REWARDS, INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN INTACT CLASSROOMS

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

Mentor Akane Zusho, PhD Readers Anthony A. Cancelli, EdD John C. Houtz, PhD

DISSERTATION 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

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 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

ii

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 classroom. 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.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM Theoretical Assumptions Concerning the Effectiveness of Rewards Lack of Field Studies Statement of the Problem Research Question 1 Hypothesis Research Question 2 Hypothesis 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) ii iii vii 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14

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 Learning Outcomes CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Participants Instruments and Materials Perceived Competence Perceived Autonomous Regulation Intrinsic Motivation Quality of Seatwork Achievement Scores 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

16

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

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS Pre-Analysis Data Screening Statistical Analysis Descriptive Statistics t-Tests Repeated Measures Multiple Analysis of Variance CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Limitations of the Study Implications for Practice and Future Directions REFERENCES ABSRACT VITA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 achievement scores. It was also hypothesized that no choice of rewards should increase autonomy, competence, intrinsic motivation, and seatwork over the shortterm but not the long-term, with minimal increase between pre and post achievement scores.

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 discussion of the two main theoretical perspectives about rewards is offered. This 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 Approach to Study of Rewards 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).

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 an action for external reasons or gain. 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.

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

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

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

13

short, intrinsic goals promote overall psychological well-being and selfdetermination. Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) Building upon principals of SDT and GCT, OIT details the process by which extrinsically motivating behavior can become more intrinsic in nature and examines the relationship between extrinsic motivation and autonomy (Deci et al., 1999b). OIT explores the ways in which an extrinsically motivating task can become more intrinsically motivating; that is, changing the act of doing the task from external gain (doing something to get something) to internal gain (enjoyment and interest). This is accomplished through learning value and rules, and having personal choice. An extrinsically motivating task, if explained in context to values, personal choice, and validation, can become more intrinsically motivating (Deci et al., 1999b). OIT therefore focuses upon external regulation (behavior that is controlled by factors from outside a person, as opposed to being controlled internally by personal validation and choice) and introjection (the process of an individual understanding what is personally important, while acknowledging boundaries that are important to the collective). Both external regulation and introjection fall within the continuum of internalization, or learning values and rules that people incorporate into their lives (Deci et al., 1999b). Extrinsic motivation is needed when a task is not viewed as intrinsically motivating (i.e. taking a test; Deci et al., 1999b). In order to make an extrinsically motivated task more intrinsically motivating, OIT specifies several stages. First, introjection must occur, followed by internalization and then integration, or the ability

14

to internalize and carry out values and rules (Ryan, Connell, and Deci, 1985). When these phenomena are met, extrinsically motivated behavior can become selfdetermined (Deci et al., 1999b) and the need for autonomy is met. Research regarding OIT identified factors that promote internalization of extrinsic motivation. Specifically, Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994) showed that supporting internalization through conveying the value of uninteresting tasks, acknowledgment of personal feelings about the uninteresting task, and emphasizing choice can lead to integration. In short, extrinsically motivated behavior can become more intrinsically motivating when internalization and integration occur. Furthermore, extrinsically motivated behavior that has become internalized can only be maintained volitionally (Ryan, Williams, Patrick, and Deci, 2009). Causality Orientations Theory (COT) The role of autonomy is essential to COT. COT focuses on orientation or self-awareness within the environment. Three types of causality orientations (how people orient themselves within their environment) are defined under COT: (a) autonomy orientation (actions based on interest and valuation of occurrence); (b) control orientation (focus on rewards, gains, and approval); and (c) impersonal or amotivated orientation (anxiety concerning competence; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). How people orient themselves and regulate their behavior in their environment is described by the orientation they use (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). People who are autonomously regulated are aware of their needs and goals and perceive choice in achieving them (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). They tend to exhibit high self-esteem and self-awareness, rarely engage in self-criticism, and have

15

low levels of guilt (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). They exhibit confidence in their achievement, typically have an internal locus of control (attribute control over events to something inside themselves), and exhibit good overall adaptive functioning (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). People with a control orientation are regulated by external controls in their environment (i.e. societal values) or internal controls about how they must act or behave (i.e. external values that have been internalized). They seek out control and perceive their environment as controlling (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). They tend to feel pressured to achieve, are time-conscious, and exhibit hostile feelings (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). They tend to persist in activity completion based on self-regulation that is internally controlling (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). People with an impersonal orientation believe they cannot control their behavior or obtain their goals. They tend to exhibit helpless behaviors (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994). This type of orientation is linked to negative self-evaluation and low self-esteem. They tend to be more critical of themselves, and are prone to psychological issues such as depression (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). They also tend to have an external locus of control (not believing they have control over their environment), attribute success to external factors, and have overall deficits in their motivation and self-system (Koestner & Zuckerman, 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). In summary, people with an autonomous orientation tend to experience more developed psychological well-being versus people who are not either autonomously regulated or are impersonally oriented.

16

Self-Determination Theory and Rewards: The Social-Cognitive Perspective The preceding sections of this chapter explored the basics of SDT and the five subtheories of BPNT, CET, GCT, COT and OIT, but as of yet, the contribution of these theories for understanding the relationship between rewards, intrinsic motivation, and psychological well-being merits further exploration. Because of their prominence in many social contexts, rewards have become an important focus for social-cognitive theorists, in relationship to intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being. Rewards are 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 (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 reasons (rewards). Research about rewards tends to support the social-cognitive theorists perspectives that rewards detrimentally effect intrinsic motivation. Specifically, many social-cognitive researchers have found that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation when compared to individuals who are not rewarded (Harackiewicz, 1979; Ryan et al., 1983; Deci, 1972b; Deci, 1975; Deci et al., 1999a). Social-cognitive researchers have found that rewards make people feel compelled to complete tasks in order to receive the reward. They may not be interested in completing the task and

17

may not enjoy the process. This decrease in interest in the face of rewards according to social-cognitive researchers stems from diminished autonomy (Deci, 1975). When an individual feels pressured (loss of autonomy), they experience decreases in their perceived abilities (competence) and subsequently, their interest and enjoyment (intrinsic motivation). The CET hypothesis that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation was extensively evaluated by Rummel and Feinberg (1988) through meta-analysis, with findings substantially supporting this hypothesis. Rummel and Feinberg (1988) concluded that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation as described in the cognitive evaluation theory. More specifically, individuals who receive controlling feedback and controlling administration of rewards typically report lower levels of intrinsic motivation than individuals who are given informational feedback and informationally administered rewards (Ryan et al., 1983). In addition, rewards that are both tangible (prizes, pay and awards) and expected have been found to decrease intrinsic motivation. These types of rewards and their effects upon intrinsic motivation will be further discussed later. There is also evidence that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks and free-choice behaviors (Deci et al., 1999a). In sum, social-cognitive psychologists believe that rewards are an undermining factor within everyday social contexts that decrease autonomy and competence and subsequently harm intrinsic motivation. The studies performed by

18

these researchers do present troubling data regarding the use of rewards. In light of these findings, some practical implications of SDT will be discussed. Practical Implications of SDT SDT has many practical implications in educational settings. Intrinsic motivation, that is enjoyment and interest for educational tasks, will flourish when students: (a) feel good about their knowledge and skills for a particular task (competence), (b) feel free in their performance of a task (autonomy), and (c) perceive their teachers as motivated to teach the task and interested in students learning (relatedness). Deci et al. (1999a) indicated the disastrous effects that rewards can have on intrinsic motivation in school settings. Firstly, rewards given for interesting tasks undermined intrinsic motivation (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Utman, 1997). Thus, if a student is already engaged in an educational task because they are interested in the task, rewarding them may undermine that interest. Secondly, Vallerand, Fortier, and Gay (1997) found that performancecontingent rewards undermine free choice persistence. Teachers want students to initiate and maintain learning tasks, that is, be able to start and finish tasks independently, but rewards affected students interest in completing the task and following it through until completion. It is safe to say that students were not intrinsically motivated to complete the task. In real world educational settings, a classroom of students who are not completing assignments, but are being rewarded nonetheless, undermines not only intrinsic motivation but learning itself.

19

According to the research findings, the implications for using rewards in a classroom setting present a conundrum. SDT acknowledges that rewards can change behavior by means of control (Deci et al., 1999a); however, rewards undermine a students ability to motivate themselves. Although a teacher may find using rewards to be beneficial in the short-term (i.e. quick classroom management), the long-term effects can be catastrophic (i.e. reliance on rewards to make students interested in learning). Furthermore, focusing on strategies that enhance psychological well-being and needs satisfaction, along with optimizing active engagement in learning, could be an alternative to the use of rewards in classrooms (Deci et al., 1999a). Behaviorist Approach to Study of Rewards Behaviorists believe that rewards reinforce desired behaviors because behavior is a result of external responses to the environment. Indeed, rewards have been a hallmark of the operant view of learning. The idea that learning is a function of change in overt behavior is the premise of behaviorism, including Skinners stimulus response theory. Stimulus response theory presupposes that changes in behavior are the result of an individual's response to events (stimuli) that occur in the environment. A response produces a consequence, either positive or negative. A behavior that is followed by a reinforcing stimulus (a stimulus that strengthens or weakens the behavior) has a greater probability of occurring again in the future. Conversely, a behavior that is no longer followed by a reinforcing stimulus runs the risk of extinction (Skinner, 1950, 1953, 1954). One of the unique characteristics of stimulus response theory is that it attempts to provide behavioral explanations for a broad range of cognitive

20

phenomena. For example, Skinner explained drive (motivation) in terms of deprivation and reinforcement schedules. Individuals are more motivated to perform a desired behavior in the face of a reinforcing stimulus and to avoid punishment. Inspired by Skinners work, behaviorist researchers developed general interest theory (GIT) in order to address how rewards enhance intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron, 1999a). GIT combines behaviorists beliefs with aspects of social-cognitive perspectives. GIT is multi-faceted and incorporates the European Romanticists perspective that individuals are motivated to self-actualize and are disturbed when self-determination is threatened (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). That is, individuals desire self-fulfillment and are motivated to obtain it. Any factors that may disrupt feelings of autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation, will subsequently affect the ultimate motivation of reaching ones potential. Human satisfaction is achieved through pursuit of autonomy and competence. Furthermore, competence and self-determination contribute to intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). GIT and CET share many of the same characteristics. Both believe that people self-actualize and are self-determined when autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation are enhanced. However, contention has emerged regarding the role of rewards and their effects upon intrinsic motivation. GIT, unlike CET, does not assume that rewards undermine and reduce perceived self-determination (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). From the GIT perspective, rewards actually increase selfdetermination perceptions (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). This increase stems from two main premises.

