AUTHOR: Stockdale, Susan L.; Williams, Robert L.
TITLE: CLASSROOM MOTIVATION STRATEGIES FOR PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS
SOURCE: The Teacher Educator 39 no3 212-30 Wint 2004
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.bsu.edu/teachers/services/tte/index.html

Robert L. Williams and Susan L. Stockdale

ABSTRACT
National surveys indicate that student motivation is a principal concern of teachers, yet few publications within the teacher education literature directly address how teachers can best apply established motivational principles. Pivotal to mobilizing student motivation is understanding the role of rewards in sustaining productive task engagement. This article examines the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for academic learning, the relative value of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, the potential compatibility of cognitive and behavioral perspectives of student motivation, and research-based recommendations for promoting classroom motivation.

Few issues are more salient to teachers than student motivation for academic learning. National polls of teacher concerns indicate that perceived lack of student interest in academics is a principal stressor for teachers (Elam, 1989). Underscoring this teacher distress is the finding that students' academic motivation tends to worsen from the middle grades through high school (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Anderman & Midgley, 1998; Catello, 2000). Despite teachers' concerns about student motivation, the leading journals in teacher education (e.g., Teacher Educator, Journal of Teacher Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, and Action in Teacher Education) have published few recent articles (1996+) directly addressing how teachers can best motivate students who appear indifferent or resistant to academic learning.
The utility of the construct of academic motivation hinges on its operational definition. What do students do when they are academically motivated? Although many actions (e.g., speaking positively about academic activities, initiating learning experiences) could reflect academic motivation, the bottom-line indicator is sustained task engagement leading to improvement in academic skills. Within the framework of this definition, the principal challenge is to identify classroom events that influence productive task engagement. The motivational literature in the broad areas of psychology and education mainly addresses the role of consequences in promoting student engagement in academic tasks. Those consequences can accrue automatically as one performs a task, can naturally follow from completing the task, or can be given extrinsically as students work on or complete the task.

A particularly salient issue in the motivational literature is the impact of extrinsic rewards on task engagement. A wealth of research based on B. F. Skinner's behavioral model has shown that a variety of extrinsic rewards (e.g., grades, stars, stickers, coupons, tokens, notes home, and privileges) can be used to increase task engagement and academic performance even for reluctant learners (Covington, 1999; Kelley & McCain, 1995; Martens, Muir, & Meller, 1988; Roberts, Alexander, & Knapp, 1990; Swinehart, 1973; Truchlicka, McLaughlin, & Swain, 1998; Urlaub, 2002). Ratings from middle school students have shown that both exceptional and nonexceptional students rated good grades and free-time privileges as their most preferred classroom rewards (Martens et al., 1988).

Although all motivational camps acknowledge that extrinsic rewards can affect academic targets while the rewards are in effect, the two major camps (behavioral and cognitive) strongly disagree as to what happens to the targeted behaviors after the rewards are removed. Behaviorists' meta-analyses on academic motivation (e.g., Cameron & Pierce, 1994) suggest that external rewards often promote continued involvement in targeted activities, whereas cognitivists' meta-analyses (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) indicate that external rewards typically undermine future engagement in targeted activities. Thus, this article emphasizes the long-term, residual effects of extrinsic rewards rather than their immediate effects on productive task engagement.
This article highlights findings from the motivational literature that would help new teachers maximize productive academic behaviors. Readers are invited to compare their answers to the following questions before and after reading this article: (a) Can teachers clearly distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for academic engagement? (b) Is intrinsic motivation for academic engagement unilaterally preferable to extrinsic motivation for academic engagement? (c) Do extrinsic rewards consistently undermine students' intrinsic motivation for academic learning? (d) Are the long-term effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation linked more to the type of rewards given or the conditions under which the rewards are given? (e) Can common ground be found on the disputed issues in motivational research? (f) What recommendations for teachers follow from a synthesis of motivational research?

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Cognitivists (Ryan & Deci, 2000) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the basis of whether the driving force for an action originates inside or outside the individual. They view intrinsically motivated behavior as self-determined and extrinsically motivated behavior as shaped by external consequences. Behaviorists link the performance of a behavior to the nature of the behavior itself (intrinsic motivation) or to the external consequences of the behavior (extrinsic motivation). Thus, the payoffs for intrinsically motivated behavior directly derive from performing the behavior, whereas the payoffs for extrinsically motivated behavior derive from rewards artificially linked to the behavior (Mawhinney, 1990). For example, reading that provides pleasure and information would be considered intrinsically motivating, whereas reading to make a good grade, earn a privilege, or impress the teacher would be characterized as extrinsically motivated. In making this intrinsic-extrinsic distinction, behaviorists are inclined to use the term reinforcement rather than motivation. A self-sustaining behavior would be characterized as intrinsically reinforcing, whereas a behavior performed only when external rewards are given would be considered extrinsically reinforced.

