Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Elementary teachers’ use and perception of rewards in the classroom

Kristin F. Hoffmann*, Jessica D. Huff, Ashley S. Patterson, John L. Nietfeld
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the past four decades much research has gone into the use of rewards in education yet little attention
Received 2 April 2008 has been given to the use of rewards from the perspective of teachers. This mixed method study
Received in revised form examined how elementary school teachers define and use rewards in their classrooms and how various
2 December 2008
motivational constructs such as goal orientation, self-efficacy, and autonomy relate to teachers’ use of
Accepted 3 December 2008
rewards. Results revealed that all teachers in our sample use some form of rewards in their classrooms
and the majority use some form of tangible rewards. Rewards were most frequently given for behaviour
Keywords:
management, but there was a significant relationship between the use of rewards for behaviour and
Rewards
Intrinsic motivation those given for academic achievement. Performance goal orientations for teaching were positively
Achievement related to the use of tangible rewards and a higher degree of classroom control and negatively related to
Goal-orientation teacher self-efficacy. When asked to report on the appropriateness of using rewards in the classroom
Self-efficacy only one-third of the teachers reported that they should be used conditionally.
Control Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Autonomy

Despite ongoing debate regarding the effects of extrinsic rein-
forcement on intrinsic motivation (Cameron, 2001; Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan, 2001), extrinsic reinforcers, or rewards, are being offered to
students by classroom teachers to encourage academic achieve-
ment and appropriate behaviour. Entire schools now participate in
rewards programmes. One of the largest is Pizza Hut’s Book It
programme, which since 1985 has distributed more than 200
million free pizza coupons in more than 50,000 schools to students
who reach monthly reading goals (Associated Press, 2007). In
individual classrooms, teachers routinely use rewards, such as
candy, toys, free time, praise, classroom currency, and even
homework passes, to encourage academic proficiency and appro-
priate classroom behaviour.
Recent debate has erupted as a result of new ‘‘pay to study’’ pilot
programmes, such as the Learn and Earn programme, which is
currently taking place in one middle school and one high school
outside of Atlanta, Georgia. In these two schools eighth grade and
eleventh grade students struggling in science and math are being
paid $8 per hour to attend study hall four hours per week (Asso-
ciated Press, 2008; Cushman, 2008). But how will the students in
the Learn to Earn programme react when the money is no longer
offered? Do these types of rewards truly reinforce and encourage
academic achievement and good behaviour or will they have the
* Correspondence to: Kristin L. Hoffmann, North Carolina State University,
Curriculum & Instruction, 602 Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695. Fax: þ919 513 1687.
E-mail address: klhoffma@ncsu.edu (K.F. Hoffmann).
unintentional effect of eventually decreasing the very behaviour
they are supposed to encourage?
The question of how or even if rewards should be used in
educational settings has been a topic of debate in motivation and
education research for many years, yet it is ironic that this dialogue
has rarely included the voices of classroom teachers. On one end of
the spectrum is education researcher Alfie Kohn (1996), an
outspoken critic of the use of rewards of any kind, who claims the
majority of studies reveal that teachers use rewards as a way of
controlling student behaviours. This discourages rather than
encourages a student’s academic risk taking and causes students to
behave in certain ways solely for the purpose of obtaining whatever
reward is offered. However, other researchers, such as educational
psychologist Judy Cameron (2001), have found that the use of
extrinsic reinforcement has few, if any, detrimental effects. For almost
40 years, this debate has been ongoing in the educational and
motivational literature and despite multiple meta-analytic studies
examining the extent to which extrinsic reinforcement impacts
intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci et al., 2001;
Rummel & Feinberg, 1988; Tang & Hall, 1995; Wiersma, 1992), no
resolution has been forthcoming. In the following sections an over-
view of the literature related to the impact of rewards will be pre-
sented followed by the relationship of classroom rewards to
important motivational variables such as goal orientation and self-
efficacy. These sections will be followed by an overview of the current
study, which will provide a window into the ways teachers view and
use rewards in their elementary school classrooms.