21

The first premise of GIT states that rewards convey the reward givers lack of control over the performance of the reward recipient and their choice to accept the reward and perform the desired behavior or task. That is, the reward giver has no control over the reward recipients performance. The recipient can choose to perform a task or not perform a task and can choose how much effort he or she will put forth. Therefore, neither the reward nor the reward giver has the ability to control performance or the motivation to perform; reward recipients, not reward givers, chose to perform tasks and choose how well they perform them, according to their abilities. The reward may enhance the intended reward recipients decision making (i.e. they may be more motivated to do well in order to get the reward), but it does not control their choices (Eisenberger, Rhoades, and Cameron, 1999b). Furthermore, the reward recipient has the option to decline the reward and not fulfill the requested behavior. Essentially, a reward does not have the power to make a recipient perform a task. If a recipient does not want to engage in a behavior or a task, they simply will not do it (Eisenberger et al., 1999b). In summary, rewards as defined within GIT give control to the reward recipient and not the reward giver. Nevertheless, research regarding reward givers lack of control as it pertains to GIT has found that autonomy and intrinsic motivation are not automatically undermined by rewards. Specifically, Eisenberger et al. (1999a, b) found that college students who were rewarded for completing a specific task reported an increase in both perceived self-determination and task interest as well as in the free time spent completing the task after the reward was withdrawn in comparison to a control group who did not receive a reward. The rewarded participants did not perceive themselves

22

as being controlled by the task giver. Furthermore, although participants were not told that they had a choice to complete the task or not in the Eisenberger et al. (1999a) study, GIT implies that this knowledge is inherent to most people; rewards do not produce the proverbial gun to ones head phenomenon. Cameron et al. (2005) discovered that people enjoy receiving rewards and by receiving rewards, participants did not report feeling controlled or pressured. Choice mediates this phenomenon (Cameron et al., 2005). When the absence of choice exists, research has shown that rewards can decrease autonomy (Houlfort et al., 2002). In short, participants perceive control over their behavior and their choices (Eisenberger et al., 1999b), and neither of these is undermined by rewards. The enhancement of autonomy through rewards as postulated by GIT follows Skinners (1953) operant learning theory stating that external factors influence internal mechanisms. Individual perceptions that are influenced from external environmental factors or stimuli may increase or decrease a behavioral response. A reward, according to GIT, should not undermine autonomy, but rather should increase it because it reinforces feelings of control. CET, on the other hand, presumes that rewards undermine a persons autonomy because they do not perceive control over their behavior. The second premise of GIT builds upon the first premise (rewards give control to the reward recipient), but suggests that rewards can also increase perceived selfdetermination depending upon the recipients perception of the importance of the task (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). That is, the way that the reward is presented conveys the tasks importance and can affect the reward recipients choice both to engage in the

23

task and to determine the amount of effort to expend. If a task is presented as trivial, then participants will treat it as not important. However, if the task is presented as having importance, then participants will treat it with more interest (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). If this importance helps to satisfy individual needs and wants, then intrinsic motivation will be enhanced. Conversely, if the task is presented as trivial or unimportant, then individuals will not perceive that the task satisfies needs (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). Furthermore, if rewards are presented for meeting or exceeding a standard (performance-contingent) and the standard is presented as important, then participants will perceive competence in themselves because they met criteria that was presented as signifying competence and importance (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). According to GIT, the external reinforcers (rewards and importance of completing standard) conveyed greater personal competence. When individuals perception of competence is enhanced by external factors, intrinsic motivation can be increased. In contrast, rewards given for task participation in a trivial task or for meeting a vague standard would convey irrelevance to competence and the task givers low valuation of the task (Eisenberger et al., 1999a). Research about this second premise of GIT has found that intrinsic motivation can be increased if it is linked to task importance (Eisenberger et al., 1999a), specifically, rewards can cause people to care about doing well on a task, which has been referred to as competence valuation (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). The role of competence in increasing intrinsic motivation is an important component of GITs second premise.

24

Bandura (1997) suggested that intrinsic motivation can be increased by performance-contingent rewards because they lead people to believe they are competent. In contrast, rewards that are given for vaguely set standards or for participating in a task will undermine intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al., 1999a) because the reward is not linked directly to performance, which in turn will not produce competence. Most researchers would agree that simply giving rewards without thought as to how they are delivered and what they are delivered for will undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Eisenberger et al., 1999a; Witzel & Mercer, 2003). In sum, when rewards convey task importance and are presented for meeting or exceeding a specific standard, perceptions of competence can be enhanced and subsequently intrinsic motivation. In conclusion, behavioral theorists and other proponents of GIT believe that rewards do not automatically undermine motivation by decreasing competence and autonomy, but can actually enhance them both. Rewards given for meeting or exceeding a specific standard of performance can produce competence because the reward recipients acknowledge that they were capable of meeting a performance standard. Autonomy is not undermined by rewards because the reward recipient has a choice as to whether or not to engage in a task or accept the reward. This fundamental choice shifts control from the reward giver to the reward recipient. Appropriate Use of Rewards A discussion concerning the appropriate use of rewards necessitates further attention be given to several factors, namely the various types of rewards, the manner

25

in which rewards are introduced and delivered, and the learning outcomes (i.e. achievement and task performance) under which rewards are given (Brophy, 2004). There are many different types of rewards. There are: tangible or intangible (verbal) ones, salient or nonsalient ones, expected or unexpected ones, controlling or informational ones, and equitable or inequitable ones. Each type of reward has been found to have different effects on intrinsic motivation and performance, with conflicting findings at times. Each reward type will be discussed, followed by research that explains their effects on intrinsic motivation and performance. Tangible rewards are nonsocial and monetary, like a piece of candy or tokens. Intangible rewards are social and nonmonetary, like praise and encouragement (Unikel, Strain, and Adams, 1969; Cimpian, Arce, Markman, and Dweck, 2007). Research on tangible and intangible rewards tends to suggest both detrimental and positive effects on performance and intrinsic motivation. Specifically, when a tangible or intangible reward is paired with a desired behavior, performance may be enhanced, as well as, perceptions of confidence (Unikel et al., 1969). For example, pairing a piece of candy (tangible reward) or verbal praise (intangible reward) with completing a class assignment may enhance performance of the class assignment and cause participants to feel competent because they completed the assignment. The ways in which both tangible and intangible rewards are administered (i.e. method of presentation) appears to be an important caveat regarding their impact upon performance and competence. An intangible reward needs to be linked with performance, and not personal attributes. That is, to be told Youre a good test taker. (the personal attribute is test taking) versus You did a good job on this test.

26

(the performance is a good job on the test) can be detrimental to personality functioning and can decrease interest and performance (Cimpian et al., 2007). A tangible reward needs to be linked to a specific standard of performance that is conveyed as important (Eisenberger et al., 1999a, b). On the other hand, some research studies indicate that tangible rewards are detrimental to the development of intrinsic motivation. Giving people prizes, pay, and awards have been found to decrease feelings of intrinsic motivation towards the desired task (Deci et al., 1999a). In sum, both tangible and intangible rewards can have positive effects on performance and intrinsic motivation, but also detrimental effects. The method of presentation is important (linking the reward to a specific performance, not a personal attribute); it can affect outcomes of performance and intrinsic motivation positively or negatively. Salient rewards are those that are attractive and call attention to themselves (i.e. money), versus nonsalient rewards (i.e. a sticker), which do not have alluring effects. Research has found mixed results for the effects of both types of rewards regarding intrinsic motivation and performance. Specifically, Amabile (1983), Deci and Ryan (1985a), and Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) suggest that certain types of rewards (i.e. tangible) are more salient than verbal rewards (intangible) and should be more detrimental to intrinsic motivation because they call too much attention to the reward versus the task (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). Salient rewards will increase perceptions of low self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985a) and will increase the rewards controlling aspect over behavior (Lepper et al., 1973).

27

Furthermore, salient rewards can decrease immediate and subsequent task engagement (Ross, 1975). However, research also suggests that salient rewards can enhance intrinsic motivation and performance. Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) found that when a large, salient reward was given to children for their performance on a task, their creative performance on a second task increased (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). Furthermore, the larger, salient reward also increased intrinsic motivation and only decreased interest for children rewarded for uncreative performance (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997), suggesting that salient rewards are not harmful to creativity or intrinsic motivation. Research also found mixed results for the effects of nonsalient rewards on intrinsic motivation and performance. Specifically, nonsalient rewards given for initial task completion may affect task performance of subsequent tasks, especially when compared to initial performance that was not rewarded (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). On the other hand, research has also found that nonsalient rewards can increase immediate and subsequent task engagement over time (Ross, 1975). In summary, research on salient and nonsalient rewards has produced mixed results. It appears that both salient and nonsalient rewards can have both positive and negative effects on intrinsic motivation, performance, and engagement. Salient rewards may call attention to a task and/or a desired behavior, causing either feelings of control or increased interest. This may enhance or decrease intrinsic motivation. Salient rewards that are paired with specific performance standards appear to yield more creative performance than salient rewards given for uncreative performance.

28

Research has also found similar results for nonsalient rewards. Nonsalient rewards may produce increased engagement in tasks, but may also reduce the quality of task performance. Expected rewards are, as their name implies, rewards that are assumed to be available, such as receiving a high grade because one has studied very hard. Unexpected rewards are given without notice; the recipient does not know that their behavior or action will be rewarded. Similar to other reward types, research has found mixed effects for expected and unexpected rewards on intrinsic motivation and performance. Some researchers have found negative effects upon decision making and intrinsic motivation from both expected and unexpected rewards. McGraw and Fiala (1982) examined the effects of expected and unexpected rewards on participants decision to return to an interrupted task. The researchers examined rewards on the Zeigarnik effect, proposed by Ovsiankina (1928), a hypothesis that most people will return to an interrupted task instead of abandoning it. McGraw and Fiala (1982) found that 86% of the unexpected reward group returned to their interrupted task, whereas only 58% of the expected reward group returned to their interrupted task. Similarly, research has also shown that expected rewards given for engagement in a novel activity can decrease intrinsic motivation when compared to an unexpected reward given for the same novel task (Lepper & Greene, 1975). Expected rewards can also decrease task interest for individuals already showing high interest in the task and can undermine task performance (Loveland & Olley, 1979).

