned response made with minimal attention

4 Rewards mere participation, without consideration of performance processes or outcomes

5 Provides no information at all or gives students information about their status relative to peers

6 Orients students towards comparing themselves with others and thinking about competing

7 Uses the accomplishments of peers as the context for describing student’s present accomplishments

8 Is given without regard to the effort expended or the meaning of the accomplishment (for this student)

9 Attributes success to ability alone or to external factors such as luck or (easy) task difficulty

10 Fosters exogenous attributions (students believe that they expend effort on the task for external reasons – to please the teacher, win

a competition or reward, etc.)

11 Focuses students’ attention on the teacher as an external authority figure who is manipulating them

12 Intrudes into the ongoing process, distracting attention from task – relevant behaviour

Figure 1.2: Guidelines for Effective Praise

Summary

In a nutshell, teacher praise is the act of teachers’ expressing approval, commendation or admiration of students’ behaviour in class It is preferred to be a communicative reinforcer and informational feedback, which is more personal to encourage students’ self – awareness, self – responsibility, greater internal motivation and better self – concept Praise is an important and powerful tool for teachers, but it is difficult

to use correctly As evidenced in previous research, there are different learning outcomes that result from different types of praise However, one of the concerns with those researches is that much of the literature on praise is focused on young children Little is known about praise with student populations beyond the high school level elsewhere in the world, let alone in Vietnam’s context Therefore, it is significant to identify how university students perceive praise so that researchers can find ways to improve learning outcomes for this population The next chapter is designed to present about the method, participants and procedure of the study

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY

This research studied a group of students’ perception of different types of teacher praise in Foreign Language Department, Haiphong University Five teachers teaching this group were also the subjects of the research In this case study, the way teachers delivered praise in the classroom was recorded and the praised students were interviewed to see how they perceived their teacher praise Descriptive statistics was employed to analyze the collected data

2.1 Sampling and defining the case

Defining the case

There were some criteria for this purposive sampling The first criterion was a mixed ability class, which has both high – achievers and low – achievers The second was that the students specialize in English language teaching, for the researcher intended to expand the findings and implications for their future career Last but not least, the participants were selected based on accessibility and willingness to take part in the study

A case that satisfied these selection criteria was a class of 50 English language teaching students K9 in Foreign Language Department, Haiphong University The age of students ranges from 19 to 23, 92% being 20 or 21 years old This group comprises 12% boys and 88% girls They come from different districts of Haiphong city, 46% in urban areas and 54% in rural areas They had studied English for seven years in secondary and high schools, and for two years as university students Basing on GPA for the first two years at university, 22% of the students were evaluated “very good”, 48% “good” and 30%

“weak” Since they are the third year students, they are used to the ritual language teaching

in the department and familiar with the teaching style of their teachers In class, the students are quite active and cooperative with their classmates and teachers

Teachers

In this research, two female and three male teachers who teach third – year students of English language teaching in Foreign Language Department, Haiphong University were involved There is an American teacher, from Eli group (a non – governmental organization providing volunteer teachers for African and Asian areas, Vietnam included) and other four Vietnamese teachers They are all aged from 30 to 47

They have a minimum of five years of foreign language teaching experience and a maximum of 15 years Four of them hold an M.A degree In the following table, they are represented under pseudonyms as A, B, C, D and E respectively

Teachers’ profile

No Name Gender Age Degree Years of teaching

experience

Subject/ Course name

Methodology

Phonology

Table 2.1: Teachers’ profile

Students

After classroom observation sessions, the total number of the praised students was 30 They were treated as the subjects of the interviews Four of them (13.33%) were male and twenty – six (86.67%) were female These students could be divided into two groups: high – achievers (63.33%) and low – achievers (36.67%)

2.2 Data collection

2.2.1 Instruments

As the present study attempted to find out kinds of teacher praise and students’ perception of those praises when teachers gave lectures to English majors in classroom setting, as a result, a case study was utilized The reason for choosing the case study was that classroom was a special and restricted setting It was impossible to control all the variables that might influence the outcome in a large – scale study, as Mertens (1998, p

145) pointed out, “single case research is particularly appealing because it is based on an

interest in the effectiveness of an intervention for a single, particular individual” In this

sense, this research is naturalistic in nature Hence, a research method called “naturalistic