0742-051X/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004
844 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849
1. Rewards and motivation
In the early 1970s, with the growth of cognitive and constructivist
teaching methods, the use of extrinsic rewards to reinforce student
behaviour came under fire from cognitive psychologists concerned
about the extent to which extrinsic rewards could potentially
decrease intrinsically motivated behaviour once the rewards were
removed. Intrinsically motivated behaviour, which is characterized by
feelings of competence and self-determination, occurs when a person
participates in an activity strictly for the enjoyment of the activity
itself (Deci, 1971, 1975), while externally, or extrinsically, motivated
behaviour occurs when reinforcement results from stimuli external to
the behaviour (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, & Little, 2004). In one of the
earliest rewards studies Deci (1971) examined the influence of
external reinforcement, specifically monetary rewards as well as
positive feedback and verbal reinforcement, on the intrinsic motiva-
tion of college-age students. Deci found that intrinsic motivation for
a task decreased over time when money was given as a reward for
a tasks that participants originally saw themselves as intrinsically
motivated to perform, whereas verbal reinforcement and positive
feedback increased intrinsic motivation for the activity (Deci, 1971,
1975). External tangible rewards, such as money, encourage the belief
that certain tasks are not worth doing unless payment occurs (Deci,
1971) and may affect an individual’s perceptions of why they are
performing a task and their attitude toward that task (Festinger,1967).
Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) also found that young
students who engaged in an intrinsically interesting activity to
obtain an expected extrinsic reward suffered decreases in intrinsic
motivation for the activity. This decrease in later intrinsic motivation
demonstrates their overjustification hypothesis in which a behav-
iour originally intrinsically interesting to an individual becomes
overjustified when an expected reward is offered, resulting in less
intrinsic interest and motivation to take part in the activity in the
future (Lepper & Greene,1978; Lepper et al.,1973). Lepper (1983) and
Lepper and Greene (1978) replicated these findings across different
populations with various types of rewards and posited that working
at an intrinsically interesting activity under reward contingency
conditions leads to diminished later intrinsic motivation for the task.
These early studies examined the impact of external rewards on
intrinsically motivated behaviour, but in today’s diverse classrooms
and schools, teachers routinely ask students to perform tasks which
may be intrinsically interesting for some students but which may
hold little intrinsic interest for others. This question of whether
external reinforcement undermines internal motivation for class-
room behaviour and academic performance is a complex and
multi-faceted issue that has incurred conflicting outcomes
throughout its research history.
In their initial meta-analysis of the topic, Cameron and Pierce
(1994) found that reinforcement does not decrease an individual’s
intrinsic motivation for a task regardless of whether or not the task
is intrinsically motivating or not. Moreover, they argued that an
individual’s attitude towards a task is not negatively affected by
rewards and their subsequent withdrawals, but that in fact certain
types of external reinforcement, such as verbal rewards or rewards
contingent upon a precise level of achievement, positively affect
motivation and attitudes towards tasks.
Cameron and Pierce’s (1994) initial meta-analysis was described
as over-simplistic (Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996), and their meth-
odology was denounced as faulty (Kohn,1996). Kohn (1996) criticized
the meta-analysis for not differentiating between informational
praise and praise that could be viewed as manipulative or controlling,
and he faulted Cameron and Pierce for failing to include studies in
which rewards were associated with poorer task performance and
decreased motivation when compared with tasks where no rewards
were given. In response to Cameron and Pierce (1994) meta-analysis
and the ensuing debate, Deci et al. (2001) conducted their own meta-
analysis, which they said confirmed the detrimental effects of
external reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. In response, Cameron,
Banko, and Pierce (2001) conducted a meta-analysis synthesizing 145
reinforcement and reward studies and found no negative effects for
certain types of external rewards, including unexpected rewards,
verbal praise, or rewards given based upon strict performance criteria.
In addition, Cameron et al. (2001) found that certain rewards actually
increased intrinsic motivation by increasing task interest.
Despite the continued disagreement in education and motiva-
tion research about the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation,
