REWARDS, INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN INTACT CLASSROOMS

MELISSA ANN LUIS BA, Syracuse University, 2000 MSEd, Fordham University, 2002

Mentor Akane Zusho, PhD

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY NEW YORK 2011

PR EV

Readers Anthony A. Cancelli, EdD John C. Houtz, PhD

DISSERTATION

IE

UMI Number: 3461884

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3461884

PR EV

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

IE

ii

PR EV

IE

Melissa Ann Luis, 2011, All Rights Reserved

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the New York City Department of Education for allowing me to conduct my research within their public schools. Without their permission, I would not have had the opportunity to conduct my study using an intact

I would also like to acknowledge the math teacher for all of the work he put into this research. Without his participation, the present study would not have been possible.

PR EV

IE

classroom.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM ii iii vii 1

Lack of Field Studies Statement of the Problem Research Question 1 Hypothesis

Theoretical Assumptions Concerning the Effectiveness of Rewards

2 3 4 6 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Social-Cognitive Approach to Study of Rewards Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) Goal Contents Theory (GCT) Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) Causality Orientations Theory (COT)

PR EV
Research Question 2 Hypothesis

IE

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Self-Determination Theory and Rewards: The Social-Cognitive Perspective Practical Implications of SDT Behaviorist Approach to Study of Rewards Appropriate Use of Rewards Introduction and Delivery of Rewards

16

18 19 24 33 37 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 48

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Participants Instruments and Materials Perceived Competence

Procedures Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects Design Baseline: Week 1 Manipulation of Reward and Choice: Week 2 Replication of Directive with No Reward Week 3 and Week 7

PR EV
Intrinsic Motivation Quality of Seatwork Achievement Scores

Perceived Autonomous Regulation

IE

Learning Outcomes

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS Pre-Analysis Data Screening Statistical Analysis Descriptive Statistics t-Tests Repeated Measures Multiple Analysis of Variance

49 49 50 51 61 62 67 72 73 77 86 89

Limitations of the Study

Implications for Practice and Future Directions REFERENCES ABSRACT VITA

PR EV

IE

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vii

LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1. 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores Intercorrelations among Scales

Page 53 58

PR EV

IE

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM

For better or for worse, rewards have staunchly embedded themselves into the fabric of our culture and society. Indeed, when problems presumed to be motivational

turn to crude methods of motivation such as extrinsic rewards or punishment systems. A recent The New York Times article detailed, for example, a number of such programs including one that pays students money for doing well on standardized tests such as the Advanced Placement exam (Guernsey, 2009). The use of rewards and reward systems are very common in schools (AkinLittle & Little, 2009). Teachers frequently use systems of rewards in order to promote appropriate behaviors and to increase academic output (Akin-Little & Little, 2009). This is especially true of novice teachers; many first year teachers resort to using rewards in order to maintain classroom management in comparison to more experienced teachers (Newby, 1991). Many questions remain about the effectiveness of rewards. Indeed, the important question is no longer whether rewards are effective or ineffective as it was a decade or so ago (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Cameron, 2001; Deci, Ryan, and Koestner, 2001). Rather, assuming that teachers will use rewards, the question now is,

PR EV

IE

in nature arise, schools, particularly those in high poverty areas, are often quick to

how should rewards be used so that they are not harmful over time (Brophy, 2004; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000)? For whom and under what conditions are rewards effective? What are the long-term effects of rewards? What conditional aspects of rewards need to exist in order to increase intrinsic motivation? The purpose of this study is to address these issues. Theoretical Assumptions Concerning the Effectiveness of Rewards Even a cursory exploration into the psychological literature about rewards will quickly reveal two main perspectives. There are social-cognitive researchers such as

potential harmful long-term outcomes (Deci, 1972b; Deci & Ryan, 1992; Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, 1999a, b). There are the behaviorists, who suggest that rewards can produce optimal learning outcomes if used appropriately, and who largely oppose the view presented by the social-cognitive researchers (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Both perspectives will be discussed in detail within Chapter II.

