Rewards: Good, Bad or Running head: REWARDS: GOOD, BAD, OR UGLY

Rewards: Good, Bad, or Ugly? Jon Guttormsen University of Phoenix

Rewards: Good, Bad or Rewards: Good, Bad, or Ugly? The motto of the Highline School District is Educate Every Student and Expect

Excellence: the stated goal of the district is for every student to become a life-long learner. In terms of motivation theory, HSD #401 wants to produce students who have learning rather than performance goals, and a mastery orientation. Ironically, as Ormrod (2002) notes, before they reach school age, children seem to focus primarily on learning goals. . ., even infants seek out experiences that are likely to increase their competence and mastery of the environment (182). However, two things happen in school that drive children towards performance goals: First of all, they suddenly have many peers around them to whom they can compare their own behavior [and] begin to define success more in terms of doing better than their classmates than in terms of task mastery (182); second, children are now dealing with more intellectual and abstract tasks instead of physical tasks such as learning to fasten buttonsthey need more guidance and feedback, which implies tests and gradeswhich rewards which shift motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic. According to Alfie Kohn, the system relies on competition and compliance, and a system of rewards that, rather than instilling academic motivation, hinders it: extrinsic motivatorsincluding As are not merely ineffective over the long haul but counterproductive (quoted in Brandt, 1995). Kohn notes that rewards are most damaging when the student already intrinsic motivation: Ormrod concurs, referencing Bates (1979), Lepper & Greene (1978) and Lepper & Hodell (1989)enjoyable activities can be increased by extrinsic reinforcers but will then decrease to a below-baseline frequency once the extrinsic reinforcers are removed (70). Rather than rely on reinforcers, punishments

Rewards: Good, Bad or and rewards, which merely do things to children, Kohn suggests that teachers work with children using three principles: provide content that is worth learning, build community and cooperation, and allow choice for the children. The trick is to educate and influence students, without controlling or manipulating them, so that they are learning for themselves, not for rewards. Reineke, Sonsteng and Gartrell (2008) build on Kohns ideas, and cite studies that show that while rewards may be initially successful, these gains are countered by lower levels of motivation for continued learning, (89) and that there is a fade-out phenomenona gradual decrease in the childs desire to continue the desired behavior. Children learn when they gain enjoyment from positive interaction with peers and teacher, doing authentic and relevant tasks; this ability results from the development of the

executive function largely through experiences with others and with objects that the child finds meaningful (Zelazo et al 2003, referred to in Reineke, Sonsteng & Gartrell, 2008). Similar to Kohn, these researchers discount artificial rewards, and suggest a model of education that is encouraging and supporting, to trigger and guide mastery motivation (97). The best method? Not rewards, but a safe classroom atmosphere and an engaging curriculum. However, Shiller and OFlynn (2008) note that, while studies support Kohns position, much of the laboratory research has limited relevance in the many situations in which children must set aside intrinsically interesting activities in order to perform tasks that do not excite them but may be necessary for their social or academic growth (90). Shiller and OFlynn (2008) suggest going beyond the research model and look at more of the factors that impact the efficacy of using rewards: they point out McGraw (1978) who

Rewards: Good, Bad or found rewards enhance performance with children who have a history of not experiencing success, Fabes (1987), who found that if the context is permissive rather than controlling then rewards dont undermine interest, and Ryan and Deci (2000), who concluded that

rewards did not harm motivation when the task was dull and unappealing. Most intriguing were the studies that demonstrated when rewards provide evidence of competence, they can enhance motivation with individuals as young as kindergartners and as old as college students (Shiller & OFlynn, 2008, 88). The gist of their position is that rewards, if handled properly, can provide temporary motivation while basic skills are being acquired. Shiller and OFlynn do not dispute Kohn, and Reneike, Sonsteng & Gartrell; they simply feel that while curriculum and atmosphere are important, as are Kohns three Cs of content, community and choice, rewardswhen relevant to the behavior and indicative of competencecan augment the curriculum and atmosphere that Kohn finds important. So, in and of themselves, rewards are neither good nor bad: they are a tooluseful in the right situation, but when used improperly, cause more harm than good.

Rewards: Good, Bad or References: Brandt, R. (1995). Punished by rewards? A conversation with Alfie Kohn. Retrieved from Educational Leadership [Online], 53(1), at http://www.alfiekohn.org/ teaching/pdf/Punished%20by%20Rewards.pdf. Ormrod, J.E. (2002). Human Development: A Lifespan Approach. [University of Phoenix Custom Edition e-Text]. Upper Saddle River,, New Jersey: Pearson Custom Publishing. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from University of Phoenix, Psych/538.

Reineke, J., Sonsteng, K. & Gartrell, D. (2008). Nurturing mastery motivation: no need for rewards. Young Children 63(6), 89, 93-97. Retrieved April 16, 2009 from Proquest. Shiller, M.S. & OFlynn, J.C. (2008). Using rewards in the early childhood classroom: a reexamination of the issues. Young Children 63(6), 88-93. Retrieved April 16, 2009 from Proquest.