little research has addressed the use of rewards in the classroom
from a teacher perspective. This perspective is important because
a teacher’s approach to motivation, which may or may not include
the use of classroom rewards, influences student motivation (Deci
& Ryan, 1987), perceived academic competence (Deci et al., 1981),
and academic achievement (Flink, Boggiano, Main, Barrett, & Katz,
1992). Previous research has also connected student motivation
with a teacher’s instructional style (Deci et al., 1981; Eccles &
Midgley, 1989; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999).
2. Goal orientation and Rewards
One reason for concern over the use of rewards in the classroom
centers on how such a practice affects the perceived goal structure
of the class as well as students’ own goal orientations. Goal orien-
tations are individual, trait-like differences that influence motiva-
tion and classroom achievement in children (Elliot & Dweck, 1988)
and adults (Schraw, Horn, Thorndike-Christ, & Bruning, 1995).
Individuals may be motivated to achieve for different reasons, and
these reasons impact the way individuals ‘‘approach, engage in, and
respond to academic situations’’ (Ames, 1992, p. 262). These
differences also influence the degree to which individuals employ
self-regulated learning strategies (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998). In
general, goals are distinguished in terms of learning (mastery) and
performance as well as approach and avoid dimensions (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece,
2008). Learning goals are those that are concerned with learning or
developing skills based on a self-defined standard while perfor-
mance goals are those that are concerned with normative standards
and being perceived as competent (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Schunk
et al., 2008). Along the approach and avoid dimension, individuals
can either engage in activities that lead to learning or a display of
competence, or they can avoid activities that may lead to failure or
the appearance of incompetence (Schunk et al., 2008). Under-
standing goal orientations is important because of the differences in
outcomes that have been attributed to each type of orientation.
Learning approach orientations have generally been found to lead
to the most positive and adaptive motivation and achievement
outcomes (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Meece, 1994;
Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).
Although many factors may play a role in the formation of an
individual’s goal orientation, one particular influence is how
teachers structure their classrooms and the types of goals that they
emphasize for students (Ames, 1992; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks,
1995). Teachers can be perceived as placing more or less stress on
performance or learning goals, which can in turn affect students’
own goal orientations and motivation (Ames, 1992; Midgley et al.,
1995). Depending upon how teachers use rewards and what they
reward, teachers can be seen as rewarding either performance or
learning goals, which could have widespread repercussions on
motivation and achievement. In this sense, the use of rewards,
especially when used to encourage performance goals, may lead to
particularly maladaptive outcomes. In a correlational study, Wolters
et al. (1996) found that a performance goal orientation where
 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849
a student is focused on obtaining an extrinsic reward is strongly
related to maladaptive outcomes including test anxiety and lower
self-efficacy. However, other goal orientations, including a perfor-
mance orientation where a student seeks to show greater compe-
tence in social comparisons, were related to more positive outcomes
in areas such as task value and self-efficacy (Wolters et al., 1996).
3. Self-efficacy and Rewards
Self-efficacy has been defined as a multidimensional construct
varying in strength, generality, and level that is a judgment of one’s
ability to perform a task within a specific domain or as an individ-
ual’s confidence in their ability to plan and implement a course of
action to solve a problem or accomplish a task (Bandura, 1997).
In school settings, one important form of self-efficacy is teacher
efficacy, a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to affect change in
students’ learning outcomes and classroom management (Tschan-
nen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Most often, self-efficacy related to
teaching is described as encompassing both general and personal
teaching efficacy, where the former relates to the degree to
which teaching can bring about change and positive outcomes while
the latter refers specifically to confidence in one’s ability to teach well
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Similar to goal orientations, teacher
efficacy, both general and personal, can strongly influence the way
teachers work and structure their classroom environments as well as
how committed and effective they are in their teaching (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). As such, teacher
