Motivation in Education

Defining Motivation

The first question to be addressed is whether there is any link between motivation and learning. In order to answer this question, a definition of learning and motivation must be identified. In simple terms, learning is defined as “a relatively permanent change in behavior due to experience,” and as, “a relatively permanent change in mental associations due to experience” ( Ormrod, 1995 ). In both of these definitions the important term is “permanent change.” This simply means that as a teacher I know that learning has occurred when a permanent change in a student's attitudes, thoughts or behaviors has occurred. This change can be measurable, such as on an evaluation, or it can be observed by the student’s behavior. Furthermore, learning can be defined as “a potential for behavior - as habits ( or knowledge ) available for execution” (Logan, 1976 ) . This simply implies that learning can take place that may not be measurable or observable at the time of instruction. How many times have we learned something that was not used or tested at the time we learned it, but at some point in our lives it became useful to our comprehending a new challenge or situation. Human beings are dynamic in their ability to recall information that has relevancy to a new experience. We equally can take prior knowledge from learning situations and apply them to new problems. The question that remains is how are we motivated to take this prior knowledge and apply it to new situations? What motivates an individual to act in a certain way in a new learning environment? Given that with every day of life individuals are presented with learning opportunities, what does motivation have to do with what is learned and available for recall? Also, how are motivation and learning connected?

To answer these questions, a definition of motivation must be identified. A simplistic definition would suggest that motivation is to be viewed as the internal drive that energizes or moves the individual to act in a certain manner. Upon closer examination, however, defining motivation involves an analysis of the more complex characteristics of human behavior. Motivation in essence is not a quality of human beings that can easily be measured. Equally, motivation for doing any particular task can change from moment to moment. In order to arrive at a true understanding of motivation, I will examine how the term has come to be viewed among various researchers.

Behaviorism and Motivation

Motivation for the most part of the 1900s was seen as internal drives within the individual. These drives have been described as drive motivation and incentive motivation. Drive motivation has been defined as the psychological energy that drives individuals to satisfy biological needs. Drive motivation has been further subdivided and defined as primary and secondary motivation. Primary motivation refers to the drive to satisfy hunger, thirst, sex, or avoidance of physical pain. Secondary motivation refers to the innate drives to reduce anxiety, frustration, and fear ( Logan, 1976 ) . Secondary motivation is not seen as being less important than primary motivation. The difference is that secondary motivation is a learned response caused by the environment. For example, when a child is misbehaving, a parent will tell the child he or she is to get control of himself or herself or else a punishment will be incurred. The child is then motivated to stop misbehaving in order to avoid the punishment.

Incentive motivation can be defined as the “anticipation of rewarding stimuli” that causes an individual to behave in a certain manner ( Beck, 1990 ) . Incentive motivation can be viewed as the basis for behavior modification. The chief proponent of this theory is Burrhus Skinner. The two fundamental points of this theory state: “A response that is followed by a reinforcing stimulus is strengthened and therefore more likely to occur again,” and, “A response that is not followed by a reinforcing stimulus is weakened and therefore less likely to occur again” ( Ormrod, 1995 ) . From the research that Skinner and others have undertaken, research that primarily deals with rats and animals, behaviorists have deducted that behavior is controlled via the use of rewards and punishments. The basic theme of this theory is “Do this and you’ll get that” (Kohn, 1993 ) . As simple as this view may seem, this perspective has come too dominant in not only the classroom, but also in every aspect of our lives.

Both drive motivation and incentive motivation view the basis for motivation as some stimuli in the environment or a physical need. Human beings are viewed as organisms that either are driven to satisfy some physiological need or are conditioned to react to the environment in a certain way due to past experiences. In this perspective, motivation is seen as the mechanical drive that causes performance. Learning can occur with or without motivation present. Logan states this perspective this way, “...reward affects performance, not as a learning variable, but as a motivational variable; that reward provides incentive motivating the performance of habits”( 1976 ) . In educational settings, performance can be increased by the use of rewards and other incentives. Learning is thus indirectly affected by motivation.