29

However, some research also suggests that expected rewards may enhance intrinsic motivation. Specifically, when rewards are linked to high performance, intrinsic motivation can be enhanced (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). Rewards may enhance feelings of competence and when linked to high performance (i.e. obtaining 4/5 correct answers versus obtaining 2/5 correct answers), they make individuals feel good about their performance. Furthermore, expected rewards may also enhance task interest for low interest tasks because the reward calls attention to the task and may make the task more desirable to individuals who were not previously interested or motivated to complete it (Loveland & Olley, 1979). In sum, there are conflicting findings concerning whether or not expected and unexpected rewards are detrimental to intrinsic motivation and the desire to engage in a task. It appears that giving an expected reward for an already high interest task may undermine intrinsic motivation for completing that task. However, giving a reward for a low interest task or a reward for high performance may actually increase intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, unexpected rewards may not negatively affect the decision to return to an interrupted task, whereas an expected reward may decrease that decision. Rewards that are perceived as controlling (i.e. make individuals feel compelled to behave or perform in a certain way) have been found to undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999a) through decreased autonomy. Rewards that are informational and clearly state the relationship to the task and convey the tasks importance can have positive effects on intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al., 1999a).

30

Pittman (1980) tested Decis (1975) informational versus controlling aspect of verbal rewards. Deci (1975) found that tangible rewards can be perceived as more controlling and less informational than intangible rewards. Furthermore, results from Deci (1975) found that tangible rewards were perceived as more controlling and had detrimental effects on intrinsic motivation whereas intangible rewards enhanced intrinsic motivation and were perceived as less controlling. Pittman (1980) found similar results in that participants who were given an informational, intangible reward displayed an increase in interest and task engagement versus a no-reward control group. Participants who received a controlling intangible reward did not report an increase in task interest and engagement (Pittman, 1980). Deci (1975) also acknowledged that rewards can also signify success at a task, which may enhance feelings of competence and performance satisfaction (Dollinger & Thelen, 1978). Weiner and Mander (1978) found that rewards had an overall detrimental effect on task performance; however, the informational aspect of the reward did not affect performance but did affect subjects willingness to participate in a similar experiment on the future. Eisenberger et al. (1999a) stated that rewards given for no clear purpose and not contingent upon some behavior or performance could be detrimental to intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, Eisenberger et al. (1999a) found that rewards given for vague performance (not informational) did not increase intrinsic motivation or performance. Thus, rewards that are informational can have positive effects on feelings of competence, performance, and intrinsic motivation. Controlling rewards have been found to be detrimental to performance and intrinsic motivation. Nevertheless,

31

research studies have shown conflicting findings on the extent of positive effects informational rewards have on performance and intrinsic motivation. Equitable rewards are those that are given to everyone for the same performance. Inequitable rewards, or equity rewards, are given to those who have performed the highest and usually go to only a select few recipients. Adams (1963, 1965) created a theory on inequity that states that individuals evaluate their inputs and outcomes when faced with a task. Outcomes are compensations that a person may receive (money or independence) and inputs are all of the things the person gives to the task (intellect and effort; Adams, 1963, 1965). When individuals are faced with a task, they will evaluate the ratio between input and outcomes and compare this ratio to the ratio of their peers (Adams, 1963, 1965). If a person perceives inequity in their own ratio when compared with that of their peers, they will strive to reduce this inequity (Adams, 1963, 1965). Deci (1972a) argues that rewards, specifically money, cause people to work for the rewards and not for the enjoyment of the task. Accordingly, rewards can detrimentally affect intrinsically motivating tasks. Individuals will stop performing if they perceive themselves as being undercompensated with relation to their efforts (input). However, if they feel unjustly overcompensated, (higher compensation to input ratio), they will continue to perform (Deci, 1972a). In both cases, Deci (1972a) concludes that intrinsic motivation would be undermined because continued performance is based on inequity, not on intrinsic motivation. Ramamoorthy (1997) took a different approach to the role of equity and inequity within rewards. Specifically, participants working as a team felt that

32

equitable rewards were unfair. Furthermore, participants indicated that team members who were not working as hard as other team members should not receive the same reward (Ramamoorthy, 1997). Stepina and Perrewe (1987) found an increase in intrinsic motivation for inequity rewarded groups versus equitably rewarded groups. Furthermore, participants perceptions of work were enhanced by inequity rewards. By linking rewards to highest performance on a specific task or job, participants viewed the job as more interesting because performing well was highly valued (Stepina & Perrewe, 1987). In summary, both positive and negative effects of equitable and inequitable rewards have been found on intrinsic motivation and task performance. In school systems, grading procedures could be viewed as falling under the inequity category. If the grading is normative (comparing one individuals scores to their peers), only a small amount of students will receive the highest grades and not everyone will receive high marks due to individual differences. Both intrinsically motivated low and high performers strive for good grades and subsequently alter their behavior to obtain these marks (i.e. study more). Although low performers may not always achieve the same marks as their high performing peers, they still have a chance to get high scores and may be intrinsically motivated to obtain these. Thus, inequity in grading procedures may not be detrimental to intrinsic motivation because it causes everyone to strive for high performance. Equitable rewards may be useful if teachers decide to use a reward system (tangible, intangible, salient or nonsalient) in their classrooms. It would not be fair or even appropriate if only certain students received rewards (i.e.

33

tokens or verbal praise) and others did not for engaging in the same task and meeting the same attainable standards. Thus, inequitable rewards may be beneficial when linked to individual performance, whereas equitable rewards may be beneficial for whole groups participating in a reward system. In conclusion, rewards that are informational appear to produce the best outcome for enhancing intrinsic motivation and performance. Rewards that are expected can also enhance intrinsic motivation for low interest tasks or high performance. Equitable rewards may be more beneficial for whole groups, whereas inequitable rewards may be beneficial for individual performance. Reward salience appears to produce both positive and negative effects on intrinsic motivation and performance, with researchers who studied this type of rewards offering mixed findings. Reward tangibility does appear to enhance, not undermine performance. Introduction and Delivery of Rewards The effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation can vary greatly depending upon the method of presentation and delivery (Eisenberger et al, 1999a). Specifically, the design of the reward implementation has been found to have direct effects on intrinsic motivation, competence, and autonomy. In this section, the manner in which rewards are implemented and the effects of reward implementation upon components of intrinsic motivation will be discussed. Particularly, taskcontingent, task non-contingent, and performance-continent rewards will be defined, along with research and guidelines of implementing these reward contingencies (giving a reward for a specific behavior or performance).

34

Task noncontingent rewards are those that are expected rewards given for participating in a task. Participants are only rewarded on their attendance and not on completion of a task or the quality of completion (Ryan et al., 1983). Deci (1972b) used this reward contingency in their research as discussed above and found that task non-contingent rewards did not decrease intrinsic motivation. Pinder (1976) and Swann and Pittman (1977) replicated the Deci (1972b) study with both college and elementary school children respectively and found similar results. Task noncontingent rewards did not decrease intrinsic motivation because they were not perceived as controlling (Ryan et al., 1983). Participation in a task does not elicit the same feelings as performing the task. Thus, task noncontingent rewards do not place pressure on individuals (loss of control or autonomy) or make them feel compelled to participate, which in turn does not affect intrinsic motivation. Task-contingent rewards are given for doing a task. They are usually given for completion of a task regardless of the quality of the completion (Ryan et al., 1983). Participants are specifically told that they will receive a reward when they finish the task or for doing the task, versus for participation in task noncontingent rewards (Ryan et al., 1983). An example would be receiving a reward when all five questions are answered (task-contingent reward) versus receiving a reward for participating in study that uses five questions (task noncontingent reward). Deci (1971, 1972b) found that participants who were given task-contingent rewards reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation than those who were either not rewarded or given a task noncontingent reward. Similarly, Weiner and Mander (1978) compared both task-contingent rewards and task noncontingent rewards and found

35

that both decreased intrinsic motivation, with a more pronounced decrease found in participants who were given the task-contingent reward. Furthermore, Danner and Lonky (1981), Dollinger and Thelen (1978), and Fazio (1981) all found that taskcontingent rewards offered for engagement in high interest tasks decreased intrinsic motivation for that task. Thus, task-contingent rewards given for completing or working on a task can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation, especially if the reward is given without performance feedback (Ryan et al., 1983). In short, there seems to be consensus between social-cognitive theorists and behavioral theorists that simply giving reward without any thought as to how they are delivered and for what purpose they are being delivered may ultimately prove detrimental to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Eisenberger et al., 1999a; Witzel & Mercer, 2003). Performance-contingent rewards are given for a specific level of performance. Rewards are given for meeting or exceeding some set standard (Ryan et al., 1983). Performance-contingent rewards usually convey skill and competence in the participant and can be both informational and controlling. CET generally assumes performance-contingent rewards to be detrimental, particularly when they do not affirm perceptions of competence or are perceived as being controlling. GIT assumes that intrinsic motivation can flourish when a reward is presented in such as manner as to convey the tasks importance or relevance, or fulfills an individuals needs, wants, or desires. Harackiewicz (1979) found that participants who were given performance-contingent rewards reported less intrinsic motivation than the noreward/positive feedback group. Enzle and Ross (1978) found that intrinsic

36

motivation increased for participants who received a performance-contingent reward than those that received a task-contingent reward. Ryan et al. (1983) further differentiated performance-contingent rewards into two subgroups: controlling (i.e. rewards that make individuals feel compelled to behave or perform in a certain way) or informational (i.e. rewards that state the relationship to the task and convey the tasks importance). Both controlling and informational performance-contingent rewards decreased intrinsic motivation when compared to a no-reward group that received the same feedback, irrespective of whether it was controlling or informational. Furthermore, controlling performancecontingent rewards reported significantly lower levels of intrinsic motivation when compared to performance-contingent rewards that were presented informationally (Ryan et al., 1983). Ryan et al. (1983) also compared informationally administered performance-contingent rewards to task-contingent rewards, without feedback, and found that informationally administered performance-contingent rewards enhanced intrinsic motivation, while task-contingent rewards, without feedback, did not. Linking a reward to a specific performance (performance-contingent) versus participation (task-contingent) and explaining the importance of the task and the performance (informational) was found to be the better reward implementation to increasing intrinsic motivation. Tripathi and Agarwal (1988) compared performance-contingent rewards, taskcontingent rewards and no rewards. Participants who were given performancecontingent rewards reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation than the other two groups. Boggiano, Harackiewicz, Bessette, and Main (1985) also compared