The ongoing exchange concerning rewards has been lively, informative, and often heated, presumably because the practical implications of each perspective are considerable. Although behavioral and social cognitive researchers offer valid arguments, many questions nevertheless remain. Central to this study is the question of generalizability. The various proclamations either for or against the use of rewards in schools notwithstanding (e.g., Kohn, 1999), there are surprisingly few studies that have actually investigated the effectiveness of rewards on intrinsic motivation in

PR EV

IE

Deci & Ryan, who advocate limiting the use of rewards in the classroom, given

either intact K12 classrooms or whole groups. As a result, clear guidelines for using rewards in the classroom to enhance motivation are still lacking. Lack of Field Studies Both basic and applied research studies have been conducted to examine the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation, competence, autonomy, and achievement. By definition, basic research seeks to understand the theoretical basis of specific phenomena in more controlled settings whereas applied research seeks to examine the phenomena in more naturalistic or less controlled settings (Israkson, 2008).

variables (i.e. intrinsic motivation, achievement, etc.) have added valuable information to the field of motivational psychology and education. Nevertheless, there are numerous shortcomings within this body of research on rewards, most significantly related to the issue of settings and field studies. For example, the vast majority of theoretical studies of rewards on motivation have been conducted with college students in controlled settings (Deci, 1972a, b; Deci, et al., 1999a; Deci & Ryan, 1985a); even the limited numbers of these studies that have focused on younger populations (e.g. Houlfort, Koestner, Joussemet, Nantel-Vivier, and Lekes, 2002) were conducted in a laboratory-like setting. Furthermore, the tasks often used in these studies do not always resemble the realworld tasks that students confront in school (Deci, 1972a, b; Ryan, Mims, and Koestner, 1983; Houlfort et al., 2002; Cameron, Pierce, Banko, and Gear, 2005). It is, after all, conceivable that completing puzzles in a laboratory for a reward is fundamentally different than completing an important class assignment for a reward.

PR EV

IE

Information gathered from basic and applied research studies on rewards and specific

Similarly, limitations within applied research studies can be noted. As with some theoretical studies, some applied research studies were also conducted with college students in controlled settings or employed tasks that were not germane to real-world educational settings (Banko, 2008; Cameron et al., 2005). Other studies focused on effects of rewards on achievement, but not necessarily on intrinsic motivation or those actions undertaken for personal enjoyment or interest (Lloyd, Eberhardt, and Drake, 1996; Chapman & Cope, 2004; Skinner, Williams, and Neddenriep, 2004). In short, many studies within both the applied and theoretical

validity or do not substantiate the link between rewards and intrinsic motivation, autonomy, competence, and achievement. Thus, motivational research is in need of more specific applied research studies based on theory to better understand rewards and intrinsic motivation and how educators can use rewards effectively in everyday classrooms, given the issues of achievement, autonomy, and competence. Statement of the Problem

The majority of theoretical studies on extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation have been conducted in laboratory settings with tasks that are not germane to real educational settings. Researchers have used puzzle-like tasks, which are not easily generalized to those that students complete in classrooms (Deci, 1972a, b; Ryan et al., 1983; Houlfort et al., 2002; Cameron et al., 2005). Field or longitudinal studies that examine the direct effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation in real classrooms, using real learning tasks, would certainly provide valid information that can be generalized.

PR EV

IE

realm utilize populations, tasks, and environments that may not provide external

Furthermore, whereas applied research on rewards and achievement has yielded information about the positive effects that rewards can have on increasing intrinsic motivation in laboratory settings and academic achievement in whole groups (i.e. regarding the class itself as one unit, as opposed to focusing upon individual students in a class), there appears to be gaps in the literature on the effects of whole classroom reward systems on intrinsic motivation. In short, more information is needed to understand the relationship between rewards used in real classrooms using real educational tasks, on the one hand, and competence, autonomy, intrinsic

information and data gained in controlled settings to real world settings, especially when the tasks are not similar to those given in real classrooms. In light of the numerous conflicting research findings regarding the effects of reward on intrinsic motivation as well as lack of research about intact classrooms using authentic educational tasks response to rewards on intrinsic motivation, a study that examines the effects of performance contingent rewards (i.e. those reward that are conferred as a result of a specific level of performance) on perceived autonomy, competence, intrinsic motivation and the ability to meet a set curricular standard as measured by the quality of performance in meeting the standard would be valuable to the field. Moreover, given emerging evidence to suggest that choice of reward may be an important factor in the implementation of rewards and their ability to increase intrinsic motivation (Luis & Zusho, 2009), a study investigating what effects choice may have on these outcomes appears warranted. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate the role of choice in the face of an expected performance-