This perspective was further refined by Abraham Maslow. Rather than looking at motivation as being derived from the drive to settle physiological needs, Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs. This hierarchy consists of physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self-actualization. Maslow proposed that basic human needs are organized into a “hierarchy of relative prepotency” ( Maslow, 1970 ) . By this he simply means that as lower needs are meet, higher needs emerge and drive the individual to meet these needs. For example, when an individual has all of his or her physiological needs met, he or she will then be driven to satisfy safety needs. When safety needs are met, the individual will be driven to satisfy esteem needs, and so forth through the five divisions of the hierarchy. Motivation is the drive to satisfy these varying needs as they arise. Learning can be seen as habit development in the attempt to satisfy these needs. Whenever a new habit is formed, it can be deduced that the individual has learned a new way to satisfy the need that is facing him or her. Maslow also described the motivation to satisfy these needs as being intrinsic in nature.

Given that the behavioral perspective has influenced educational techniques for many years, it might be viewed as irresponsible for me to suggest that behaviorism has had a negative impact on student learning and motivation. On the surface, it appears that many students strive for the rewards they are offered and behavioral modification has been proven to be effective by numerous studies. Equally, I could not argue that when basic physiological needs of students are not being met, such as the room being too hot or too cold, students' attention and motivation are directed toward relieving these needs. If there is anything politicians and administrators can do to promote academic achievement, it would be to provide humane environments in which these basic needs are met and do not become distractions to the learning process. However, behaviorism does not take into account the dynamic nature of the human spirit. Students often strive for higher needs when basic needs are not being met. Furthermore, behaviorism focuses primarily on extrinsic rewards. Yet within every school setting, there exists a number of students who seem driven or motivated by some internal factor that is unrelated to the extrinsic rewards that are offered. To understand this discrepancy, I will now turn to what has been defined as cognitive theory of motivation.

Cognitivism and Motivation

Cognitivism is a perspective that accounts for many of the unanswered questions I face in the quest to understand motivation. This perspective is also known as an affective approach to teaching. The basic theory of cognitivism is “that individuals give meaning to their experiences. While environmental influences are not discounted..., the environment is seen as being acted upon rather than causing human behavior” ( Grippin & Peters, 1984 ) . In this perspective, students have control over what they will attend to and what stimuli in the environment receive the most attention. Given the fact that individuals are bombarded at any given moment with thousands of different stimuli, the fact that we attend to or choose a specific stimulus suggests a degree of autonomy within the individual. If this is the case, then the simple introduction of rewards or punishment may not be effective or even produce the desired result.

Research to support this perspective has continued to be produced over the last twenty years. Equally important about most of this research, it has primarily involved the use of human beings, not rats and animals. Critical to an understanding of this perspective is the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to the rewards that an individual receives for performing some task. Intrinsic motivation, in a most simplistic understanding, refers to being motivated to complete some activity that carries no reward other than doing the activity itself. A more formal definition of intrinsic motivation is offered by Edward Deci ( 1975 ) who is one of the most prominent researchers of intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsically motivated behaviors are behaviors which a person engages in to feel competent and self-determining....Intrinsically motivated behaviors will be of two general kinds. When there is no stimulation people will seek it. A person who gets no stimulation will not feel competent and self-determining: he will probably feel “blah.” So he seeks out the opportunity to behave in ways which allow him to feel competent and self-determining. He will seek out challenge. The other general kind of intrinsically motivated behavior involves conquering challenges or reducing incongruity ( or reduce dissonance, etc. ) and only when a person is able to conquer the challenges which he encounters or creates will he feel competent and self-determining ( 61 ).

This definition suggests that the cognitive perspective places more emphasis on the individual and the control that the individual demonstrates over self and the environment. If this type of control is positive and enhances motivation and learning in the classroom, then clearly the desire to enhance intrinsic motivation in students is a priority for the teacher. The question that remains is how can intrinsic motivation be encouraged and what factors will reduce this type of motivation? If intrinsically motivated students are the type who tend to achieve academically and become life- long learners, then what kind of classroom environment will enhance the possibility of intrinsic learning behaviors?