efficacy may influence how and why rewards are used in the class-
room as well as their prominence within the classroom. This link
between teaching efficacy and rewards is supported by the finding
that teachers with higher teaching efficacy tend to believe they have
a greater effect on student motivation, which may affect their use of
rewards in the classroom (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
4. Current study
In the current study a mixed method approach (Creswell &
Plano-Clark, 2006) was utilized wherein quantitative and qualita-
tive methods were used in combination to offset the weaknesses
inherent in each method. Elementary teachers at three large public
elementary schools in central North Carolina were asked to define
the term ‘‘reward’’ and to describe their use of rewards in their
classrooms. In addition, motivational variables related to teacher,
classroom, and school characteristics were assessed in relation to
the use of extrinsic rewards in the classroom.
Specifically, the following questions were examined and each
will be discussed in sequence in the results section:
1. How prevalent is the use of rewards by elementary school
teachers?
2. Do teachers use rewards differently for learning engagement
vs. behaviour management?
3. What teacher characteristics are associated with the use of
rewards in the classroom?
4. How do elementary school teachers define the term ‘‘reward?’’
5. What are teachers’ beliefs concerning the appropriateness of
using rewards?
5. Method
5.1. Participants
Eighty-six public school teachers from K-5 classrooms situated
in three central North Carolina schools participated in the study.
845
The sample included 15 kindergarten teachers, 11 1st grade
teachers, 10 2nd grade teachers, 16 3rd grade teachers, 8 4th grade
teachers, 9 5th grade teachers, and 17 teachers who teach across
multiple grade levels. Eighty-one of the teachers were female and
five were male. Teachers in the study had a mean level of teaching
experience of 10.95 years.
5.2. Instruments
5.2.1. Teachers’ use of rewards in the classroom survey
This two-page eight-item survey (see Appendix) contained
questions that required both Likert-type responses and open-
ended responses. The survey began by asking teachers to provide
their school name, grade level, and years of teaching experience. It
followed with a number of questions that asked teachers to report
their use and perceptions of rewards. This included asking them to
define the term reward, to respond in an open-ended response
about how they feel about the appropriateness of using rewards in
the classroom, and to report what types of rewards they use in their
own classrooms. This was followed by a 5-point Likert scale ques-
tion asking teachers to report the extent to which they use rewards
for behaviour management and then subsequently to report in
open-ended format the rewards they believe work best for
behaviour management in their classes. An identical set of ques-
tions then followed with the exception that they referred to the use
of rewards for learning engagement. Finally, the teachers were
asked to respond to the frequency with which they used a list of
specific rewards both on a weekly and a monthly basis.
5.2.2. Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS)
The 29-item PALS (Midgley et al., 1997) teacher survey was
administered. The PALS items are answered on a 5-point Likert
scale and include five subscales. The first subscale is related to
mastery goal structure for students, which measures teachers’
perceptions that the school emphasizes the development of
competence as the purpose of engaging in academic work (a ¼ .70).
The second subscale is related to performance goal structure for
students, which measures teachers’ perceptions that the school
emphasizes the demonstration of competence as the purpose of
engaging in academic work (a ¼ .71). The third subscale is related to
mastery approaches and measures the extent to which the teacher
believes the purpose of engaging in academic work is to develop
competence (a ¼ .54). The fourth subscale is related to performance
approaches and measures the extent to which the teacher believes
the purpose of engaging in academic work is to demonstrate
competence (a ¼ .68). The fifth subscale is related to personal
teaching efficacy, which measures the extent to which a teacher
believes that they are contributing significantly to the academic
progress of their students and can effectively teach all students
(a ¼ .66).
5.2.3. Problems in Schools Questionnaire (PISQ)
The PISQ (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981) is a 32-item
scale that presents eight short vignettes related to teachers’
orientations for autonomy versus control when interacting with
students in the classroom. Teachers responded to 7-point Likert-
type items asking how they would respond to the various student
scenarios. Vignette topics include scenarios related to social
acceptance, academic performance and behaviour issues amongst
others. For instance one dilemma read: In your class is a girl named
Margy who has been the butt of jokes for years. She is quiet and usually