37

performance-contingent rewards and task-contingent rewards and no-rewards using kindergarten students. Results mirrored Tripathi and Agarwals (1988). Intrinsic motivation was enhanced significantly by performance-contingent rewards, but not task-contingent rewards or no-rewards. Harackiewicz and Manderlink (1984) studied the effects of performancecontingent rewards and no-rewards with similar feedback on intrinsic motivation of high school students. They found that performance-contingent rewards significantly enhanced intrinsic motivation in relationship to the no-reward with similar feedback group. Performance-contingent rewards also enhanced perceptions of importance in low achievers relative to high achievers as well (Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984). In conclusion, performance-contingent rewards appear to enhance intrinsic motivation, especially if they are presented informationally versus controlling. Furthermore it appears that people react positively to being rewarded for meeting a standard versus being rewarded for attendance, completion or working on a task. Learning Outcomes Emerging evidence also seems to suggest that rewards are more or less effective depending upon the learning outcome. In general, rewards seem most effective for tasks that individuals may not necessarily engage in without some kind of reinforcement, for example, tasks that are perceived to be uninteresting or mundane (Lepper et al. 1973). Research also suggests that rewards can be effective for increasing the intensity of engagement or persistence but not necessarily for improving the quality of performance or achievement (Brophy, 2004). Rewards have

38

also been found to increase the amount of time spent on more difficult tasks versus easier tasks (Gear, 2008). Nevertheless, research on the effects of rewards on academic achievement and task performance remains largely inconclusive. Can rewards actually increase achievement and improve performance? Early research found that rewards did in fact increase achievement on learning tasks. For example, low SES children were found to perform better on spelling tests when offered the tangible reward of crayons (Benowitz & Busse, 1970) and made fewer spelling errors (Benowitz & Rosenfeld, 1973). Benowitz and Busse (1976) found that when offered a material incentive, lower SES students performance increased from an average of 10 out of 20 words spelled correctly to 17 out of 20 words spelled correctly. Furthermore, test behavior was examined for four weeks after the material incentive was given, showing retention in effectiveness (Benowitz & Busse, 1976). Drew, Evans, Bostow, Geiger, and Drash (1982), Weiner, Sheridan, and Jenson (1998), and McGinnis, Friman, and Carlyon (1999) have all found that rewards can be a positive reinforcement for learning. McGinnis et al. (1999) particularly found that accuracy within math performance increased for students in the face of rewards. This would mean that students were showing greater achievement on the math tasks when given a reward for completion of the math task (McGinnis et al., 1999). In terms of task performance, research has found that rewards may undermine how well an individual performs on a desired task. McCullers, Fabes, and Moran III (1987) indicated that rewards may shift a subjects reason for performing a task from internal to external that is, the reward provides motivation to engage in the task, but

39

does not increase enjoyment and interest in the task. Weaker immediate task performance would be the result because subjects are performing the task for a reward and not because they are motivated or want to increase their learning (McCullers et al., 1987). Lepper et al. (1973) found that when rewards were withdrawn, increased motivation subsequently decreased, which then affected task performance adversely. This suggests that rewards may increase motivation and task performance, but they cannot sustain motivation when taken away and thus, task performance decreases. In conclusion, research on the effects of rewards upon learning outcomes, particularly achievement and task performance, has shown that rewards may increase achievement for simple learning tasks (i.e. spelling tests) versus achievement of more advanced tasks (i.e. intelligence tests). Rewards may also enhance task performance, but ultimately cannot sustain it over time and may shift interest from performing the task well to attaining the reward.

40

CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Participants The 66 participants used in this study came from a sixth grade in a middle school in the New York City Department of Education. The sample consisted of 53% females and 47% males, between the ages of 11 and 12 years old, from an urban environment, with majority (86%) of Hispanic descent. All participants came from general education classes and included only participants who provided individual assent and parental consent in writing. The students were previously assigned at the start of the school year to one of the three sixth grade math classes based on their fifth grade New York State Math assessment score. Math assessment scores range from 1 to 4 (New York State Mathematics Test, n.d.). Score of 4 indicates that a student exceeded New York State standards for 5th grade math. A score of 3 indicates that the student met standards, whereas, scores of 1 or 2 indicate that the student did not meet New York State standards for fifth grade math and may not be promoted to the sixth grade (New York State Mathematics Test, n.d.). Students who received a score of 4 or a high 3 were assigned to one class (25 students). Students who received an average score (low to middle 3) were assigned to a second class (22 students) and the students who received

41

low scores (1or 2) were assigned to the third class (19 students). Thus, the students were grouped by ability levels in math. All three classes were expected to do the same seatwork assignments and were rewarded accordingly and within the same guidelines as rewards were administered in the school prior to this study. Furthermore, seatwork assignments are part of the daily curriculum to practice math concepts that are being taught. Thus, a students learning was not undermined. Students did not feel compelled to participate and could choose not to fill out any of the four questionnaires. Students were responsible for completing seatwork assignments given by the teacher, as they are already part of the math curriculum. In terms of absenteeism, the present study did not experience significant absences that would have jeopardized the data. When examining the total population used, Weeks 1 and 2 had two total absences; Week 3 had three total absences; and Week 4 had five total absences. In addition, there were no school-wide changes in the daily schedule and the study was run without any interruptions to the design and distribution of rewards and surveys. Instruments and Materials All of the measures were adapted from existing scales developed by Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues (Self-Determination Theory, n.d.). No permission was needed from the test developers to use these scales as per the source (SelfDetermination Theory, n.d). Excluding the autonomous regulation scale, which allows for negative numbers (see below), the perception scales ranged from 1 to 7.

42

Perceived Competence Perceived competence was measured using the Perceived Competence for Learning Scale (Self-Determination Theory, n.d), a four item measure that assesses participants degree of confidence to perform academically. An example of an item within this scale is: I felt able to meet the challenges of completing 4 seatwork assignments this week. Cronbachs alphas for this scale ranged from .75 to .92 when used in the Luis and Zusho (2009) study. Williams, Freedman, and Deci (1998) and Williams and Deci (1996) also used this questionnaire for management of glucose levels, with alpha measures of internal consistency above .80 in both studies. In the present study, Cronbachs alphas for this scale were found for each of the four weeks and ranged from .87 to .91. Perceived Autonomous Regulation The extent to which participants are autonomously regulated was assessed using the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A), part B, which assesses reasons why students do their class work (Self-Determination Theory, n.d). It is composed of 8 items, from which a relative autonomy index score was calculated based on the formula: [((2 Intrinsic) + Identified) - (Introjected - (2 External))]. In general, negative weights represent more controlled forms of regulation while positive weights represent more autonomous forms of regulation. A sample item from this scale is: Why did I work on seatwork assignments in math this week? Because thats the rule. Reliability scores for this scale ranged from .67 to .97 in Luis and Zusho (2009) findings. The validation of this survey was also found by

43

Ryan and Connell (1989) to be between .62 and .82. For the present study, reliability scores for this scale were found for each of the four weeks and ranged from .80 to .83. Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation was assessed using the Interest/Enjoyment subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) taken from Self-Determination Theory, n.d. The scale for this study included 7 items and assessed students level of enjoyment in the task. A sample item from this scale is: I thought completing 4 seatwork assignments this week was quite enjoyable. Alphas for this scale ranged from .88 to .95 in Luis and Zusho (2009) study. This scale has also been used by Ryan et al. (1991) and Ryan et al. (1983) in their research, with strong support for its validity found by McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1989). Alphas for this scale ranged were found for each of the four weeks and ranged from .89 to .91 for the present study. Quality of Seatwork The quality of seatwork was assessed by the teacher using a 5-point scale which was previously established by the math teacher and in place prior to the start of this study. This ensured that students were aware of the grading expectations. Each seatwork assignment was broken into five parts. If students got at least two parts correct, they could score a C. A score of F was reserved for students who did not complete the seatwork or did not get at least two parts correct. The teacher kept track of each students seatwork and returned the seatwork assignment to each student, on a daily basis, so they knew which score they obtained. The teacher also let students know if they were in jeopardy of failing the seatwork standard and allowed students who scored 0/4, due to lower achievement, to correct their work.

44

Achievement Scores Achievement scores came from the unit test given prior to the start of the study (Data and Probability) and the unit test score given at the end of the study (Integration of Math Concepts). Both tests consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions worth two points, 10 calculation problems worth five points, and one word problem worth 10 points. Achievement scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a score of 65 or above considered passing. Although both tests were similarly formatted, the pre and post achievement test content was different. Procedures Ethical Considerations with Human Subjects Prior to conducting the present study, approval was obtained from both the Fordham University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Proposal Review Committee (PRC) of the New York City Department of Education. Both the IRB and the PRC reviewed the purpose, methods, risk/benefits, informed consent, limitations, confidentiality, and the examiners qualifications. By reviewing these components, ethical considerations of the present study were safeguarded and met. In addition, written consent was obtained from the parents and the principal of the school used and assent was obtained from the participants. The consent letter delineated the purpose of the study, specific tasks that children would engage in, the role of the teacher, risk/benefits, the voluntary nature of the study, withdrawal procedures, and contact numbers to answer questions. The child assent letter informed them of their participation in the study and the withdrawal process.