PR EV

IE

motivation, and achievement on the other hand. It is difficult to generalize

contingent reward for meeting a realistic curricular standard on (a) perceived autonomy, (b) competence and (c) intrinsic motivation towards the task and learning concept, (d) achievement of the curricular standard, and (e) quality of performance in meeting the curricular standard. Specifically, the following research questions were explored: Research Question 1 What effect does choice of a performance-contingent reward have on students (a) perceived autonomy, (b) competence, (c) intrinsic motivation toward

Hypothesis

It was hypothesized that choice would have a statistically significant positive effect on perceptions of autonomy by giving participants control over whether or not they receive the reward. It was further hypothesized that choice would have a statistically significant positive effect on competence given its positive effects on autonomy. It was also hypothesized that choice would have a statistically significant positive effect on intrinsic motivation by increasing students perceptions of competence and autonomy. Finally, it was hypothesized that choice would enhance students quality of seatwork and academic achievement given an increase in intrinsic motivation. Research Question 2 What are the short-term and long-term effects of performance contingent rewards with choice and performance contingent rewards without choice upon: (a) perceived autonomy, (b) competence and (c) intrinsic motivation towards the task and

PR EV

IE

seatwork, (d) quality of seatwork, and (e) ultimate academic achievement?

learning concept, (d) achievement of seatwork, and (e) quality of seatwork when it is introduced and then taken away? Furthermore, what are the effects four weeks after the reward is removed? Hypothesis It was hypothesized that a statistically significant positive effect of time on the five dependent variables would be found. Specifically, it was hypothesized that choice of rewards should increase autonomy, competence, intrinsic motivation, and seatwork over both the short and long-term, with an increase between pre and post

increase autonomy, competence, intrinsic motivation, and seatwork over the shortterm but not the long-term, with minimal increase between pre and post achievement scores.

PR EV

IE

achievement scores. It was also hypothesized that no choice of rewards should

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The relevant literature reviewed in this chapter supports the significance of studying rewards on aspects of classroom functioning and behaviors. First, a

section is followed by a review of the factors that have been shown to exacerbate or mitigate the potentially harmful effects of rewards as they have direct bearing on the design of the present study.

Social-cognitive theorists assume that rewards have the potential of reducing intrinsic motivation by lessening self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Most of this research has been framed according to self-determination theory (SDT); a motivational theory that examines the social-contextual factors that facilitate intrinsic motivation, or the impetus for undertaking an action for personal enjoyment and interest, through the three inner psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which are believed to be universal (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT suggests that intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being will flourish when all three psychological needs are met, whereas the opposite may occur if they are undermined (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

PR EV

Social-Cognitive Approach to Study of Rewards

IE

discussion of the two main theoretical perspectives about rewards is offered. This

SDT also focused on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is present early in life, and manifests itself through play, exploration, and absolute volition (Deci et al., 1999a). Intrinsic motivation cannot be initiated through external factors in a social context, but can be encouraged, enhanced and supported. SDT acknowledges intrinsic motivation is not a singular constructindividual differences exist within intrinsic motivation- and varies depending upon environment, personality, and interests (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation, by contrast, comes from outside a person (external); it is the impetus for undertaking

SDT is comprised of five subtheories of basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), cognitive evaluation theory (CET), goal contents theory (GCT), organismic integration theory (OIT), and causality orientations theory (COT) that explain the processes, factors, and social contexts in which intrinsic motivation can flourish. The five subtheories can be further classified into two categories of self-determination theory: autonomy, competence, relatedness on the one hand, and the intrinsic/extrinsic difference on the other hand (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT and its subtheories attempt to identify and describe factors within social contexts that enhance and maintain intrinsic motivation and personality functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A brief overview of each subtheory will be discussed in order to highlight key components of SDT, followed by a detailed discussion of self-determination theory and the subtheories as they pertain to rewards and social-cognitive theorists perspectives about rewards and the present study.