alone. In spite of the efforts of previous teachers, Margy has not been
accepted by the other children. Your wisdom would guide you to: Four
items followed each vignette that measured the appropriateness of
a highly controlling response (a ¼ .66), a moderately controlling
846 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849
(a ¼ .55) response, a moderately autonomous (a ¼ .63) response, and
a highly autonomous (a ¼ .67) response. Thus, subscale scores were
computed for each of the four response types that included eight
items each.
5.3. Procedure
Teachers at each of the three participating schools were told that
the purpose of the study was to explore how elementary teachers
perceive and use rewards in their classrooms and were advised that
the study involved completing a series of surveys that would take
approximately 20 min. Surveys were distributed to the teachers
during all-school faculty meetings. During those meetings, teachers
were told that they had one week to return the surveys if they
chose to participate in the study and were informed that all
responses would remain confidential. They were also reminded
that participation in the study was voluntary. Survey materials
were enclosed in manila envelopes with a random ID number
printed on the outside of each to identify the school from which the
survey was received. Each teacher received a survey packet and was
asked to return the completed packet to the organizing teacher
within one week. Eighty-six teachers across the three schools
returned completed surveys for a response rate of 69%.
6. Results
6.1. How prevalent is the use of rewards by elementary
school teachers?
All teachers (N ¼ 86) in the sample indicated that they used
rewards in their classrooms. Thus, we follow this finding by
reporting what kinds of rewards teachers report using on a weekly
and monthly basis. For the purpose of reporting results we present
the data in a dichotomous fashion, being either present or absent
on a weekly or monthly basis, given that a number of the teachers
used checks rather than numbers to report their use. Fig. 1
summarizes the percent of teachers using specific types of rewards
on a weekly basis. All teachers reported using some form of verbal
or written praise each week. Also, a predominance of teachers
reported using some form of verbal or written praise to parents
(76.1%) and tangible rewards (79.1%) each week. Approximately
half of the teachers reported using class privileges (49.3%) and extra
Class Privileges
Homework Pass
Type of Reward
Extra Credit
Extra Time
Student Praise to Parents
(Verbal or Written)
Student Praise (Verbal or
Written)
Tangible Rewards
0 10
Fig. 1. Elementary teachers weekly use of rewards.
time for activities (53.7%). Less frequently reported were the use of
extra credit (17.9%) and homework passes (11.9%). Fig. 2 summa-
rizes the percent of teachers using specific types of rewards on
a monthly basis. Three reward categories received response rates of
more than 90%, including giving some form of verbal or written
praise to the student (95.5%), giving some form of verbal or written
praise about the student to the parents or guardians (92.3%), and
giving tangible rewards (90.9%). Free time was the next most
frequently reported reward (79.1%) followed by class privileges
(53.0%). Homework passes (28.8%) and extra credit (23.9%) were
the least reported monthly rewards.
6.2. Do teachers use rewards differently for learning engagement
vs. behaviour management?
We found a moderate positive correlation between teachers
who use rewards for learning engagement and those who use
rewards for behaviour management (r ¼ .44; p < .01). Table 1 shows
frequency counts for the types of rewards teachers reported
working best for learning engagement (Column 1) and behaviour
management (Column 2). Praise included verbal, written, and/or
symbolic (i.e., thumbs up) encouragement and/or acknowledge-
ment. Prizes included rewards such as allowing students to choose
items from a goody box, giving stickers/stamps, and giving home-
work passes. Special privileges included activities such as acting as
the teacher’s helper, having lunch with the teacher, helping with
special jobs, having pajama day, and having a class party. Activity
choice/free time included privileges such as extra recess, game
time, and a variety of student-generated choices. Token economy
systems involved the students earning points/tickets/tokens over
a period of time and subsequently using them to ‘‘buy’’ prizes. Food
rewards included items such as candy, cookies, and healthy snacks.
Teachers reported praise as the reward that worked best for
learning engagement. Prizes, followed closely by praise, were the
most common reward teachers reported as working best for
behaviour management.
6.3. What teacher characteristics are associated with the use of
rewards in the classroom?
Using the PALS, we examined the extent to which a performance
approach to teaching was associated with teachers’ use of rewards.
49.3
11.9
17.9
53.7
76.1
100
79.1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Using on a Weekly Basis
 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849 847