45

Confidentiality was safeguarded by randomly assigning each student to a condition, unbeknownst to the teacher. Each student was then assigned an identification number. Data for the seatwork assignments and the test scores for each student were immediately transformed to their assigned identification number. Furthermore, all surveys remained in a locked cabinet that was only accessible to the researcher. Design A 2 (group) 4 (time) repeated measures design was used for the basis of this study. Two conditions were used: Group 1 (choice of receiving a reward) and Group 2 (no choice of receiving a reward). The reward given was expected because all students were informed that they would receive a reward if they completed the set amount of seatwork assignments at a specific performance level. The reward was also equitable because all students had a chance to receive it if they met the set criteria to receive the reward. Students were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, with 36 students assigned to the choice condition and 30 students assigned to the no choice condition. Students in both conditions were asked to complete measures assessing their perceptions of autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation over a three-week period, with a follow up measure four weeks later. Rewards were introduced the second week and were taken away the third week. Additionally, students quality of independent seatwork (the curricular standard used in this study) was assessed each week. Seatwork was used as the curricular task in this study, not only as a control for potential confounds (such as variable completion of work outside of the classroom),

46

but also because it is considered to be a routine task that is given every day. The seatwork assignments were completed independently by each student per day. Finally, students achievement was collected through test scores from a unit test prior to the start of the study and test scores collected from the unit test given at completion of the study. In order to control for extraneous variables, the present study began at the start of a new math unit. Baseline: Week 1 At the start of the new math unit, students in all three classes were asked to complete the various measures related to their perceptions of autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation toward seatwork. Achievement scores were collected from the unit test given just prior to the start of the study and the new math unit. These scores would be used for the pre-achievement measures. Seatwork was collected and scored as well. Manipulation of Reward and Choice: Week 2 At the start of the second week, the teacher gave each class the same seatwork directive. The directive included: (a) an independent seatwork assignment due each day, for four days and (b) each seatwork assignment must meet at least a C level (2/5 of the math equation must be correct). These components of the directive established the desired performance that the teacher expected from the students. Finally, (c) the importance of the seatwork assignments to understanding the math unit was expressed- as past research has demonstrated (Eisenberger et al., 1999a; Newby, 1991) that conveying the importance of the task in a clear manner can affect interest. After the seatwork directive was given on the first day of Week 2, the

47

teacher then gave each student, in each class, a piece of paper with either Directive A written on it or Directive B. The teacher distributed Directive A and Directive B papers randomly. Group 1 (choice of receiving the reward) was created by those students who received Directive A, which read: (A) You can receive a reward if you complete all four seatwork assignments at a C level or above (2 out of 5 parts of each seatwork assignment is correct). (B) You have a choice if you want to receive the reward or not. If you want to receive a reward, please mark yes. If you do not wish to receive a reward, please mark no. You will still need to complete the four seatwork assignments. This manipulation addressed the effect of the independent variable (choice versus no choice) on the five dependent variables discussed earlier. Group 2 (no choice of receiving the reward) was created by those students who received Directive B, which read: You will receive a reward if you complete all four seatwork assignments at a C level or above (2 out of 5 parts of each seatwork assignment is correct). This manipulation allowed for comparisons to be made between both conditions on rewards and choice. For each of the four class days, the teacher gave the three math classes an independent seatwork assignment to complete. The seatwork assignment was different each day, but the same assignment was given to all three classes. At the end of the fourth day, students who met the criteria for the seatwork standard and chose to be rewarded were given the reward (a mechanical pencil). Each class

48

completed a modified questionnaire (modifications were made to fit student perceptions after completing the four seatwork assignments). Replication of Directive with No Reward - Week 3 and Week 7 At the beginning of the following week (Week 3), the teacher gave the same seatwork directive to each class. In addition, the teacher let each class know that no rewards or choice of rewards would be distributed that week. A seatwork assignment was given each day, for four days. At the end of the fourth day, students completed the same questionnaire used in Week 2. Week 3 assessed students perceptions of autonomy, competence and intrinsic motivation when the reward contingency was removed. Week 3 also assessed seatwork behaviors and seatwork grades when the reward contingency was removed. Four weeks later, during Week 7, students were given the same independent seatwork directive used in Weeks 1, 2 and 3, with the same reminder used in Week 3: no rewards/choice of rewards would be given. At the end of the fourth day, students completed the same questionnaire used in week 3. Week 7 further assessed removal of the reward contingency on all dependent variables and determined if maintenance of intrinsic motivation occurred. Week 7 concluded the math unit and students were administered the achievement test. These scores were used as the post achievement measures.

49

CHAPTER IV RESULTS

Pre-Analysis Screening Pre-analysis screening was conducted on all variables to ensure accuracy and adequacy of the data. The data were examined for missing values, univariate and multivariate outliers, normality, and homogeneity. Frequency tables within descriptive statistics were used to assess the presence of missing data. After examining frequencies, missing data represented less than 5% of the total cases and were considered missing at random. Univariate outliers were examined through both z-score analysis and box plots of each variable. Univariate outliers were detected for weeks one through four for the competence variable. The z - score values exceeded 2.5 as per the recommendation of Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) and box plots showed extreme values. Because the z - scores were negative, square root transformations were conducted on all four variables. The skewness for Week 1 competence, Week 3 competence, and Week 4 competence were substantially decreased and met the requirement of univariate normality. The square root transformation for Week 2 competence did not substantially decrease skewness and the shape was left positively skewed. Thus, square root was used to further transform this variable, which substantially decreased

50

skewness and met requirements of univariate normality. Both competence and competence transformed values are reported throughout the results and discussion. Through multiple regression analysis, Mahalanobis distance was calculated to inspect multivariate normality on the 16 variables, plus competence transformed, used in this study. Seatwork, competence, competence transformed, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy were examined for each of the four weeks. There were no values that exceeded the critical value of 39.25, df = 16, p < .001. Thus, the assumption of multivariate normality was met. The assumption of homoscedasticity was examined through calculation of homogeneity of variance-covariance of Boxs M. A statistically significant Boxs M test (p < .002) indicated unequal variance-covariance matrices of the dependent variables (seatwork, competence, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy) across the levels of choice and thus will necessitate the use of Pillais trace in assessing the multivariate effect. Statistical Analysis Data analysis was computed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) Version 17.0. Each instrument and measure used in data collection provided a score that was entered into SPSS. t-Tests were used to compare pre achievement scores to post achievement scores based on condition (Research Question 1). A repeated measures MANOVA was used to further test Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. Specifically, the remaining four dependent variables (seatwork, competence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation) were analyzed for the effects of the two independent variables (condition and time). An ANOVA

51

was used to examine if a true statistically significant multivariate main effect of condition for intrinsic motivation was present and an ANCOVA was used to determine if this significance was present while controlling for the variance between groups over time. Descriptive Statistics Table 1 presents the overall means, standard deviations, and standard errors of the 16 variables and the means, standard deviations, and standard errors for each variable by condition as well as the pre- and post-achievement scores. It should be noted that all students in the choice condition chose to be rewarded. These data revealed that most students performed well on all four weeks of seatwork, with a range of 4.08 to 4.48 out of 5.0. Students reported feeling competent, with a range of 5.25 to 5.59 out of 7.0. Students reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation (range of 3.36 to 3.48 out of 7.0) than autonomy (range of -.31 to -.04 out of 8), with differences between conditions for intrinsic motivation during the first week. Students in the choice condition appeared to be more intrinsically motivated (M = 3.81) than the no choice (M = 2.88) students before the treatment was introduced during Week 2. Furthermore, students did not report feeling autonomous during this study, as the mean for all four weeks fell within the negative range. In terms of achievement, the average pre achievement scores (M = 79.97) indicated that students performed above the failing mark of 65 within the C+ range and the average post achievement scores (M = 82.34) fell within the B range. The pre- and postachievement tests contained the same format, but were different tests.

52

The z - scores for seatwork ranged between -3.73 and -1.78, motivation ranged from 0.19 to 1.02, autonomy ranged from -0.53 to .98 and transformed competence ranged from 1.52 to 2.28.

53

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores _____________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD SE _____________________________________________________________________ Seatwork Week 1 No Choice Choice Week 2 No Choice Choice Week 3 No Choice Choice Week 4 No Choice Choice Competence Week 1 No Choice Choice 5.48 5.51 5.46 1.51 1.49 .19 .28 4.31 4.42 4.22 4.48 4.53 4.44 4.08 4.17 4.00 4.25 4.21 4.28 .72 .69 .74 .57 .52 .60 .80 .76 .84 .63 .70 .57 .09 .13 .12 .07 .10 .10 .10 .14 .14 .08 .13 .11

1.54 .26 (Table 1 continues)

54

(Table 1 continued) Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores _____________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD SE _____________________________________________________________________ Week 2 No Choice Choice Week 3 No Choice Choice Week 4 No Choice Choice Competence (Transformed) Week 1 No Choice Choice Week 2 No Choice Choice 1.52 1.52 1.53 1.20 1.23 1.19 .45 .45 .46 .19 .17 .06 .08 .08 .02 .03 5.59 5.52 5.65 5.33 5.33 5.34 5.25 5.28 5.23 1.61 1.44 1.76 1.77 1.70 1.86 1.75 1.90 1.65 .20 .27 .30 .22 .32 .31 .23 .37 .29

.20 .03 (Table 1 continues)

55

(Table 1 continued) Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores _____________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD SE _____________________________________________________________________ Week 3 No Choice Choice Week 4 No Choice Choice Intrinsic Motivation Week 1 No Choice Choice Week 2 No Choice Choice Week 3 No Choice Choice 3.40 2.88 3.81 3.48 3.01 3.89 3.37 2.89 3.75 1.63 1.29 1.76 1.60 1.47 1.61 1.61 1.39 .20 .24 .29 .20 .27 .28 .20 .26 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.58 1.56 1.59 .51 .49 .53 .51 .56 .48 .06 .09 .09 .07 .11 .08

1.70 .29 (Table 1 continues)

56

(Table 1 continued) Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores _____________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD SE _____________________________________________________________________ Week 4 No Choice Choice Autonomy Week 1 No Choice Choice Week 2 No Choice Choice Week 3 No Choice Choice Week 4 No Choice Choice -.14 -.57 .19 -.04 -.28 .16 -.31 -.50 -.16 -.13 -.50 .18 2.83 2.14 3.26 2.49 2.21 2.73 2.50 1.64 3.03 3.35 3.13 .35 .40 .54 .31 .41 .47 .31 .31 .51 .43 .59 3.36 3.15 3.53 1.62 1.52 1.71 .21 .29 .30

3.55 .62 (Table 1 continues)

57

(Table 1 continued) Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Seatwork, Competence, Intrinsic Motivation, Autonomy over Four Weeks and Achievement Scores _____________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD SE _____________________________________________________________________ Achievement Pre No Choice Choice Post No Choice Choice 79.97 80.50 79.53 82.34 83.17 81.62 11.00 9.55 12.19 12.41 10.13 14.23 1.35 1.74 2.03 1.55 1.85 2.44

Table 2 displays the intercorrelations among these various scales. Students who typically did well on pre achievement measures, also did well on post achievement measures. Further, children who did well on the achievement tests also scored higher on seatwork. Students who perceived themselves to be intrinsically motivated the second week of the study, also perceived themselves to be motivated for the rest of the study. In addition, students who reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation, also reported feeling autonomous and competent. However, students who reported higher levels of competence did not report feeling more autonomous. As with motivation, students who reported feeling competent and autonomous, tended to report these feelings over time.

