Keys to Increasing Students’ Motivation

FROM THE MARSHALL MEMO #439

“If students aren’t motivated, it is difficult, if not impossible, to improve their academic achievement, no matter how good the teacher, curriculum, or school is,” say Alexandra Usher and Nancy Kober in this Center on Education Policy paper. “Moreover, unmotivated students can disengage other students from academics, which can affect the environment of an entire classroom or school.” When students are motivated, on the other hand, they perform better academically, attain greater conceptual understanding, feel better about school, have higher self-esteem, are better adjusted socially, and have higher rates of school completion. 

Usher and Kober summarize research and school-based insights on six key questions on student motivation:

• What is motivation and why does it matter? Scholars distinguish between intrinsic motivation – the desire to do something because one gets pleasure from or sees value in it – and extrinsic motivation – doing something for an external reward. Students’ beliefs can affect motivation; if students have a low opinion of their ability and believe intelligence is a fixed quantity, they tend to have low motivation. There are four dimensions of motivation:

• Competence – The student believes he or she has the ability to complete the task.
• Control and autonomy – The student can see a direct link between his or her actions and an outcome and has some choice about whether or how to undertake the task.
• Interest and value – The student has some interest in the task or sees value in completing it.
• Interpersonal rewards – Completing the task produces a sense of belonging to a classroom or other desired social group or approval from a person of social importance.

“At least one of these dimensions must be satisfied for a student to be motivated,” say Usher and Kober. “The more dimensions that are met, and the more strongly they are met, the greater the motivation will be.” 

• Can money or other rewards improve motivation? Some schools use cash rewards, pizza coupons, cell phone minutes, and other extrinsics to motivate students to do their homework, earn good grades, get on the honor roll, read books, attend after-school study sessions, or behave well. The rationale is that students need short-term rewards to bridge the gap between challenging and seemingly meaningless school tasks and the long-term rewards that achievement will bring. Some educators also argue that incentives level the playing field for students whose parents can’t afford the kinds of rewards that more-affluent parents routinely give their children. 

Opponents argue that rewarding students for desirable behaviors undermines curiosity, love of learning, and intrinsic motivation, all of which are important to long-term success. It’s also argued that rewards unfairly favor students who have natural gifts, producing an inequitable distribution of the goodies. 

Studies of extrinsic-rewards program have produced mixed results, depending on which behaviors are rewarded and how the program is designed. Harvard economist Roland Fryer conducted one experiment in which students were paid if they improved their test scores (no impact), and another experiment in which primary-grade students were paid to read books and take quizzes on them (dramatic increases in test scores). A key variable seemed to be whether students had control over what would produce learning gains. It was more effective to reward students for completing a specific task (read this book) than for a performance (such as reaching a benchmark on a test), and using books as rewards rather than money appeared to work better. 

“At the same time,” say Usher and Kober, “poorly designed programs can actually decrease motivation if they are targeted at the wrong students, do not build in the four dimensions of motivation, or are implemented ineffectively.” Two other cautionary notes: Rewarding students for activities they genuinely enjoy can decrease motivation, and paying students to solve one kind of problem can detract from their ability to solve problems that require a different strategy.

• Can goals motivate students? Yes, if the goals are structured appropriately and show students a gateway to something else they value. Goals need to be achievable, education-dependent, and have some degree of ownership by the student. It’s also helpful if adults who are important to the student support the goal. “Mastery-based goals, which involve demonstrating increased understanding, skills, and content knowledge, are preferable to performance-based goals, which involve reaching a pre-defined level of performance or outperforming others,” say Usher and Kober. “Goals can actually undermine motivation, however, if they are too difficult, or if students feel that a goal has been imposed on them or that failing to meet it would have dire consequences.” 

How about setting goals for test performance? This can be motivating if the tests are meaningful to students (e.g., for grades), less so if the tests are meaningful only to teachers and school administrators (for AYP). Test goals are more performance- than mastery-oriented, and can be counterproductive if they evoke anxiety, frustration, or fear of failure, and some drill-and-practice test-prep activities can also sap motivation. The best scenario is where tests are frequent, low-key, gradually increase in difficulty, and provide feedback to students on how they are doing and how they can improve their performance. 

How about encouraging students to set college as a goal? This works if students are given a clear idea of what’s involved in being successful in college and get the support they need every step of the way. “The goal of postsecondary education is also more motivating if students can see for themselves the value of attending college and if their peers and respected adults support this goal,” say Usher and Kober.

• What roles do parent involvement, family background, and culture play in student motivation? Parents who read to their children, talk to them about school, celebrate moments of intellectual discovery, and have high expectations definitely contribute to intrinsic motivation. “By contrast, parents who are controlling, use rewards and punishments for academic performance, or display negativity or anger about academics can discourage children from developing intrinsic motivation,” say the authors. In addition, praising children for being “smart” can reinforce the fixed mindset about intelligence. Among the reasons for Asian-American students’ high level of academic motivation is parents’ belief in the growth mindset about intelligence, as well as parents’ high expectations. Changing ineffective parenting practices is difficult, and interventions have to start when children are young and cannot be accomplished by schools alone. 

• What can schools do to motivate students? Usher and Kober believe there are three ways schools can pick up where parents leave off (or step in where parents are not successful):

• Targeted intervention programs – Zeroing in on a high-risk population to rekindle their motivation before they disengage for good – for example, providing mentors, tutoring, and after-school activities for boys showing signs of dropping out of school.
• Programs focused on teachers – Providing professional development to influence teachers’ classroom style, behavior management, interactions with students, and beliefs.
• Efforts to reorganize schools – Creating smaller schools and redesigning the way schools are scheduled, handle student groupings, and shape their climate can influence student motivation – as can looping and project-based learning. 

The keys to all these interventions are high expectations, ambitious instruction, and personalizing features like student-centered instruction. 

• What nontraditional approaches can motivate unenthusiastic students? These include inquiry-based learning, service learning, alternative education programs, extracurricular activities, and creative use of technology. 

“Student Motivation – An Overlooked Piece of School Reform” by Alexandra Usher and Nancy Kober, Center on Education Policy, The George Washington University, May 22, 2012,

http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=405