To answer these types of questions, researchers have focused on which conditions enhance intrinsic motivation and which conditions reduce it. Research has concentrated on how extrinsic rewards affect the intrinsic value of performing a task. These studies suggest that when extrinsic rewards are used in connection with performance, the intrinsic value of performing that activity is diminished. In situations where autonomy and freedom of expression are provided, individuals tend to display a higher degree of intrinsic motivation, as well as a higher level of self-esteem and competence ( Deci & Ryan, 1992 ) . The reason for this effect is theorized to be due to the nature in which the individual perceives the activity. If the individual believes they are being pressured to perform in a certain way, either by the promise of rewards or by the presence of some evaluative standard, the environment is perceived to be controlling. The individual is thereby less likely to take risks and becomes distracted by the reward or evaluation. If, however, the individual perceives the environment as supportive and offering a degree of autonomy, performance is more likely to be intrinsically motivated. The individual perceives himself as having some control and choice over the activity or learning process. In addition, in choosing how to perform an activity, the individual is more likely to show initiative that produces feelings of self-determination and competency. These feelings in turn enhance the intrinsic value of the activity ( Deci & Ryan, 1992 ) .
The importance of this research for classroom instruction is clear. Teachers who continue to view their position as one of controlling the growth of knowledge and skills in their students may be using techniques and approaches that diminish the value of the learning objective. The reason for a student performing an activity comes to be based on some external purpose rather than having true relevance or enjoyment for the student. The student thus resorts to fulfilling some objective standard set by the teacher and becomes more dependent on extrinsic motivations. This in turn, reduces the intrinsic motivation of the student and the intrinsic value of the activity. This phenomenon is defined as the overjustification effect by Lepper and Green ( 1978 ) . While some studies have shown that this effect is not universal in application ( e. g. , highly motivated students do not tend to have their intrinsic motivation diminished by extrinsic rewards ) , the fact remains that studies have shown that the motivational orientation of students is affected by the use of extrinsic motivational techniques. Furthermore, research has shown that students who are motivated by extrinsic rewards become characterized by a preference for easy and predictable tasks. The desire to take risks and test different internal solutions to problems are supplanted with the desire to achieve good grades or to satisfy some extrinsic motivational technique.

Other researchers, noting that as students progress through grades they tend to develop a more extrinsic motivational orientation, have tried to focus on the effects of extrinsic motivational techniques in the classroom. These studies have provided several important insights ( Harter, 1992 ) . First was a finding that the focus on the evaluation of an individual’s competence influenced the way the student perceived his competence. This, in turn, affected the students’ motivational orientation. This focus on the assessment of an individual’s ability and performance, rather than on the learning objective, tended to diminish the student’s interest and motivation. A second finding was that as students progress through the educational process, the focus on higher grades and rewards for the products of their endeavors caused intrinsic motivation to decrease. Being rewarded for simply being interested in a subject or having an interest to learn does not occur in most educational settings. The emphasis is on the reward of having achieved some standard set by the teacher. This emphasis, by its nature, devalues the process of learning and focuses on the goal ( Kohn, 1993 ) .

One final finding, that is relevant from this research, indicated that feelings of competence directly influenced the type of motivation orientation that was displayed by students. Before detailing the results of this research, I must define a third type of motivation that was measured in this study called internalized motivation. Internalized motivation referred to those behaviors and attitudes that have moved from being produced by extrinsic motivational techniques and have become internalized. These behaviors and attitudes are those that the individual has come to accept as important from the socializing context. Other researchers have further elaborated on internalized motivation by describing it as self-regulation in the individual. An individual exhibiting this motivation is viewed as lying along a continuum. At one end is external regulation in which an individual performs a task to receive reward or avoid punishment. A higher degree of internalization is called introjected regulation in which individuals see their behavior linked to the approval of others. A higher degree is described as identification in which the individual performs a behavior due to his or her own choice or value. The highest form of internalization is defined as integration in which the individual incorporates a behavior into his or her system of value (Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick, 1992 ) .

Using a test instrument designed to measure the three types of motivation ( e.g., extrinsic, internalized, and intrinsic ) , Harper ( 1992 ) measured middle school students' attitudes toward learning. The results of this study indicated there were four distinctive patterns of motivational combinations. Type A student was one who scored high on intrinsic motivation and internalized motivation, but scored low on extrinsic motivation. Type B student scored high on all three motivational factors. Type C student scored low on intrinsic motivation and internalized motivation, but scored high on extrinsic motivation. Type D student scored low on all three motivational factors. Further analysis of the results revealed that students in the Type A profile were significantly higher in feelings of competency. Accordingly, those students in the Type D profile expressed the least amount of self-competence and had low expectations of performance and ability. Those students in Types B and C showed a similar incremental difference in feelings of competency. The significance of this study to this analysis is that it reveals four distinctive motivational orientations that the teacher may encounter. It also demonstrates that motivational orientations are related to the student’s feelings of competency and ability.