Two major problems arise when distinguishing operationally between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation or reinforcement: (a) seemingly inner origins for a behavior initially may have been external to the individual, and (b) behaviors that appear to be self-sustaining may be influenced by subtle environmental events. With respect to the first possibility, a child's positive self-talk (e.g., "this is fun," "I'm learning a lot from this") during a particular activity may have stemmed from prior comments of significant others (e.g., teachers, parents, or friends) as they attempted to encourage or reinforce occurrences of the behavior. For example, a teacher may have labeled reading as fun or as a good way to learn, leading the child to use those same descriptors while engaged in reading. Ryan and Deci (2000) referred to this process as internalization and integration of external consequences, eventually leading to the adoption of the external contingencies as one's own.

In a similar vein, an activity that appears to be intrinsically motivated may have a history of extrinsic consequences or currently be sustained by subtle and periodic extrinsic consequences. A behavior that appears self-sustaining may periodically produce inconspicuous peer or teacher attention (e.g., head nod or smile). In fact, it is doubtful that any behavior would persist indefinitely without occasional reactions from others. Additionally, reinforcement schedules involving infrequent and irregular external payoffs can produce very durable behaviors. Thus, it would be difficult to confirm that an action persists without subtle, infrequent, and irregular extrinsic consequences.

VALUE OF INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
To the extent that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be differentiated, is one type of motivation better than the other? Intrinsic motivation appears to have some practical advantages over extrinsic motivation. A principal advantage is that intrinsic motivation is not dependent on the teacher's presence, prodding, or encouragement to keep the student productively engaged. This constitutes a significant practical benefit, because attempting to keep students energized to learn involves a considerable investment of teacher time and energy. Plus, behavior driven by artificial, external consequences may quickly attenuate when those external consequences are removed. Or, students may become satiated with a certain level and kind of external reward, causing them to expect more and different rewards in the future. Once teachers go the route of extrinsically rewarding productive behaviors, they may find it difficult to extricate themselves from that path. Thus, possible student dependency on extrinsic rewards represents one of the greatest detractors from their use in the classroom.
Despite the possibility of student dependency on extrinsic rewards, is such dependency categorically bad? Or, do some students find particular academic tasks so laborious that the tasks would never produce intrinsic satisfaction? For example, memorizing spelling words or practicing word attack skills may never be inherently satisfying for some students. The students may only engage in these tasks to get better grades or to obtain preferred privileges. Is it inappropriate for teachers to use external incentives to get reluctant learners to practice important academic skills? Even if certain students never like spelling and reading, their acquisition of spelling and reading skills will increase their opportunities for reinforcement in other areas.

In reality, most behaviors are probably sustained through a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic consequences. Even behaviors (e.g., artistic and creative behaviors) often thought to be intrinsically motivated may attract high praise from others, thus blurring the case for pure intrinsic motivation (Dickinson, 1989). Students may engage in classroom activities because of what they are learning and also to obtain a particular grade. A student may ask a question in class to acquire information, as well as to gain attention from peers and the teacher. Teachers may do their work because they find it inherently enjoyable and meaningful, as well as to receive a paycheck at the end of the month (Fraser, 1991). Covington and Mueller (2001) claimed that "human beings always anticipate some payoff for their actions, intrinsically driven or not" (p. 162). Thus, even though intrinsic motivation has some practical advantages over extrinsic motivation, the latter can promote academic engagement under a variety of circumstances to be described in this article.

EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC REWARDS ON ACADEMIC MOTIVATION

The major criticism of extrinsic rewards is that they can undermine the intrinsic reinforcement potential of the rewarded behavior. This erosion of intrinsic motivation has been explained through the kindred notions of overjustification effects and multiple sufficient causes. According to the overjustification notion, giving an extrinsic reward for engaging in a behavior conveys that the behavior must not be worth doing for its own sake (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). Consequently, following cessation of the reward, the behavior will sink to a lower level than existed prior to the reward phase. The notion of multiple sufficient causes stipulates that introducing a new and plausible explanation for a behavior, "I'm reading to earn the pizza party," will diminish a child's confidence in a prior explanation, "I'm reading because I enjoy it" (Cialdini, Eisenberg, Green, Rhoads, & Bator, 1998). Thus, giving external rewards for a behavior that has high intrinsic value may cause the student's valuing to be diverted from the behavior itself to the external payoff for the behavior. Subsequently, the child may be disinclined to exhibit that behavior without the promise of external rewards.

Although some researchers (e.g., Deci et al., 1999) have shown that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation under some conditions (e.g., rewards promised ahead of time), other reward applications appear to promote intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards may be particularly useful when children initially have minimal interest in an activity (Cameron, 2001). For a variety of genetic and experiential reasons, some children are not inclined to engage in certain academic behaviors that teachers deem valuable. For example, few teachers would question the long-term value of students' learning to read and write, yet some children may show little interest in developing those skills and may even resist teacher attempts to help them develop print-related skills. If left to their initiative, these students might remain illiterate and miss out on many personal development opportunities that reading and writing could afford. Using tangible rewards for performing low-interest tasks can increase future involvement in those tasks after the extrinsic rewards have been phased out, thus extending the skills that were developed under extrinsic reward conditions (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001; Flora & Flora, 1999; McGinnis, 1998).

Operating from the premise that extrinsic rewards are most valuable when children show little interest in a potentially useful activity, the teacher might employ external rewards to get a child to engage in and work hard on that activity. However, the reward arrangement that might be most powerful over the short run may produce the greatest dependency on extrinsic consequences over the long run. For example, promised tangible payoffs (e.g., edibles, trinkets, money, awards, grades) may produce considerable gains in academic skills (Kelley & Stokes, 1982) but diminish post-reward use of those skills (Cameron et al., 2001; Deci et al., 1999). On the other hand, positive social feedback and unexpected rewards may not initially be as powerful as tangible and expected rewards but may produce better long-term maintenance of a target behavior (Anderson, Manoogian, & Reznick, 1976; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). Thus, all rewards are not created equal with respect to their short-term and long-term effects on behavior. Some rewards that initially appear advantageous may reduce performance when the rewards are no longer given. Conversely, other rewards may produce modest short-term results but excellent maintenance of the target behavior.

REWARD TYPE VERSUS REWARD CONTINGENCY

A particularly relevant extrinsic consequence in school is a grade on academic work (Martens et al., 1988). Covington and Mueller (2001) concluded from their research with college students that grades and subject-matter satisfaction were positively related. They found that grades given for good task performance deepen students' investment in subject matter. In fact, achieving grade goals in a subject of personal interest appeared optimal for producing subject-matter appreciation. Lin and McKeachie (1999) reported that students with a moderate emphasis on good grades obtained better grades in a variety of college courses than students with either high or low emphasis on good grades. The highest-performing students combined moderate emphasis on good grades with high emphasis on challenge and curiosity in their academic work. Thus, unless students put extreme emphasis on grades (high grades at any cost), grades given for good performance appear to support interest in one's coursework. A note of caution for K-12 teachers is that most of the research cited in this paragraph was done with college students, many of whom may have a stronger investment in making good grades than most K-12 students.

Whether grades, privileges, or tangible items are used as extrinsic rewards for academic performance, the primary emphasis should be on the value of what students are learning. Cialdini et al. (1998) illustrated how to use the notion of multiple sufficient causes to achieve this emphasis even when students are extrinsically rewarded for academic engagement. In this case, the teacher attempted to promote an intrinsic reason for performing an externally rewarded behavior. Either before or after performing an initial handwriting task for which they were rewarded, some children were given the following input: "You know, I thought you'd say you wanted to do this handwriting activity because you look like the kind of (girl/boy) who understands how important it is to write correctly, and who really wants to be good at it" (p. 255). This kind of feedback was intended to underscore both the importance of the task and the quality of the student's work on the task. Extrinsically rewarded children given an intrinsic reason for writing well performed better on a post-reward handwriting task than did rewarded children not given the intrinsic reason.