58

Table 2 Intercorrelations Among Scales

1 1.PREACH 2.POSTAC 3. W1SW 4. W2SW 5. W3SW 6. W4SW 7. W1CO 8. W2CO 9. W3CO 10. W4CO 11. W1MO 12. W2MO 13. W3MO 14. W4MO 15. W1AU 16. W2AU 17. W3AU 18. W4AU 19. W1CT 20. W2CT 21. W3CT 22. W4CT -.46** .67** .69** .68** .60** .38** .28* .39** .25 .06 .06 .18 -.04 .06 .11 .03 -.09 -.04** -.33** -.44** -.27* -.48** .47** .36** .40** .22 .32* .24 .11 .00 .16 .11 -.09 -.08 .09 -.09 -.13 -.24 -.36** -.25 -.11 -.92** .80** .76** .21 .26* .30* .20 -.14 -.13 .08 -.22 -.18 .03 -.12 -.23 -.23 -.29* -.34** -.22 -.80** .76** .19 .26* .35** .14 -.18 -.12 .05 -.26** -.16 .02 -.13 -.21 -.21 -.29* -.39** -.17 -.76** .28* .24 .29* .30* -.06 .01 .07 -.15 -.11 .12 -.07 -.10 -.27* -.26* -.32* -.32* -.14 .27 .30* .26 .01 .05 .25 -.05 -.16 -.02 -.07 -.03 -.15 -.28* -.32* -.28* -.51** .63** .70** .44** .39** .35** .39** .23 .22 .17 .11 -.99** -.53** -.66** -.69** -.65** .57** .16 .31* .27* .09 .00 .17 .02 .05 -.51** -.98** -.66** -.56** -.79** .26* .29* .42** .31* .02 .14 .07 .05 -.64** -.65** -.99** -.77** -.35** .45** .45** .47** .15 .24 .13 .15 -.68** -.56** -.80** -.99** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Table 2 continues)

59

(Table 2 continued) Intercorrelations Among Scales

Variable 1.PREACH 2. POSTAC 3. W1SW 4. W2SW 5. W3SW 6. W4SW 7. W1CO 8. W2CO 9. W3CO 10. W4CO 11. W1MO 12. W2MO 13. W3MO 14. W4MO 15. W1AU 16. W2AU 17. W3AU 18. W4AU 19. W1CT 20. W2CT 21. W3CT 22. W4CT .81** .77** .74** .61** .46** .50** .43** -.43** -.15 -.25* -.32* -.83** .80** .55** .47** .37** .45** -.38** -.31* -.29* -.42** -.78** .50** .46** .51** .38** -.35* -.27* -.43** -.43** -.55** .48** .55** .56** -.39** -.07 -.30* -.45** -.66** .54** .46** -.24 -.01 -.03 -.14 -.73** .69** -.23 -.17 -.14 -.24 -.71** -.18 -.03 -.09 -.15 --.12 -.03 -.03 -.16 -.54** .68** .69** -.67** .57** 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(Table 2 continues)

60

(Table 2 continued) Intercorrelations Among Scales

Variable 1. PREACH 2. POSTAC 3. W1SW 4. W2SW 5. W3SW 6. W4SW 7. W1CO 8. W2CO 9. W3CO 10. W4CO 11. W1MO 12. W2MO 13. W3MO 14. W4MO 15. W1AU 16. W2AU 17. W3AU 18. W4AU 19. W1CT 20. W2CT 21. W3CT 22. W4CT .79** -21 22

(Table 2 continues)

61

(Table 2 continued) Intercorrelations Among Scales Note. PREACH = pre-achievement; POSTAC = post-achievement; WISW = Week 1 seatwork; W2SW = Week 2 seatwork; W3SW = Week 3 seatwork; W4SW = Week 4 seatwork; W1CO = Week 1 competence; W2CO = Week 2 competence; W3CO = Week 3 competence; W4CO = Week 4 competence; W1MO = Week 1 motivation; W2MO = Week 2 motivation; W3MO = Week 3 motivation; W4MO = Week 4 motivation; W1AU = Week 1 autonomy; W2AU = Week 2 autonomy; W3AU = Week 3 autonomy; W4AU = Week 4 autonomy; W1CT = Week 1 competence transformed; W2CT = Week 2 confidence transformed; W3CT = Week 3 confidence transformed; W4CT = Week 4 competence transformed. * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p<.001. t-Tests An independent samples two-tailed t-test was used in order to examine if the independent variable of choice was statistically different in terms of pre and post achievement scores. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and standard error for Group 1 (choice) and Group 2 (no choice) in terms of achievement scores. Results of the t-test for pre achievement scores indicated that the difference between the means of choice and no choice was not statistically significant t (64) = .36, p = .72. In terms of post achievement scores, the difference between the means of choice and no choice was also not statistically significant t (62) = .50, p = .62. Thus, group 1 (choice) and group 2 (no choice) were not statistically different in terms of their pre and post achievement scores. Participants who were offered a choice to be rewarded did not show statistically different achievement scores when given a reward. Therefore, having a choice versus not having a choice to be rewarded did not increase achievement. Choice of rewards and achievement scores do not have a statistically significant relationship. Furthermore, post achievement scores also were not statistically significant between choice and no choice of rewards. Post

62

achievement scores were taken after the study concluded, seven weeks from the pre achievement scores. Thus, there are no long-term effects of choice of rewards on achievement. Repeated Measures Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) The present study examined the effect of choice of a performance-contingent reward on students perceived autonomy, competence, intrinsic motivation toward seatwork, as well as, the quality of their seatwork and ultimate academic achievement. The hypothesis was that choice would have a significant effect on all five factors. It also examined the short-term and long-term effects of performance contingent rewards with choice and performance contingent rewards without choice on (a) perceived autonomy, (b) competence and (c) intrinsic motivation towards the task and learning concept, as well as, (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. The hypothesis was that a significant effect of time on the five dependent variables would be found. Repeated measures MANOVA was used to test the hypotheses, more specifically if students average scores of competence, autonomous regulation, intrinsic motivation and seatwork changed over the seven-week period and also by condition and if pre and post achievement scores were significantly different by condition. Results revealed a discernable pattern by condition (choice versus no choice) for intrinsic motivation. A statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = 5.34, p < .025, eta-squared = 0.85, observed power = 0.62, was found for the first

63

three consecutive weeks, which is considered large as per Cohens (1988) guidelines. No statistically significant main effect of time, F (2, 55) = .89, p = .42, or interaction effects by time for intrinsic motivation, F (2, 55) = .99, p = .38, were found. Because there were no significant interaction effects by time for intrinsic motivation, the significant main effect of condition was suspicious. An ANOVA was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference in Week 1 Baseline between the two groups (choice and no choice) for intrinsic motivation. Results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups during Week 1 Baseline, F (1, 62) = 3.49, p < .022. Thus, although students who were offered a choice to be rewarded did report higher levels of motivation than students who were not offered a choice during the first three consecutive weeks of the study, students in the choice group were more intrinsically motivated than the no choice group before the treatment was introduced. Therefore, the increase in intrinsic motivation over the short-term cannot be attributed to the condition. An ANCOVA (between-subjects factor: condition [choice, no choice]; covariate: Week 1 intrinsic motivation) was subsequently run to determine if the significant main effect of condition was present while controlling for the variance in Week 1 scores between groups over time. Results indicate that after adjusting for Week 1 intrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation scores for Week 2, F (1, 58) = .07, p = .792, and Week 3, F (1, 58) = 1.32, p = .255, were not significantly different by condition. Thus, the significant main effect of condition appears to be from the group differences and not the treatment. Furthermore, an increase in intrinsic motivation over the long-term (beyond the first three weeks) was not found by condition, F (1, 46) = .23, p = .633, or time, F (3, 50)

64

= 1.51, p = .22, or the interaction effects by time, F (3, 50) = .51, p = .68. In short, the short and long-term effects of offering students a choice to be rewarded on perceptions of intrinsic motivation could not be determined because the two groups were statistically different at baseline. In terms of the transformed variable of competence, no statistically significant main effect of condition (choice versus no choice), F (1, 46) = 0.002, p = .96, was found however, there was a statistically significant main effect of time for the first three consecutive weeks, F (2, 55) = 26.26, p < .001, eta-squared = .31, observed power = .20, with a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). This finding can be mainly attributed to the dip in Week 2 perceptions of the transformed variable of competence, which suggests that the values decreased between Weeks 1 and 2 and then increased between Weeks 2 and 3. Furthermore, these values were sustained beyond the first three consecutive weeks, with a statistically significant main effect of time on competence for all seven weeks, F (3, 49) = 18.15, p < .001, eta-squared = .27, observed power = .75, with an effect size that is considered small (Cohen, 1988). There were no statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (2, 55) = 1.17, p = .32, found for the first three consecutive weeks. When the transformed competence variable was analyzed at all four points in time, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .001, p = .98, or interaction effects by time, F (1, 46) = .106, p = .75, were found. When examining competence values that were not transformed, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .00, p = .98, time, F (3, 49) = 1.09, p = .36, or statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (3, 49) =

65

.80, p = .50, were found for all seven weeks. Furthermore, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .00, p = 1.0, statistically significant main effect of time, F (2, 55) = 1.07, p = .35, or statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (2, 55) = 1.00, p = .37, were found for the first three consecutive weeks. Therefore, competence values that were not transformed suggest that competence for all students did not increase over time or by condition. These values should be looked at with caution because they were skewed and contained univariate outliers. In terms of autonomy, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .29, p = .59, statistically significant main effect of time, F (3, 50) = .08, p = .97, or interaction effects by time, F (3, 50) = .24, p = .87, were found for all seven weeks. Furthermore, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .47, p = .50, significant main effect of time, F (2, 55) = .29, p = .75, or statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (2, 55) = .43, p = .65, were found for the first three consecutive weeks. Students did not report feeling more autonomous when offered a choice to be rewarded and did not report feeling more autonomy over time. Similar patterns were detected for achievement. Again, no statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .25, p = .62, statistically significant main effect of time, F (1, 62) = 2.39, p = .13, or statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (1, 62) = .03, p = .86, were found. Thus, students who were offered a choice to be rewarded did not achieve higher test scores than students who were not offered a choice. Finally, a statistically significant main effect was noted for seatwork over time, F (3, 52) = 17.60, p < .001, eta-squared = .20, observed power = .96, which is

66

considered small as per Cohen (1988). No statistically significant main effect of condition, F (1, 46) = .01, p = .92, or statistically significant interaction effects by time, F (3, 52) = .38, p = .77, were found. In general, students performed better on seatwork over time, but this was not affected by the condition of choice to be rewarded. Nevertheless, rewards did appear to affect the seatwork scores in a positive manner.