In summary, many of the findings of the cognitive perspective tend to suggest that the traditional orientation of teaching students needs to be scrutinized. If the behaviorist perspective to motivation and learning is correct, my task as a teacher is made much easier in that I can control the learning process by the use of external reinforcements, such as good grades, praise, and other positive stimuli. However, this appears to be a simplistic understanding of human nature. The appealing aspect of the cognitive perspective is it tends to define the nature of human motivation in terms that seem more believable to what I have observed in life. Since studies have shown that the perspective I take as a teacher can impact the learning process in as little as six weeks, it is imperative that I choose a teaching style and philosophy that will enhance and encourage learning in social studies. Given this choice, I will now turn to how application of learning and motivational theory can be used in the construction of a learning environment in which learning and intrinsic motivation can be enhanced.

An Application of Theory to Social Studies Instruction

I began this paper with the question of how I could enhance the motivation and interests of students to become interested to learn social studies. In order to answer this question, I have had to first admit that I cannot motivate any student. Assuming a cognitive perspective, I am not in control of the interests and motivations of my students, nor would I want to claim that responsibility. I do not want my students to be interested in social studies simply because it fascinates me or because I have some reward to give them. Preferably, I would rather have students who find the subject matter challenging and interesting. Students who take responsibility for their learning. Students who want to come to class and who want to contribute to the learning process. While this is the ideal, and some would say a utopian ideal, I realize that there will be some students who will never be interested in social studies or school. This is to be accepted. However, since I view students as being in control of their motivations and interests, or at least desiring to be in control of the things they will or will not attend to, I realize there are techniques and attitudes that I have control over that can create a learning environment in which students are more likely to be motivated and interested in what is going on around them. Key to creating this environment is to acknowledge the reality of two very basic facts.

The first reality is that there will be immense pressure from outside the classroom for me to perform to a set of academic standards. This particular pressure can only be seen as intensifying as politicians, administrators and parents try to push forward school reform. School reformists, in their quest to reach higher standards of achievement, appear to be calling for more discipline, stricter evaluations of teachers, and more accountability on the part of teachers. While there may appear to be nothing negative about these ideals in themselves, I know that this outside pressure or control can have an impact on my teaching perspective. Studies have demonstrated that this type of pressure can force teachers to adopt a more controlling perspective in teaching and to stress rote memorization of knowledge over more desirable learning objectives ( Flink, Boggiano, Main, Barrett, & Katz, 1992; Sturtevant, 1994 ) . I feel that many school reformists have no interest in whether children are motivated or are becoming life-long learners, rather they just want to get achievement scores higher, however it is done. There is also the abiding belief that education is just the means to the end and that it is the end that is important. School, therefore, is the burden a person must endure before they can be accepted into society. Personally, I believe these attitudes are the result of the dominant behaviorial perspective that has existed for so may years, rather than a true picture of the way education could be perceived. Equally, since most of the people who are involved in school reform have at one time attended many of the systems they are attempting to reform, these reformists feel that it is not the process that is wrong, but the problem of incompetent teachers or administrators or the lack of money. If they have survived and become contributing members of society, the problem must be one of personnel or money. Nonetheless, I will be forced to face these attitudes and pressures in any environment of learning I attempt to create. This means I will have to insulate the classroom environment from these pressures and attitudes.

The second key to creating an enhanced learning environment is to respect and acknowledge where each student’s motivational orientation exists. This means acknowledging the various learning styles, motivational levels, and interests that each student brings into the classroom. Sure it would be nice to stand in front of the classroom and try to mold each student into what I want them to be and what to learn, but I believe this in itself is an impossible task and one that will only lead to frustration and burnout. It is also an acknowledgement that I will not be able to help a few students, no matter how much I might desire, during my tenure as a teacher. On a positive side, however, I believe this acknowledgement will allow me to see each student as an individual and use their uniquness and interests as ways of building a teacher-student relationship. Returning to the four motivational orientations dicussed earlier, my perspective is to accept the reality of seeing these types of motivational levels and to attempt to use these orientations as keys to teaching strategies rather than trying to create the perfect motivational orientation. No doubt there is more risk involved in doing this, but I believe that in this type of environment the student’s natural desire to feel competent and to take on new risks or challenges will be enhanced. My perspective is seen more as walking alongside the student rather than trying to pull and bribe them to my position. In every human relationship, some common ground of co-existence can usually be found. If this were not the case, human beings would have obliterated themselves from the face of the earth thousands of years ago.