PR EV

IE

an action for external reasons or gain.

10

Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) BPNT summarizes the relationship between autonomy, competence and relatedness on psychological well-being, one category of SDT. Specifically, it suggests that the relationship between psychological well-being and optimal functioning is contingent upon the concomitant fulfillment of three psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It also assumes that these needs are impacted by social contextual factors. Indeed, the significance of social context cannot be underestimated; specifically, both culture and

three factors are realized in each individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000). BNPT further suggests that autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be enhanced when pursuing and attaining personal goals that are intrinsically based (a goal that comes from within an individual, like personal growth) versus extrinsically based (a goal that addresses something outside of an individual, such as wealth; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsically based goals are internalized (come from within an individual) versus extrinsically based goals which can be imposed by ones environment. When intrinsically based goals are attained, individuals tend to experience higher selfesteem and self-actualization. Conversely, when extrinsically based goals are attained, individuals tend to experience the opposite, with the presence of psychological issues (i.e. depression and anxiety; Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon, Timoshina, and Deci, 1999). Thus, basic psychological well-being is enhanced when social contexts support autonomy, competence, and relatedness and when people

PR EV

IE

the environment in which people were raised play an important role in how these

11

pursue and attain intrinsically based goals. These goals are culturally-based and typically influenced by environments in which people were raised. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) Building upon the principals of BPNT, CET examines the effects social contexts have upon intrinsic motivation, specifically focusing upon autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Deci and Ryan (1985a) created CET to explain factors that may enhance and/or undermine intrinsic motivation, with the main focus centered upon the relationship between both autonomy and competence to intrinsic

enhance the fulfillment of psychological needs and by extension, improve the quality of intrinsic motivation. CET also, in turn, focuses upon the factors that will diminish or undermine the quality of intrinsic motivation by diminishing autonomy and competence.

Many of the principles of CET emerged from the research about rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Rewards were viewed as an external factor that could have direct impact on intrinsic motivation. To the extent that rewards promote an external locus of causality (a reason for an action that comes from outside of an individual), it was hypothesized that rewards would diminish an individuals freedom of choice (autonomy), and ultimately undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Conversely, it was hypothesized that shifting locus of causality internally (making a reason for an action that comes from within an individual) will enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). If individuals feel that they have a choice, they are more likely to engage in a task for internal reasons (enjoyment) versus external

PR EV

IE

motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). More specifically, it focuses on the factors that will

12

reasons (rewards). In short, CET attempts to find factors within social contexts that enhance intrinsic motivation by enhancing autonomy and competence. It also highlights factors within social contexts that could be detrimental to the development of intrinsic motivation (i.e. rewards). Goal Contents Theory (GCT) GCT focuses upon the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic goals and their effects upon both motivation and psychological well-being. Extrinsic goals (goals that are external or outside of a person, such as financial success) and intrinsic

account for basic need satisfactions. Of these two, intrinsic goals promote better psychological well-being than extrinsic goals (Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci, 2006). People that tend to set intrinsic goals also tend to have autonomous motivation (i.e. intrinsic reasons) and those that set extrinsic goals tend to have controlled motivation (i.e. external reasons; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2006). Both goal contents and motives affect overall psychological well-being (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, and Kasser, 2004). Intrinsically framed goals tend to create a more enhanced engagement and increased motivation towards tasks and learning outcomes than extrinsically framed goals (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). People tend to set more intrinsic goals than extrinsic ones because intrinsic goals are directly linked to satisfaction of psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Furthermore, learning can be enhanced when activities and tasks are framed as serving intrinsic goals because they promote deeper processing, conceptual understanding, and short and long term persistence in learning due to enhanced psychological well-being (Vansteenkiste, et al., 2006). In

PR EV

IE

goals (goals that are internal or come from inside a person, such as personal growth)