67

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of performancecontingent rewards in a real-world setting, namely the sixth grade math classroom. This study is significant in that it represents a field study on the effects of rewards in the classroom. The premise of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, the choice of a reward had on students self-reported perceptions of competence, autonomous regulation, and intrinsic motivation, as well as seatwork scores and achievement over time. The first research question concerned the effect of condition (choice versus no choice). Although it appears that having a choice to be rewarded can have some positive effects on students perceptions of intrinsic motivation, the present study could not confirm this due to statistically significant differences between the two experimental groups before the treatment was introduced. Unfortunately, the findings cannot substantiate heightened feelings of intrinsic motivation when given the opportunity to decide whether or not to pursue a reward, rather than being told that a reward will be offered. Such findings would have been in line with past research that emphasizes the critical role of choice (Cameron et al, 2005; Houlfort et al, 2002).

68

On the other hand, having a choice to be rewarded also did not affect perceptions of competence and autonomy, which are key components to the development of intrinsic motivation. This is not in line with past research (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Eisenberger, Cameron, & Pierce, 1999a; Luis & Zusho, 2009), which suggests that in order to feel intrinsically motivated, one must also perceive that they are competent and are not controlled (autonomous). In the present study, students reported feeling more competent over time, but this was not due to having a choice to be rewarded and appeared to be due to a dip in perceptions of competence after the treatment was introduced and then an increase thereafter. Thus, the increase in competence over time may have been due to this dip in scores and/or practice and comfort with a familiar educational task. In terms of autonomy, seatwork is part of the everyday math curriculum and students do not have choice to complete it. As with any other educational system, students do not have control over certain aspects of the daily routine and expectations. Thus, the factor of autonomy may not be supported well by educational systems, which does not promote or create an autonomous environment. Furthermore, Houlfort et al. (2002) found that rewards decreased perceptions of autonomy, while not undermining perceptions of competence or intrinsic motivation. This may suggest that autonomy has an ambiguous role in the development of intrinsic motivation, especially in educational systems. It should be noted that no conclusive effects of choice to be rewarded were observed in terms of seatwork and achievement scores. Given the assumption that rewards primarily affect productivity over learning outcomes, the null findings for

69

seatwork and achievement scores were not necessarily unanticipated. In addition, it was not surprising to learn that seatwork scores did increase over time and that achievement scores did go up slightly at the conclusion of the study. Because there was no control group, it is unclear if this is related to having a choice to be rewarded, being rewarded, or if it is natural growth in learning. Furthermore, the pre and post achievement measures, although similarly formatted, were different tests. Thus, the present study cannot conclusively determine if rewards can increase achievement because there was no control group to compare the rewarded students to and the tests were not the same. Such findings notwithstanding, perhaps the more central question concerns whether the effects of rewards are sustained when the reward is taken away (second research question). Recall that students in this study were given no rewards the first week; in the second week, approximately half of the students were told they had a choice to receive a reward and the remaining students were told they were going to receive a reward; and in the third and seventh week after students in both conditions had already received the reward, the reward was taken away. Overall, the findings suggest that having a choice to be rewarded did not have a cumulative effect over time. No interaction effect of condition by time for intrinsic motivation, competence, autonomy, seatwork or achievement was found. Thus, being offered a choice versus no choice did not affect perceptions of autonomy, competence or intrinsic motivation when the reward was removed. Seatwork scores did go up slightly over time, but as discussed earlier, there is no conclusive link between this increase and the condition. Changes in achievement scores between pre and post

70

measures cannot be attributed to choice of reward because they were two different tests. Taken together, the findings cannot suggest positive effects of choice on performance-contingent rewards in terms of facilitating greater feelings of intrinsic motivation, competence, and autonomous regulation, even when the reward is fairly innocuous as it was in this study. Furthermore, it is important to note that merely giving students the reward will not necessarily lead to the greatest gains; rather allowing students to decide whether or not they would like to receive the reward seems to be the more critical variable that needs to be explored. In short, if teachers would like their students to feel more interested, then providing students with the choice of getting a reward may be helpful. There is an important caveat, however; while students may be more interested, such effects may not necessarily result in enhanced productivity or quality of seatwork and achievement scores. In addition, students who are more interested may not necessarily feel good about themselves (competence) or in control (autonomy). Although the two experimental groups already showed statistical differences in intrinsic motivation before the treatment was introduced, students offered a choice to be rewarded continued to report higher levels of intrinsic motivation after the reward was given than students not offered a choice. Theoretically, these findings confirm some aspects of both GIT and CET. First, in line with GIT, the results from this study suggest that increases in intrinsic motivation can result when the task is presented in a way that conveys its importance. The math teacher made sure to link the value of completing seatwork to students understanding of math concepts and

71

practice for future examinations. Second, GIT suggests performance-contingent rewards do not automatically undermine intrinsic motivation and instead can enhance it. In the present study, intrinsic motivation was not undermined and although motivation did not increase over time or by condition over time, it also did not decrease. CET claims that rewards can make people less intrinsically motivated. The present study showed that rewards had no effect on intrinsic motivation over time and did not show lower intrinsic motivation scores. In terms of autonomy, results supported and did not support some findings by CET, while not supporting findings by GIT. As previously mentioned, GIT states that reward recipients do not perceive that they are being controlled by reward givers because they have the choice to accept the reward and the choice to engage in the desired task or behavior. In the present study, students did not feel autonomous when rewarded, which supports aspects of CET and rejects aspects of GIT. Students did not perceive that they had control, even when offered a choice to be rewarded. As mentioned previously, this may be due to the fact that in school systems, students do not have a choice as to whether or not they engage in educational tasks. In line with CET, performance-contingent rewards that serve to affirm competence may offset negative effects of control or loss of autonomy. In the present study, this was not found. Students did report feeling more competent over time but did not report feeling more autonomous. Furthermore, the findings did not demonstrate that autonomous regulation can increase when choice of rewards affirm competence and intrinsic motivation. In fact, while affirming intrinsic motivation, offering a choice of

72

rewards did not significantly increase competence or autonomy. This does not support findings by either CET or GIT. In terms of competence, GIT claims that rewards enhance competence when given for meeting/exceeding a standard that is conveyed as important. Competence comes from participants meeting criteria signifying competence and importance. CET claims that rewards make people feel pressured (loss of autonomy), which decreases their perceived competence. In the present study, competence values did increase over time, despite taking a dip during Week 2 when the reward was given. These findings support both aspects of CET and GIT. Quite possibly the reward did undermine competence, as scores went down during Week 2 when the reward was given. This supports aspects of CET. However, perceptions of competence increased during Week 3, suggesting that in the short-term, competence may not have been undermined, which supports aspects of GIT. It should be noted that lack of a control, no-reward group does not lend to a conclusive link between rewards and competence in the present study. Limitations of the Study A major limitation with this study is the lack of a control group. The population that was used came from a sixth grade class where students were placed into three separate math classes based on ability level in math. Thus, the three classes were not homogenous according to math ability. In order to control for the confounding variable of ability, each student within the three classes had to be randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (choice versus no choice). A control

73

group could not be created because of potential threats to both internal and external validity. Although increases in competence over time and intrinsic motivation when offered a choice were found, these increases could not be conclusively linked to rewards given a lack of a control group. In addition, the increases appear to stem from statistically significant differences between groups before the reward was introduced and a dip in perceptions of competence in the face of a reward and an increase when the reward was removed. Thus, the effects of rewards on competence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation could not be examined in the present experiment. Having a control group would have allowed deeper, more meaningful understanding of rewards and achievement. Finally, the measures used in the present study were self-report instruments. Students were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with a particular statement. Self-report measures can provide useful information about individual feelings and perceptions. However, these measures can also be influenced by the individuals mood, their ability to understand the question, and their honesty when answering questions, to name a few and pose a threat to internal validity. It is possible that the findings on the self-report measures in the present study were influenced by other factors. Thus, using a larger sample size may have controlled for this potential threat to internal validity. Implications for Practice and Future Directions While the results appear discouraging for proponents of rewards to some degree, a cautionary outlook would be best adopted. No definitive conclusions either

74

for or against reward use in classrooms could be made. Certainly, more targeted work exploring the effects of rewards in the classroom is certainly warranted. Nevertheless, it is highly recommend future research to also consider using realistic settings (and not laboratory-based settings) and quasi-experimental methods as such research has the greatest probability of advancing our understanding of how rewards work in the real world. In doing so, several areas come to mind. First, more targeted work needs to be conducted on the long-term effects of rewards. While this question was explored to some degree in the study (i.e. extending the study to seven weeks), it is unclear how long the effects of the reward and choice condition may last and if and when rewards may need to be re-introduced to sustain interest. Thus, longer-term studies (i.e., those that go beyond a week) are needed. Second, it would be interesting to consider what effects the re-introduction of rewards may have on interest, competence, autonomy, and achievement. It appears that intrinsic motivation in the present study did last for several weeks; however, it was not sustained for the entire study. Thus, would it be beneficial for teachers and educators, who use rewards, to re-introduce them? Would this diminish interest due to familiarity? Also, is there a time during the school year when rewards would have greater effects? Should rewards be introduced at the beginning of a school year as part of the daily routine? Third, the question of rewards and their effects on students knowledge is still ambiguous despite being explored in the present study. It would be beneficial to use a control group and research design similar to Luis and Zusho (2009), with the

75

addition of achievement measures. Past research has shown that rewards can affect achievement. Researchers found that rewarding students increased their ability on spelling tests, as well as, overall performance on targeted tasks. The question remains as to how rewards increase achievement? What type of reward and reward contingency can have these positive effects? In short, the extent of the effect of rewards on achievement is still a mystery. In terms of implications for putting reward systems into practice in real classrooms, the present study did show that teachers can create and implement reward systems based on research model. Prior research and the present study did show that choice of rewards can positively affect intrinsic motivation, which ties directly into real educational issues. Moreover, motivating students to learn and love learning is taking center-stage in education. New York City Department of Education recently admitted that student test scores decreased in 2010 and more attention was needed to increase student achievement (Walz, 2010). Giving these lower performing students more attention is well and good, but it is more important to figure out how teachers can motivate their students. School and educational psychologists may serve an important consultant role when helping teachers to tackle the issue of low achievement and intrinsic motivation. Using a structured design based on theoretical knowledge of rewards and intrinsic motivation can help teachers to implement strategies geared towards increasing motivation. Furthermore, students that are more interested and focused may in fact do better on achievement measures as some past research has shown.