53
Class Privileges

Homework Pass 28.8

23.9
Type of Reward
Extra Credit

79.1
Extra Time

Student Praise to Parents 92.3

(Verbal or Written)

Student Praise (Verbal or 95.5

Written)

90.9
Tangible Rewards

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Using on a Monthly Basis

Fig. 2. Elementary teachers monthly use of rewards.

Analyses showed that a performance approach to classroom
teaching was positively correlated with a teacher’s use of tangible
rewards (r ¼ .36, p < .01). In addition, a performance approach to
teaching was associated with teacher perceptions of a performance
goal structure at the school level (r ¼ .41, p < .01). Performance
approach to teaching was also associated with high ratings of
teacher classroom control (r ¼ .34, p < .01) as measured by the PISQ.
Additionally, self-efficacy was negatively correlated with perfor-
mance orientation (r ¼ .23, p < .05) at the classroom level.
Teacher self-efficacy as measured by the PALS was positively
correlated with the teachers’ use of rewards for learning engage-
ment (r ¼ .27, p < .05) and was also associated with a mastery
approach to instruction and with perception of a school-level
mastery goal structure. The association between self-efficacy and
mastery orientation was (r ¼ .35, p < .01) at the classroom level and
(r ¼ .31, p < .01) at the school level.
6.4. How do elementary school teachers define the term ‘‘reward?’’
Frequency counts for each of the major themes developed from
teacher definitions for the term reward are presented in Table 2.
Preliminary coding of the data involving teachers’ definitions of the
term ‘‘reward’’ resulted in eighteen codes. The code list was applied
to the teachers’ definitions by two independent raters. Interrater
reliability, calculated by dividing the number of agreed upon coding
instances by the total number of coding opportunities, was 88%.
Situations in which the coders disagreed initially were discussed
and agreement was achieved in all cases. Themes were extrapo-
lated from the data by grouping together codes that fit well with
one another.
The most common theme found among the definitions was that
a reward is something given to students for doing something good.
Many teachers also defined the term reward as something students
earn or receive for doing something positive. Some teachers
referred to a reward as reinforcement for good behaviour, while
others explained that a reward is something that motivates
students to behave. In addition to grouping the definitions into
themes based on the identified codes, we also sorted them into
three broad categories based on the justification given within the
definition: 24 teachers indicated in their definitions that rewards
were given/received, used to reinforce, earned, used as recognition,
or given as a type of motivation for behaviour, eight indicated that
rewards were given for both achievement and behaviour, and one
teacher reported that rewards were given strictly for achievement.
6.5. Do elementary school teachers believe that rewards are
appropriate in the classroom?
Initial codes were developed for the section of the survey that
asked teachers if they believed elementary school teachers should
use rewards. The codes were applied to the responses by two
independent raters. Interrater reliability was 95%. In instances of
disagreement, discussion ensued until 100% agreement was ach-
ieved. The nine initial codes were then grouped into four themes.
Table 3 presents a summary of the frequency of the themes and
initial codes. The majority of teachers who responded said they
believe elementary school teachers should use rewards. Many of
these teachers explained that they believe rewards help motivate
students to exhibit good behaviour, and some mentioned that