The findings of the Cialdini et al. (1998) study have enormous implications for teachers who wish to use extrinsic rewards to promote academic performance but at the same time anchor quality of performance in intrinsic motivation. Either before or after student performance of an activity for which rewards are promised and/or given, the teacher should verbally underscore the importance of the activity/skill to the student. Teacher explanations might include comments similar to the following: "I know that you will try hard on this activity because you understand the importance of being good at ...," "I knew that you would do well at this task because you recognize how it will help you to ...," "I knew that you would help Jimmy because good students help others and you're a good student." Adding an intrinsic causal explanation for doing well on a task likely could solidify and extend performance gains achieved through extrinsic rewards.
Although different types of extrinsic rewards may differ in their effectiveness in promoting the long-term performance of an academic behavior, the most critical reward dimension for preserving task performance is not the type of reward but rather the reward contingency. Rewards can be given for engaging in a task, for completing the task, for meeting a pre-announced performance standard on the task, and for meeting an after-the-fact success standard on the task (Chance, 1992; Deci et al., 2001). The contingency least likely to sustain post-reward performance of a previously rewarded activity is rewarding children for simply engaging in an activity (e.g., "read for 20 minutes and then you may have 10 minutes of free time"), and the contingency most likely to sustain post-reward task engagement is rewarding the child for being successful with the activity (e.g., "because you answered 90% of the questions correctly over the readings, you may have 10 minutes of free time").

Why does a reward for meeting a qualitative standard of task performance (success contingency) promote post-reward performance of that task, whereas a reward for simply engaging in the task (task contingency) does not? All perspectives of intrinsic motivation emphasize the importance of perceived competence in performing a particular task. Students are more likely to continue involvement in an activity in which they perceive themselves as competent or gaining in competence. Perceived competence at tasks influences both the valuing of tasks and subsequent academic achievement (Goldberg & Cornell, 1998; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002). Success-contingent rewards provide evidence of competence, whereas task-contingent rewards may not. Consequently, in using extrinsic rewards, teachers should consistently link those rewards to improvement of performance or attainment of specified performance standards. Cameron (2001) provided evidence that the more explicit the standard (e.g., surpassing a specified score), the greater the post-reward interest in a task.

Rewards simply for completing a task (without regard to the difficulty or quality of work) have had marginal or negative effects on post-reward task engagement (Deci et al., 2001). We suspect that the equivocal effects of task-completion contingencies are linked to the differential circumstances of task completion. Skinner (2002) advanced the notion that discrete task completion per se can function as a reinforcing event. Consequently, increasing instances of task completion within an assignment should magnify the reinforcement potential of the assignment. Fortunately, practically every large assignment can be subdivided into tasks of varying difficulty or length. In a variety of subject areas at different academic levels, Skinner found that mixing brief tasks among longer tasks, even when holding the number of longer tasks constant, increased students' preferences for the target assignment. Although not directly addressed in Skinner's research, the task arrangement within assignments may moderate the reinforcing effects of extrinsic rewards on both subtask and assignment completion.

A performance contingency (e.g., "if you answer 90% of the questions correctly over the readings, you may have 10 minutes of free time") works much like a success contingency as long as the students can meet the performance standard. A possible complication with a performance contingency, however, is that some students may not be able to meet the preset performance standard. Consequently, because they don't experience the reward, they may be disinclined to engage in the behavior again (with or without the promise of a reward). Unfortunately, the effect of failing to meet a set performance standard on intrinsic motivation appears not to have been evaluated in the research literature (Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 2001). Therefore, we suggest caution in using performance contingencies that some students may be unable to meet. If a teacher can be assured that a student can meet a particular performance contingency, that contingency should function much like a success contingency.

COMMON GROUND

Cognitive and behavioral researchers have taken somewhat different approaches to research on motivation and consequently have reached somewhat different conclusions about the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. For example, Dickinson (1989) claimed that cognitive researchers frequently have assessed the impact of promising rewards on continuing interest in targeted tasks rather than assessing the long-term effects of delivering those rewards contingent on task performance. Unfortunately, simply promising rewards does not insure a reinforcement effect. One can determine if a particular reward serves as a reinforcer for a particular behavior only by contingently delivering that reward following the behavior (Carton, 1996). Confirming that a reward has strengthened the target behavior in the reward phase is crucial to assessing its effect on that behavior in the post-reward phase. Williams (1980) showed that unattractive rewards (having minimal reinforcement value) produced an overjustification effect, whereas attractive rewards (having substantial reinforcement value) increased the target behavior in the post-reward period. The unattractive rewards apparently conveyed that the tasks were trivial and not worth doing in their own right.