76

In conclusion, more information is needed to better understand the relationship between rewards and intrinsic motivation. No substantial evidence was found in favor of or against reward use in the present study. Although students who were offered a choice to be rewarded did report higher levels of intrinsic motivation than students not offered a choice, it appears this group of students was already more motivated before the treatment was given. How the factors of competence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation interact in the face of rewards and how this interaction affects school functioning (i.e. achievement) in real classrooms remains ambiguous.

77

REFERENCES

78

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Akin-Little, A. and Little, S. G. (2009). The true effects of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. In A. Akin-Little, S. G. Little, M. A. Bray, and T. J. Kehle (Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies (pp. 73-91). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: SpringerVerlag. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Banko, K. M. (2008). Increasing intrinsic motivation using rewards: The role of social context. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 68, 7005. Benowitz, M. L., and Busse, T. V. (1970). Material incentives and the learning of spelling words in a typical school situation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 24-26. Benowitz, M. L. and Busse, T. V. (1976). Effects of material incentives on classroom learning over a four-week period. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 5762. Benowitz, M. L., and Rosenfeld, J. G. (1973). Three types of incentives and the classroom learning of middle and lower-class children. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 79-83. Boggiano, A. K., Harackiewicz, J. M., Bessette, J. M., and Main, D. S. (1985). Increasing childrens interest through performance-contingent reward. Social Cognition, 3, 400-411. Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation A limited phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71, 29-42. Cameron, J. and Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

79

Cameron, J., Pierce, W. D., Banko, K. M. and Gear, A. (2005). Achievement-based rewards and intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 641-655. Chapman, E. S. and Cope, M. T. (2004). Group reward contingencies and cooperative learning: Immediate and delayed effects on academic performance, selfesteem, and sociometric ratings. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 73-87. Cimpian, A., Arce, H. C., Markman, E. M., and Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect childrens motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314316. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd revised ed.), Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Danner, F. W. and Lonky, E. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 52, 1043-1052. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115. Deci, E. L. (1972a). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 113-120. Deci, E. L. (1972b). The effects of contingent and non-contingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217-229. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., and Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (1999a). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (1999b). The undermining effect is reality after all-extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 692-700.

80

Deci, E., and Ryan, R. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The General Causality Orientations Scale: Selfdetermination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement: In A. Boggiano and T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (pp. 9-36), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. and Koestner, R. (2001). The pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: Response to Cameron (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71, 43-51. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., and Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. Dollinger, S. J. and Thelen, M. H. (1978). Overjustification and childrens intrinsic motivation: comparative effects of four rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1259-1269. Drew, B. M., Evans, J. H., Bostow, D. E., Geiger, O. G., and Drash, P. W. (1982). Increasing assignment completion and accuracy using a daily report card procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 540-547. Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652-663. Eisenberger, R. and Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 95-117. Eisenberger, R. and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of rewards: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166. Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D. and Cameron, J. (1999a). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation- negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677-691.

81

Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L. and Cameron, J. (1999b). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026-1040. Enzle, M. E. and Ross, J. M. (1978). Increasing and decreasing intrinsic interest with contingent rewards: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 588-597. Fazio, R. H. (1981). On the self-perception explanation of the overjustification effect: The role of salience on initial attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 417-426. Gear, A. (2008). Learned industriousness and intrinsic motivation: Effects of rewards and task difficulty on students free-choice performance and interest. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 4194. Grolnick, W. S., and Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898. Guernsey, L. (2009, March 2). Rewards for students under a microscope. New York Times. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/health/03rewa.html?r=2. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, T. L. and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harackiewicz, J. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1352-1363. Harackiewicz, J. M. and Manderlink, G. (1984). A process analysis of the effects of performance: Contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 531-551. Harackiewicz, J. M. and Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here. In M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 21-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 1138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

82

Houlfort, N., Koestner, R., Joussemet, M., Nantel-Vivier, A. and Lekes, N. (2002). The impact of performance-contingent rewards on perceived autonomy and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 279-295. Israkson, D. (2008, October 2). Applied and theoretical research. Health and Wellness. Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1060272/appliedandtheoreticalresea rchpg2.html?cat=70. Koestner, R. and Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, failure, and achievement. Journal of Personality, 62, 321-346. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, As, praise and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining childrens intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 28, 129-137. Lepper, M. and Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning play into work and work into play: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone and J. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (pp. 257-307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lloyd, J. W., Eberhardt, M. J. and Drake, G. P, Jr. (1996). Group versus individual reinforcement contingencies within the context of group study conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 189-200. Loveland, K. K. and Olley, J. G. (1979). The effect of external reward on interest and quality of task performance in children of high and low intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 50, 1207-1210. Luis, M. A. and Zusho, A. (2009). Rewards in reality: Effects of performancecontingent rewards on autonomy, competence, and intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Unpublished manuscript, New York: Fordham University. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., and Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58. McCullers, J. C., Fabes, R. A, and Moran III, J. D. (1987). Does intrinsic motivation theory explain the adverse effects of rewards on immediate task performance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1027-1033.

83

McGinnis, C. J., Friman, P. C., and Carlyon, W. D. (1999). The effect of token rewards on "intrinsic" motivation for doing math. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32 ,375-379. McGraw, K. O. and Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the Zeigarnik effect: Another hidden cost of reward. Journal of Personality, 50, 58-66. New York State Mathematics Test (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/resources/testing/New+York+State+Ma thematics+Test.htm. Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first year teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 195-200. Ovsiankina, M. (1928). Die Wiederaufnahme von unterbrochener Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302-379. Pinder, C. C. (1976). Additivity versus nonadditivity of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives: Implications for work motivation, performance, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 693-700. Pittman, T. S. (1980). Informational versus controlling verbal rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 228-233. Ramamoorthy, N. (1997). The influence of individualism-collectivism (I/C) orientations on the administration of and reactions towards performance appraisal and reward systems. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 58, 0221. Ross, M. (1975). Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 245-254. Rummel, A., and Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 147-164. Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. L., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E. and Deci, E. L. (1999). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and wellbeing in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 15091524. Ryan, R. M., and Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

84

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., and Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of selfdetermination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames and R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu (pp. 1351). New York: Academic Press. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Ryan, R. M., Mims, V. and Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750. Ryan, R. M., Williams, G. C., Patrick, H. and Deci, E. L. (2009). Self-determination theory and physical activity: The dynamics of motivation in development and wellness. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 6, 107-124. Self-Determination Theory (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., and Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: Its both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475 486. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), 193-216. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97. Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L. and Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33, 384-397. Stepina, L. P. and Perrewe, P. L. (1987). The impact of inequity on task satisfaction, internal motivation, and perceptions of job characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 117-125. Swann, W. B. and Pittman, T. S. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderating influence of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 48, 1128-1132.

85

Tripathi, K. N. and Agarwal, A. (1988). Effect of reward contingency on intrinsic motivation. Journal of General Psychology, 115, 241-246. Unikel, I. P., Strain, G. S. and Adams, H. E. (1969). Learning of lower socioeconomic status children as a function of social and tangible reward. Developmental Psychology, 1, 553-555. Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 170-182. Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., and Gay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W. and Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31. Walz, M. (July 29, 2010). Klein to principals: Failing students need extra attention in fall. Gotham Schools. Retrieved August 31, 2010 from http://gothamschools.org/2010/07/29/klein-to-principals-failing-studentsneed-extra-attention-in-fall/. Weiner, M. J. and Mander, A. M. (1978). The effects of reward and perception of competency upon intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 67-73. Weiner, R. K., Sheridan, S. M., and Jenson, W. R. (1998). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and a structured homework program on math completion and accuracy in junior high students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 281-309. Williams, G. C., and Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779. Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., and Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate glucose control in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 21, 16441651. Witzel, B. S. and Mercer, C. D. (2003). Using rewards to teach students with disabilities: Implications for motivation. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 88-96.

86

ABSTRACT

87

REWARDS, INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN INTACT CLASSROOMS

Melissa A. Luis, PhD Fordham University, New York 2011 Mentor: Akane Zusho, PhD

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of performancecontingent rewards in a real-world setting, namely the sixth grade math classroom. This study is significant in that it represents a field study on the effects of rewards in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, the choice of a reward had on students self-reported perceptions of competence, autonomous regulation, and intrinsic motivation, as well as seatwork scores and achievement over time. Sixty-six students from an urban sixth grade middle school were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (choice versus no choice of a reward) and completed measures of perceptions of competence, autonomy, and motivation at one, two, three, and seven weeks. In addition, seatwork was collected each week for a total of four seatwork assignments and scored. Pre and post achievement measures were also collected. Overall, the findings were found to be largely inconclusive. Initial findings indicated that having a choice to be rewarded increased perceptions of intrinsic

88

motivation. However, further analysis found that statistically significant differences were present between the two groups before the treatment was introduced. Thus, increase in intrinsic motivation could not be attributed to having a choice to be rewarded. Results also did not support an increase in the perceptions of autonomy or competence when offered a choice. Furthermore, no statistically significant achievement differences were found by condition. In short, no substantial evidence was found in favor of or against reward use in the present study. How the factors of competence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation interact in the face of rewards and how this interaction affects academic achievement in whole classrooms remains ambiguous. Implications for both General Interest Theory and Cognitive Evaluation Theory are discussed.

89

VITA

90

VITA MELISSA A. LUIS

Date of Birth Place of Birth High School

January 23, 1978 Rochester, New York Wheatland-Chili Central School District Scottsville, New York Regents Diploma Syracuse University Syracuse, New York Conferred May 2000 Fordham University New York, New York Conferred May 2003 Fordham University New York, New York Conferred May 2011 School Psychologist New York City Department of Education New York, New York 2004- present School Psychologist Kingsley School Brooklyn, New York 2003-2004

Bachelor of Arts Psychology Master of Science School Psychology Doctor of Philosophy Educational Psychology Professional Positions