Given these two key realities, I am now prepared to express my thoughts on developing an enhanced learning environment. First and most important, I do not view this learning environment to be one based on the best technology and the best physical surroundings. In fact, I believe the environment can be created anywhere in which a learning process is occurring. This is not to suggest that technology has no place. I will always value technology as a means of providing more strategies and tools for learning. However, for meaningful learning to occur, the best technology is not a prerequisite. The most important factor I can think of to enhance learning and motivation is to provide an environment in which challenges and risks can be undertaken and self-worth is not threatened. This by definition places the emphasis on the learning process and not the individual. Learning is seen as a process of failure and success. The goal is not to penalize for stupid or wrong solutions, but to arrive at the best solution.

In social studies, this type of environment can easily be facilitated due to the nature of the content. In history, the question is not who discovered America, but why did Columbus discover the New World. In geography, the question is not which two oceans are on each side of America, but how did these oceans contribute to the unique American experience and its rise to power. Answers to these types of questions cannot be gained from simple memorization of facts. They involve decision-making based on the facts. They involve the analysis of facts and the ascribing of some value to these facts. These types of questions require the student to consciously interact with the facts and draw conclusions based on prior knowledge and one's value system. On an emotional level, these types of questions require individuals to experience the significance of the subject and respond from a level of commitment. When errors in judgment do occur, the process should be seen as a part of problem-solving and not a reflection of personal shortcomings ( Casey & Tucker, 1994 ) . I might add, this environment is not one in which I will try to enhance student self-esteem as a goal. The self-esteem movement in education seems to be an extreme application of cognitive theory as others have noted ( Kohn, 1994 ) . The goal is to put emphasis on the learning process and enhancing academic competency, not the individual and how he or she feels about themselves.

Fortunately for myself, there are many different strategies that have been found to be effective in producing this type of learning environment. In one study, the types of activities that students said motivated them to learn included role-playing, group discussion, watching relevant videos or films, playing games and “giving students more sense of control” ( Hoostein, 1994 ) . Reading content material also has been found to be more interesting when students have a chance to share their thoughts and opinions on what they have read ( Davis, 1994 ) . Another project showed that the use of graphic organizers or content mapping allowed students to gain a sense of control over the learning content and objectives and increased comprehension significantly ( Peresich, Meadows, & Sinatra, 1990 ) . What all these strategies have in common is the central idea of giving students more control over the learning process and allowing them to be more involved in the acquisition of content knowledge. In addition to developing higher categories of critical thinking, these types of activities allow students to develop competency in their abilities and beliefs. This in turn should help to enhance the intrinsic value of the content material and expedite the learning process.

Having taken an informal poll of my son and some of his high school friends, I found that the classes they liked the most were those in which these types of activities were part of the learning process. In addition, most of the students I talked to said they made better grades in this type of environment. I might add, many of these students speak on other occasions as being bored with school work. It is my conviction that these responses are reflective of the results obtained by researchers working from a cognitive perspective. As students' competency in the learning process grows, and their comprehension of the content material becomes internalized into their personal belief systems and values, I believe their intrinsic motivation will grow correspondingly. The result will be a student who is capable of not only critical thinking skills, but who also has an enriched experience of the world in which he or she participates.

One other important aspect of this teaching perspective is the use of grading. Since grades have been the end for most instructional activity and for ranking, I cannot accept the total abolishment of the grading system. However, I do believe that a modification of its use is in order. Since so much research has indicated the negative effects of grading and of putting the stress on this aspect of academic life, I see no reason not to de-emphasize this in the classroom. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. One is to rethink the use of tests and evaluations. In a recent test construction project I purposely designed the test to see if (1) the student had learned the objectives for the lesson period, and ( 2 ) to see if I had adequately taught the material. The first four questions, worth approximately the same amount each, were designed to answer these questions. An extra credit question was offered, worth more than any of the other test questions. The only requirement to receive points for this question was that the students had to answer the first four questions in some manner. The extra credit question, however, was the one question I felt was most important to the lesson plan. It was a question developed to force the student to give his or her thoughts and only required that students support their answer with relevant lesson material. The goal was to encourage creativity and originality. How could I penalize any student for attempting to display these types of higher-order skills? My hope was that the test question would offset the anxiety level of the students on later exams and also encourage them to think critically. On this exam, I also would make a provision for wrong answers to be corrected by the student and thus encourage the student to pursue the end of problem-solving, the solution.