Table 2
Table 1 Frequencies of themes in teachers’ definitions of reward.
Types of rewards used for learning engagement and behaviour management.
Theme (applicable codes) Frequency
Type of reward Learning engagement Behaviour management Given/received (given, received) 34
Praise 32 34 Reinforcement (reinforcement, causes behaviour to occur again, 22
Prizes 23 36 reinforcement for behaviour or achievement, incentive)
Special privileges 8 10 Earned (earned, compensation) 18
Activity choice/free time 10 13 Recognition (recognition, special treatment, special award, show 15
Token economy system 9 19 appreciation, above normal praise)
Food 5 9 Motivation (motivation) 6
Grades 3 0 Other (positive outcome, feedback, consequence) 4
848 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849
Table 3
Frequencies of themes in teachers’ beliefs about reward use.
Theme (applicable codes)
Yes (yes)
Yes-conditional (yes and no, yes but with limits, depends, yes with
regret, yes but less tangible, yes in some cases)
Undecided (undecided)
No (no)
rewards help motivate kids to do their best work. Several teachers
expressed the belief that rewards were appropriate as long as they
were used on a limited basis. A few teachers indicated that the use
of rewards depends on the individual student and the teacher’s
management style. Two teachers were undecided about the use of
rewards, and one teacher indicated that rewards should not be used
in the classroom even though all teachers in this study reported
using rewards in their classrooms.
7. Discussion
The study adds a unique and pragmatic perspective regarding
the use of rewards in the classroom by investigating how teachers
perceive and use rewards in schools. In a climate that places great
emphasis on achievement and meeting high standards in education
for both teachers and students, it is important to understand the
ways in which teachers may go about increasing their students’
motivation to achieve. Using rewards is one approach that has been
used to improve motivation in the classroom, and as this study
indicates, it is a widespread practice. Although the effect of rewards
has been the subject of many investigations, there has been no
resolution to the debate about the overall effectiveness of rewards.
However, by not investigating the practices and perceptions of
teachers, studies conducted to date have largely ignored an
important part of the overall rewards and motivation equation.
Insight here may translate to a better understanding of how,
whether, and under what conditions rewards can play a positive
role in actual classroom practice. It should be noted that the data
collected in this study was limited to self-report instruments, and
a more complete picture of how teachers use rewards in the
classroom may be obtained by including observations and inter-
views. Also, this study employed a volunteer sample of teachers
who may hold stronger beliefs about the use of rewards in the
classroom than those who did not elect to participate although the
majority of teachers surveyed at each of the three schools did elect
to participate.
All of the teachers in this study reported using rewards in their
classrooms. Moreover, 79% of the teachers responded that they
gave tangible rewards on a weekly basis and 91% gave tangible
rewards on a monthly basis. These overwhelming findings are in
direct contrast to those who advocate against using rewards of any
sort in the classroom (Kohn, 1993, 2003). One troubling finding
related to the purported use of rewards is the fact that 29% of the
teachers reported giving homework passes on a monthly basis and
that there was a significant positive correlation between teaching
self-efficacy and the giving of monthly homework passes (r ¼ .49,
p < .05). If homework is not a necessary step in the skill acquisition
process then it should not be required in the first place. When the
option to ‘‘reward’’ out of homework is present students may begin
to view homework as unnecessary and it will then function as
a punishment.
Taken as a whole our data suggest that elementary teachers use
rewards most frequently for behaviour management. However,
there was a high rate of reported reward use for achievement
purposes also. In fact, a moderate positive correlation revealed that
teachers who tend to use rewards for behavioural purposes also
tend to use rewards for achievement purposes. Tangible rewards,
such as token economies and prizes, stood out as more frequently
Frequency used to encourage good behaviour than for achievement.
53 Definitions and application of rewards by teachers revealed
28 some interesting differences. The most frequently reported theme
in the definition of the term ‘‘reward’’ was the giving and receiving
2
of something, whereas the second most reported theme was
1
a reinforcement-related description of rewards. While the differ-
ence in these two themes may appear trivial they may in fact play
a significant role in how effectively rewards are implemented. The
first theme reflects a single-time point notion of rewards while the
second theme indicates the broader notion of how reinforcement
may affect future behaviour. For teachers to be able to use rewards
effectively they need to have an understanding that the conse-
quences of behaviour are not static but rather effects that will
subsequently increase or decrease the frequency of behaviour
(Maag, 1999).
Another finding that may have important implications that
emerged from the open-ended responses was that only one-third of
the teachers replied that rewards should be used conditionally,
meaning that limits and context play a role in their use. While it is
clear from the ongoing debate that we do not know everything there
is to know about rewards, there are some clear guidelines from
previous research that have been gained. For instance, rewards given
for simply participating in an activity do not provide appropriate
feedback, nor do they improve important motivational outcomes
like self-efficacy or intrinsic motivation (Schunk, 1983; Schunk et al.,
2008). In sum, given the overwhelming tendency for teachers in this
study to report using rewards it is not surprising that they believed
in the appropriateness of their use in a classroom context; however,
it is somewhat troubling that such a small percentage of teachers
reported the need for contextual considerations.
With regard to the motivational constructs that were included
in the study an interesting finding emerged that showed a positive
relationship between a performance approach to teaching and the
use of tangible rewards and degree of control. A performance
approach to teaching and teacher self-efficacy were negatively
related. Higher teaching efficacy was positively related to using
rewards for learning achievement and engagement purposes. Self-
efficacy also showed a positive relationship with a mastery orien-
tation toward teaching. Although these findings are new with
regard to the literature it would support previous findings about
the relationship between performance and mastery goals with
regard to other motivational constructs (Ames, 1992; Midgley et al.,
1995), including the finding that a performance goal orientation
where a student is focused on obtaining an extrinsic reward is
strongly related to maladaptive academic outcomes, including test
anxiety (Wolters et al., 1996).
7.1. Future research
There is a critical need for more studies to explore teacher
perceptions of reward use in schools and the potential effects of
rewards on intrinsic motivation to learn. Future researchers may
want to investigate what influences teachers’ perceptions of reward
use and how those influences affect the extent to which teachers
use rewards and how they use rewards in the classroom. In addi-
tion, the scope of rewards research should be expanded to include
middle and high school classroom. Schools with varying demo-
graphic populations should also be compared.
Appendix. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004.
 K.F. Hoffmann et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 843–849 849