Another example of how differential procedures can lead to different conclusions centers on the logistics used in comparing the effects of verbal and tangible consequences (Carton, 1996). Cognitive evaluation researchers (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985) have repeatedly reported that positive verbal feedback of a noncontrolling nature increases intrinsic motivation, whereas tangible rewards generally undermine intrinsic motivation. Behavioral researchers (e.g., Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Cameron et al., 2001) agree that contingent praise generally increases intrinsic motivation (even for initially high-interest tasks), but contend that tangible rewards can have either positive or negative effects on intrinsic motivation. In closely examining the procedures cognitivists have used to compare the effects of praise and tangibles, Carton (1996) concluded that praise usually was delivered within treatment sessions immediately after each occurrence of the target response, with no explanation as to the future likelihood of praise. In contrast, tangible rewards typically were given only at the end of a treatment session, with clear specification that the rewards would not be available in the future. Carton cited a host of studies showing that when tangible rewards were administered immediately after occurrences of the target behavior within a treatment session, the rewards increased intrinsic motivation in the post-reward period. Thus, when praise and tangible rewards are delivered in an equivalent fashion, their long-term effects on behavior are likely to be more equivalent.

Cognitive researchers have traditionally claimed that perceptions of choice and competence (especially choice) are fundamental to intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Behavioral researchers (e.g., Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999) are beginning to integrate these notions into their evaluations of the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. For example, Eisenberger et al. reported that paying college students for achieving a specified performance standard on a novel task produced higher perceived self-determination and competence than giving students performance feedback without paying them for their performance. In another phase of their research, Eisenberger et al. found that the positive impact of expected rewards on performance was greatest for employees having a high desire for control.

Cognitive and behavioral researchers agree on a number of extrinsic reward issues, with both camps acknowledging that rewards can have negative, neutral, or positive effects on intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999). For example, both groups see promise for some types of verbal consequences. The two groups agree that rewarding children simply for participating in a task negatively affects post-reward interest in the task. Furthermore, they concur that unexpected extrinsic rewards promote future task engagement better than do expected rewards. Both groups acknowledge that extrinsic rewards can contribute to the development of intrinsic motivation when the initial interest level in targeted activities is low. Nonetheless, some behavioral studies (Mawhinney, 1979; Mawhinney, Dickinson, & Taylor, 1989) have reported that individuals with the highest level of intrinsic motivation for a task maintained high interest in the task following the cessation of extrinsic reinforcement for task engagement.

The main areas of disagreement relate to rewards contingent on the quality of student work. Behaviorists have generally found this kind of contingency to have very positive effects on post-reward behaviors (perhaps by producing a sense of competency), while the cognivitists view performance contingencies as detrimental to intrinsic motivation (perhaps by conveying a sense of external control). The discrepancies in the findings on quality-based reinforcement contingencies may relate to the motivational measure used in the post-reward period. Free-choice behavior (how much a student engages in the target behavior compared to other behavioral options) and self-reported interest are typically targeted in meta-analyses on intrinsic motivation (often without clear specification of their parameters). Both of these measures would seem less important to educators than the quality of performance in the post-reward period. Assessing post-reward target performance over a period of several days or weeks likely provides a more useful indication of the long-term impact of rewards than examining students' free-choice behaviors or self-reported interests on a one-time basis following the cessation of rewards (Carton, 1996).
The cognitive wrinkle that Cialdini et al. (1998) added to extrinsic reward contingencies demonstrates the efficacy of using behavioral and cognitive perspectives in combination. Their results point to the benefits of teachers' advancing intrinsic reasons for students' extrinsically rewarded academic performance. These teacher explanations can emphasize both student choice and student competence as major reasons for performing the target task. The extrinsic rewards serve as a catalyst for producing important behaviors that can then be attributed primarily to internal reasons. Consistent with the conclusion of the previous paragraph, Cialdini et al.'s extrinsic-intrinsic combination did not affect the amount of the target behavior in the post-reward period but did significantly affect the quality of the behavior (accuracy of children's writings).

CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS

The first item of business in deciding on motivational strategies is to clearly define what one most wants to achieve with respect to student performance. Possibilities include increased on-task behavior, the development of academic skills, and the voluntary engagement in academic activities. Although all these goals are somewhat related and highly desirable, the bottom-line goal is the development of academic skills. For example, some students appear on task when their mental focus is elsewhere, whereas other students work hard at a task but still produce poor academic work. Consequently, on-task behavior is not a sufficient indicator of good academic performance. Voluntary engagement in academic activity, although the focus of much motivational literature, also has limitations as the fundamental goal of motivational strategies. Choice is always relative to the alternatives. Students might choose to read if the alternative is copying material from the board, but choose not to read if the alternative is listening to music. We believe the primary mission of the teacher is to help students develop academic skills; thus, the quality of the students' work becomes the paramount consideration in determining optimal motivational strategies.
We suggest that teachers not become preoccupied with the question of whether a student's actions are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. What appears to be intrinsic motivation often has an extrinsic history. In reality, most behaviors are likely driven by a blending of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Figuring out the intrinsic/extrinsic ratio for a particular behavior for a given student would be tedious and time consuming. Again, the primary issue is whether students are improving their skills and the quality of their work, whatever motivational strategies are used. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have advantages and limitations, making it very unlikely that either by itself would optimize student performance.

Our recommendations thus far should not be construed as license for indiscriminate use or removal of extrinsic rewards. There are times when extrinsic rewards are invaluable and other times when their use is superfluous or even detrimental to students' academic development. Before extrinsic rewards are added to an academic activity, tasks should be structured to improve their reinforcement potential. For example, Skinner (2002) showed that students prefer assignments that include interspersed brief tasks among longer tasks, even when the brief tasks extend the length of the assignment. Restructuring tasks within assignments may be sufficient in some cases to maintain a high level of task involvement without the addition of extrinsic rewards. When extrinsic rewards (such as praise or tangibles) are necessary, they should be interspersed within larger assignments. If a reward cannot be sampled in small portions, then a point system that allows students to earn credit toward that reward while completing subtasks within the assignment likely will broaden the impact of the reward. If extrinsic rewards eventually are discontinued, they should be phased out rather than stopped abruptly (McGinnis, Friman, & Carlyon, 1999).
The best time to use extrinsic rewards is when a student's skill level in a target area is low. Often times, students prefer not to engage in a certain activity because their minimal skills make the activity arduous. Because they avoid the activity, they never develop skills and enjoyment in that area. Thus, highly valued extrinsics may be necessary to produce enough task engagement for the students to develop skills in the target area and eventually come to value and enjoy the activity. The fact that extrinsics are most essential when the students' skill level and task engagement are low doesn't necessarily mean that they are detrimental when skill level and task engagement are high. In fact, students who have the highest level of engagement in a particular activity may be the most impervious to detrimental effects from extrinsic rewards.

The type and value of extrinsic rewards also influence their effectiveness. For example, positive social feedback is more likely than tangibles to have an internalized impact (i.e., students will begin telling themselves what they have been told by others). Research generally shows that positive social feedback is less likely than tangibles to diminish continued interest in an activity. If one elects to use tangibles, those rewards should be highly valued by the student rather than viewed as trivial. The latter kind of reward may convey that the activity also is trivial. Highly valued rewards appear especially important for activities of minimal interest to students. For primary students given their least preferred storybook to read, students who received a highly valued reward for reading a portion of the storybook spent more time reading than did students who received either a low-valued reward or no reward (McLoyd, 1979). Attaining highly valued rewards also may enhance students' sense of self-determination and perceived competence, which are common building blocks for intrinsic reinforcement.

Obviously, teachers want students to attach greater value to their work than simply getting an extrinsic payoff. However, even if skill development is not accompanied by an intrinsic investment in that area, all is not lost. Having those skills expands the students' opportunities for achieving rewards in other areas. Thus, a student may never enjoy reading, but being able to read may create multiple opportunities for other types of rewards. Nonetheless, teachers can build intrinsic investment in a target activity by giving the right kind of verbal feedback along with tangible payoffs. Feedback that underscores the benefit of the target skill and the student's desire to become skilled in that area will likely increase the student's valuing of the activity. Tangible rewards are neither inherently good nor bad, but rather tools for accomplishing skill development. Pairing tangibles with teacher assertions of the intrinsic value of an activity allows tangibles to be productive without undermining intrinsic motivation.
The contingencies of the reward are more important than type of reward. As previously described, rewards can be contingent on task engagement, task completion, or the quality of task performance. The latter contingency likely has the greatest effect on perceived self-competence. Although task engagement and task completion are both necessary dimensions of student work, neither ensures high quality work. Thus, directly rewarding students for doing good work provides the greatest assurance that their work will be of good quality and that they will come to value and enjoy that work.

ADDED MATERIAL
Robert L. Williams and Susan L. Stockdale Educational Psychology and Counseling The University of Tennessee

REFERENCES
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.
Anderman, L. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Motivation and middle school students (Report No. EDO-PS-98-5). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421281)
Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 915-922.
Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation--a limited phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71, 29-42.
Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.
Carton, J. S. (1996). The differential effects of tangible rewards and praise on intrinsic motivation: A comparison of cognitive evaluation theory and operant theory. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 237-255.
Catello, J. P. (2000). The effect of the R.E.A.L. (Reinvention of Education for Active Learning) classroom experience on motivational orientation among middle school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(7-A), 2348.
Chance, P. (1992). The rewards of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 200-207.
Cialdini, R. B., Eisenberg, N., Green, B. L., Rhoads, K., & Bator, R. (1998). Undermining the undermining effect of reward on sustained interest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 249-263.
Covington, M. V. (1999). Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34, 127-136.
Covington, M. V., & Mueller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 157-176.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1-27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 39-80). New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Koestner, R. (2001). The pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: Response to Cameron (2001). Review of Educational Research, 77, 43-51.
Dickinson, A. M. (1989). The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "intrinsic motivation." The Behavior Analyst, 12, 1-15.
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation--negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677-691.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026-1040.
Elam, S. M. (1989). The second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers' attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 785-798.
Flora, S. R., & Flora, D. B. (1999). Effects of extrinsic reinforcement for reading during childhood on reported reading habits of college students. Psychological Record, 49, 3-14.
Fraser, L. A. (1991). Teacher morale in the Atlanta Public Schools: Spring 1990 (Report No. 4, Vol. 25). Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Public Schools, Department of Research and Evaluation.
Goldberg, M. D., & Cornell, D. G. (1998). The influence of intrinsic motivation and self-concept on academic achievement in second- and third-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 179-205.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509-527.
Kelley, M. L., & McCain, A. P. (1995). Promoting academic performance in inattentive children: The relative efficacy of school-home notes with and without response cost. Behavior Modification, 19, 357-375.
Kelley, M. L., & Stokes, T. F. (1982). Contingency contracting with disadvantaged youths: Improving classroom performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 447-454.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D, & Nisbett, R. F. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Lin, Y-G., & McKeachie, W. J. (1999, August). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Martens, B. K., Muir, K. A., & Meller, P. J. (1988). Rewards common to the classroom setting: A comparison of regular and self-contained room student ratings. Behavioral Disorders, 13(3), 169-174.
Mawhinney, T. C. (1979). Intrinsic X extrinsic work motivation: Perspectives from behaviorism. Organizational Behavior& Human Performance, 24, 411-440.
Mawhinney, T. C. (1990). Decreasing intrinsic "motivation" with extrinsic rewards: Easier said than done. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 175-191.
Mawhinney, T. C., Dickinson, A. M., & Taylor, L. A. (1989). The use of concurrent schedules to evaluate the effects of extrinsic rewards on "intrinsic motivation." Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 6, 5-31.
McGinnis, J. C. (1998). Examining the "punished rewards" assertion: Faded token reinforcement and children's intrinsic motivation for an academic task. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B-The Sciences and Engineering, 59(2-B), 0897.
McGinnis, J. C., Friman, P. C., & Carlyon, W. D. (1999). The effect of token awards on "intrinsic" motivation for doing math. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 375-379.
McLoyd, V. C. (1979). The effects of extrinsic rewards of differential value on high and low intrinsic interest. Child Development, 50, 1010-1019.
Roberts, M. C., Alexander, K., & Knapp, L. G. (1990). Motivating children to use safety belts: A program combining rewards and "flash for life." Journal of Community Psychology, 18(2), 110-119.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications, and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347-368.
Swinehart, B. (1973). Modification of percent of assignments completed by a simple technique involving parents and teachers. School Applications of Learning Theory, 6(1), 17-27.
Truchlicka, M., McLaughlin, T. F., & Swain, J. C. (1998). Effects of token reinforcement and response cost on the accuracy of spelling performance with middle-school special education students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 13, 1-10.
Urlaub, M. C. (2002). Evaluation of the armed for life program for inner-city students who are emotionally impaired. Dissertation Abstracts International. Section-B-The Sciences and Engineering, 62(12-B), 5951.
Williams, B. W. (1980). Reinforcement, behavior constraint, and the overjustification effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 599-614.