I have shared this test design at length because I believe there are many creative ways to reduce the anxiety and emphasis of tests and grades. A recent survey found that parents felt that the use of a written description of the student’s progress or a checklist of what the student is able to do was very useful over a grading system by a margin of 74% to 58%. This indicates that even parents are looking for more meaningful information about their child’s progress ( Elam, Rose & Gallup, 1994 ) . I thus can use more informal, yet potentially more meaningful, evaluation systems to give feedback to students and parents on learning progress. Will the type of teaching perspective I promote raise the achievement scores of students that are so important to school reformists? I believe they will. While this fact has not been tested widely, I did find one study in which teacher strategies were tested to see what effect they had on student achievement. Students in the more controlling learning environments tended to adopt a more extrinsic orientation and also did more poorly on achievement tests ( Flink, Boggiano, Main, Barrett & Katz, 1992 ) . It would appear, therefore, that a less controlling environment can impact achievement scores that are the central concern of school reformists.

Conclusions

While I am sure there are many who would contest my conclusions, I feel I have developed a workable philosophy toward the learning process and environment. I am still early in my educational pursuit and have yet to actually stand in front of a class. Nonetheless, I believe that proceeding from a cognitive perspective is not only more humane but also more realistic. As my knowledge and experience grow, this philosophical foundation will be modified and improved upon. I also recognize the place of rewards and recognition in the learning process and would never seek to withhold honor from those whom it is due. Perhaps the greatest value of this philosophical foundation is that it will allow me to become a part of the learning process, rather than controlling, and learn from those whom I have the privilege to instruct. In the end, this is the greatest accomplishment I could hope to achieve.

References

Beck, R. C. ( 1990 ) . Motivation: Theories and principles ( 3rd. ed. ) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Casey, M. B. & Tucker, E. C. ( 1994 ) . Problem-centered classrooms: Creating lifelong learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 ( 1 ) , 139 - 143.

Davis, S. J. ( 1994 ) . Make reading rewarding, not rewarded. The Education Digest, 60 ( 2 ) , 63 - 65.

Deci, E. L. ( 1975 ) . Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. ( 1992 ) . The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman ( Eds. ) , Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective ( pp. 9 - 36 ) . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Elam, S. M., Rose, L. C. & Gallup, A. M. ( 1994 ) . The 26th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 76 ( 1 ) , 41 - 62.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., Barrett, M. & Katz, P. A. ( 1992 ) . Children’s achievement-related behaviors: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientations. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman ( Eds. ) , Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective ( pp. 189 - 214 ) . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grippin, P. C. & Peters, S. C. ( 1984 ) . Learning theory and learning outcomes: The connection. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Harter, S. ( 1992 ) . The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman ( Eds. ) , Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective ( pp. 77 - 114) . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoostein, E. W. ( 1994 ) . Motivating students to learn. The Clearing House, 67 ( 4 ) , 213 - 216.

Jongeblood, N. ( 1994, February 8 ) Teachers’ standing not very surprising. ( Letter to the Editor ) . The Mobile Press Register, p. A10.

Kohn, A. ( 1993 ) . Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kohn, A. ( 1994 ) . The truth about self-esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 ( 4 ), 272 - 283.

Lepper, M. R. & Greene, D. ( 1978 ) . The hidden costs of rewards. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Logan, F. A. ( 1976 ) . Fundamentals of learning and motivation ( 2nd ed. ) . Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company.

Maslow, A. H. ( 1970 ) . Motivation and personality ( 2nd ed. ) . New York: Harper & Row.

Ormrod, J. E. ( 1995 ) . Human learning ( 2nd ed. ) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Peresich, M. L., Meadows, J. D. & Sinatra, R. ( 1990 ) . Content area cognitive mapping for reading and writing proficiency. Journal of Reading, 33 ( 6 ) , 424 - 432.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P. & Grolnick, W. S. ( 1992 ) . When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: a theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman ( Eds. ) , Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective ( pp. 167 - 188 ) . New York: Cambridge University Press.

HOME

Education           Economics          History