References orientations. In A. K. Boggiano, & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and moti-

vation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 189–214). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high achieving
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
students: relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender.
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94–101.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s,
Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & Little, S. G. (2004). Extrinsic rein-
praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
forcement in the classroom: bribery or best practice. School Psychology Review,
Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce’s defence of extrinsic
33(3), 344–362.
motivators. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 1–4.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In
Kohn, A. (2003). Almost there, but not quite. Educational Leadership, 60(6),
D. H. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–
26–29.
348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lepper, M. R. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: implications for the
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning
classroom. In J. M. Levine, & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions:
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3),
Implications for learning (pp. 281–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
260–267.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). Overjustification research and beyond: toward
Associated Press. (2007, March 2). Pizza programme rewards readers the wrong way:
a means- ends analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. R. Lepper, &
Pizza hut certificates denounced for promoting child obesity. http://www.msnbc.
D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology
msn.com/id/17422250/ Retrieved 04.09.07.
of human motivation (pp. 109–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Associated Press. (2008, January, 24). Georgia students learn to earn. Teacher Magazine.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic
http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2008/01/24/07aplearntoearn_web.
interest with extrinsic rewards: a test of the ‘‘overjustification’’ hypothesis.
h19.html Retrieved 12.03.08.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Lepper, M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation – A limited
rewards: a commentary on Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analysis. Review of
phenomenon: comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educa-
Educational Research, 66, 5–32.
tional Research, 71, 29–42.
Maag, J. W. (1999). Behaviour management: From theoretical implications to practical
Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards
applications. San Diego: Singular Press.
on intrinsic motivation: the myth continues. The Behaviour Analyst, 24, 1–44.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk,
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation:
& B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
educational applications (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
middle school teachers and students: a goal theory approach. Journal of Early
Cushman, J. (2008, May 4). Does ‘learn and earn’ make the grade? Atlanta Journal
Adolescence, 15, 90–133.
Constitution. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/05/04/
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., et al. (1997).
earn.html Retrieved 04.09.08.
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: how they teach
in education: reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.
and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537–548.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
Rummel, A., & Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: a meta-analytic
behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
review of the literature. Social Behaviour and Personality, 16, 147–164.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to
Schraw, G., Horn, C., Thorndike-Christ, T., & Bruning, R. (1995). Academic goal
assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children:
orientations and student classroom achievement. Contemporary Educational
reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of
Psychology, 20, 359–368.
Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Reward contingencies and the development of children’s skills
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: developmentally appro-
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 511–518.
priate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions, Vol. 3 (pp. 139–186). New York:
research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Academic Press.
Tang, S. H., & Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: a meta-analysis. Applied
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Cognitive Psychology, 9, 365–404.
Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning
Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achieve-
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: a meta-
Festinger, L. (March, 1967). The effect of compensation on cognitive processes. Paper
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 101–114.
presented at McKinsey Foundation Conference on Managerial Compensation.
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation
Tarrytown, NY.
and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., Barrett, M., & Katz, P. A. (1992). Children’s
Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.
achievement-related behaviours: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational