Motivation in Education

研究ノート

Motivation in Education

Conrad BUCSIS

要旨

本稿では、人間の動機づけを研究し、研究成果を正規の学習環境に応用している。まず、さまざまな理論的背景の研究者が使用している基本用語を紹介している。そこから、論点は自己決定理論（SDT）の枠組みに移る。
教育の実践に向け、この理論の原理と理論から予想される影響を共により詳細に考察するためである。SDT では内発的動機づけに不可欠な 3 つの構
成要素、即ち自律性、有能感、および関連性を提案している。さらに、これら大分類の要素の具体的な面を調べる下位理論として以下の5 つがある。認知的評価理論（CET）、有機的統合理論（OIT）、因果志向性理論（COT）、基本的欲求理論（BPNT）、および目標内容理論（GCT）である。
下位理論のうち CET が、何よりもまず内発的動機づけに関係している。
SDT の枠組みと CET の範囲内における研究で特に議論の的となる領域は、
内発的動機づけに対する報酬の影響である。さまざまなタイプの報酬のア
ンダーマイニング効果を示す証拠について検討し、正規の学習環境のための代替アプローチを提案する。最後に、行政、体制、現場および教室の各レベルで SDT の裏付けとなる研究成果を取り入れた教育改革を提言している。

This paper is concerned with research into human motivationand the applications of research findings to formal learning environments. The discussion begins with an introduction to the basic

51

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29terminology that is used by researchers from different theoreticalbackgrounds. From there, the focus moves to the framework of SelfDetermination Theory (SDT) for a closer look at both the tenets ofthe theory and its implications for educational practice. SDT proposes
three essential components for intrinsic motivation: autonomy,competence, and relatedness. In addition, there are five sub-theories
that examine specific aspects of these larger components: Cognitive
Evaluation Theory (CET), Organismic Integration Theory (OIT),
Causality Orientations Theory (COT), Basic Psychological Needs
Theory (BPNT), and Goal Contents Theory (GCT). The sub-theory
CET is primarily concerned with intrinsic motivation. A particularly
controversial area of research within the SDT framework and CETis the effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. The evidence forthe undermining effects of rewards of various types is discussed
and alternative approaches for formal learning environments areproposed. Finally, educational reforms that incorporate the findings
in support of SDT at the governmental, system, site, and classroom
levels are suggested.
Keywords/キーワード：
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)/自己決定理論（SDT）
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)/認知的評価理論（CET）
Organismic Integration Theory (OIT)/有機的統合理論（OIT）
Causality Orientations Theory (COT)/因果志向性理論（COT）
Basic

Psychological

Needs

Theory(BPNT)/基本的欲求理論（BPNT）

Goal Contents Theory (GCT)/目標内容理論（GCT）

Introduction
This paper will explore current thought and research into motivation. We will lookat theories of motivation in general and then focus on the tenets of Self-Determination
Theory (SDT), in particular. Keeping the research in mind, we will address a numberof questions: What inspires teachers, and what moves learners? How do our learning

52

Motivation in Education

organizations and systems affect the motivation of groups and individuals? and How
might future changes in formal learning environments affect motivation?
Many discussions of motivation begin by making a distinction between intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is characterized as that which comes fromwithin the individual. It inspires action even when there is no perceived external stimulusor reward. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast, provides incentive to engage in action which
may not be inherently pleasing or engaging, but which may offer benefits in terms ofperceived potential outcomes.
This is, of course, a vast oversimplification of the way humans are motivated. It
is made more complicated by questions about the role of motivations of which one is
not consciously aware (are they intrinisic, even when promted by a desire for fame orwealth?) and the processes by which intrinsic motivation may become extrinsic (and,according to some studies, extinguished) or extrinsic motivation may be internalized. So,
while these terms may be useful for conceptualizing the discussion, they are, at best, a
starting point.

The Terminology of Motivation
Motivation is a topic of interest to researchers in a variety of fields including
psychology, human development, education, sociology, and business. In addition, thephilosophical underpinnings and orientations of researchers vary, even within the fieldof academic motivation studies. As a result, perspectives vary and, in some cases,
researchers have developed constructs and terminology that express similar ideas using
different terms.
In the late 1990s, Murphy and Alexander conducted a literature review of motivation
terminology used in studies of academic achievement and academic development (2000,
pp. 3–6). The stated purposes of the review were to identify terms being used in thesestudies and to document the meanings of the terms as defined by the researchers (3). The
terms were then summarized and compared, and some conceptual issues relevant to our
discussion were addressed (3, 28–29, 37–42).
As a result of their analysis, Murphy and Alexander derived twenty terms related tomotivation and academic achievement (8). The first was, naturally, the word motivation
itself. Within that category, two more terms, intrinsic and extrinsic, have been described

53

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29above. Then three subcategories of the broad term motivation were delineated: goal,interest, and self-schema. On page 28 of their article, Murphy and Alexander summarized
the main concepts and terms in each of these categories.
As one might expect, Murphy and Alexander’s review identified six terms under thebroad category of goal, in addition to the category of social goal (8). In their summary,they narrow this to four terms, citing two as synonyms (28).
Here is a representation of their findings (from Fig. 1, page 8) adapted to equate thesynonyms described on page 28:
MOTIVATION
Goal

Interest

Self-schema

Goal Orientation
Mastery Goal
also: Learning Goal

Intrinsic

Individual

AgencyPerformance Goal
also: Ego Goal

Extrinsic

Situational

Attribution

Work-avoidant Goal

Self-competence
Self-efficacy

Social Goal

There are overlapping areas in these terms. For example, performance/ego goals are
driven by concern over what others might think or how one’s abilities might be viewed
by others, so they could also be considered within the domain of social goals (Murphy& Alexander, 2000, p. 34). It is also worthwhile to note that the terms attribution,
self-competence, and self-efficacy relate to one’s evaluation of oneself with respect toparticular tasks or goals, not necessarily to oneself in general.
Murphy and Alexander point out an important consideration in the research into
self-schema constructs, one that was not overtly taken into account in the literature they
reviewed. They questioned the apparent assumptions by researchers that an individual
can accurately identify and report her or his own needs, motivations, and goals (37–38).
This author agrees and, based on inquiries into unconscious learning (Lewicki, Hill, &Czyzewska, 1992), wonders about the role of the unconscious in motivation and how

54Motivation in Educationsuch could be effectively studied. Some research also suggests that implicit learning(unconscious learning) may be mediated by unconscious goals after priming for goal
attainment (Eitam, Hassin, & Schul, 2008). Unconscious learning and unconscious
motivation are difficult to study, but research in these areas might provide valuable
insights into ways we could create more interesting, engaging learning environments.
Another conceptual issue addressed by Murphy and Alexander is the impression
given by some of the terminology that there are dichotomous relationships between thetypes of motivation under study (37–41). Does such a relationship exist between intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, for example, or between individual or situational motivation?
Our realities are more complex than the terminology often suggests; an important point
to keep in mind when considering the implications of the research to classrooms andother formal learning environments. They also argue that other factors—cognitive andstrategic—which are not addressed in the terminology impact individual motivation,
concluding that motivation constructs can probably not truly be considered independent
variables (Murphy and Alexander 41).
Finally, Murphy and Alexander note the trend, at least in the literature they reviewed,
away from the view of motivation as a personality trait toward a more situated view ofmotivation as a state of mind in a particular context or within a particular domain(41–42). This is a crucial distinction. If motivation is seen as a trait, how much influence
is possible through a change in curriculum or environment? However, if motivation issituational, we can productively challenge ourselves to create motivationally supportive
formal learning environments. A third perspective is also possible: the view that somemotivational traits are inherent, but that their expression can be supported or thwarted
based on the environments in which a person functions.

Motivational Theories—In Brief
The reader is likely familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on which he based
his theory of motivation and personality. Of motivational theory he said
Sound motivational theory should … assume that motivation is constant, neverending, fluctuating, and complex, and that it is an almost universal characteristicof practically every organismic state of affairs. (Maslow, 1987, p. 7)

55

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29While allowing for the effects of the environment on motivation, Maslow drew a distinction
between behavior theory and motivation theory, arguing that “behavior is determined byseveral classes of determinants, of which motivation is one and environmental forces areanother” (11).
In contrast to this view, many who study motivation in academic settings today do
not theoretically distinguish between behavior and motivation in precisely the way that
Maslow proposed; instead, they look at cognitive and social constructs, sometimes in
addition to needs and affective factors, when developing theories and designing researchon motivation and motivated behavior (Pintrich, 2003, p. 670).
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and a person’s desires to satisfy them can be consideredintrinsic. He held that these needs were universal to humans, but that they could manifest
in myriad ways based on environmental conditions and an individual’s culture and history(Maslow 28–29). This is important because, if his theory is valid, although individuals
may behave differently in different contexts, the assumption is that motivation is highly
individual and individually constructed. In the situated view, motivation is seen largely asa result of socio-cultural constructs and interactions with the environment (Pintrich 680–
681). This differentiation echoes an earlier philosophical and psychological argument
about the roles of nature vs. nurture in human development. Just as our discussions ofhuman development have become more sophisticated in their recognition of the interplayof nature and nurture, so must our views of motivational factors take into account thecomplexity of the interactions between intrapsychological and social-cultural influences(see Pintrich 681).
There are many goal-oriented approaches to the study of motivation in the classroom.
Ames discusses two goal constructs that are widely used and that appear in the chart in
the terminology section of this paper. They are mastery goals and performance goals.
Ames describes these orientations and explains why mastery goals are more likely
to result in persistence over time and a focus on the intrinsic value of learning, while
performance goals foster a “failure-avoiding pattern of motivation” (Ames, Classrooms:
Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation, 1992, pp. 261–263). Mastery goals focus
on individual improvement and the belief that increased effort is related to increased
competency. In contrast, competition, rewards, successes and failures which are displayed
publicly in the classroom foster a performance goal orientation. Performance goals createa culture of competition and comparison in which ability and self-worth become linked

56Motivation in Educationin students’ minds. In such a culture, students are less likely to take on challenging tasks
and so to avoid the possibility of failure (Ames & Archer, 1988, pp. 260, 265; Ames, 1992,
pp. 261–263).
The Expectancy-Value Theory of achievement motivation describes a complex
interplay of aptitudes, beliefs, previous experiences, goals, self-schema, interest,
expectancy, and perceived/subjective assessment of the utility vs. cost of a particular task
or domain (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, p. 69).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has been developed to try to integrate boththe intrinsic and extrinsic factors in human motivation, thus incorporating both theintrapsychological and social-cultural aspects of other research frameworks (About
the Theory; Pintrich, 2003, p. 670; Ryan & Deci, Self-Determination Theory and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well Being, 2000, pp. 68–
69). As a meta-theory, SDT encompasses five mini-theories: Cognitive Evaluation Theory(CET), Oganismic Integration Theory (OIT), Causality Orientations Theory (COT),
Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), and Goal Contents Theory (GCT). Although
SDT incorporates needs and context, the needs identified by the theory are not identicalto those named by Maslow. The conceptual framework on which SDT is based identifies
three basic needs on which psychological health and well-being depend: competence,
relatedness, and autonomy (Ryan and Deci 68, About the Theory). The following arebrief summaries of these sub-theories as explained on the selfdetermination.org website:● CET addresses the topic of the impact of social contexts on intrinsic motivation.
Competence and autonomy are considered crucial aspects of intrinsic motivationin this theory.
● OIT primarily considers extrinsic motivation and proposes a continuum ofinternalization through which an individual may develop autonomy with regard
to extrinsic conditions.
● GCT also addresses intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The theory contrasts
goals with intrinsic value, such as those related to community and personal
growth, with goals that are extrinsically oriented, such as those related to wealthand fame. The theory argues that goals that support the three basic needs ofautonomy, relatedness, and competency will support psychological well-being,
while extrinsically oriented goals will negatively impact well-being.
● COT is concerned with individual orientations toward environments, identifying

57

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29three primary types. They are the autonomy orientation, the control orientation,and the impersonal/amotivated orientation.
● BPNT proposes the three basic needs outlined above (autonomy, competence,and relatedness) and argues that environments that support these needs promote
psychological well-being.
Although the sub-theories address different aspects of SDT, they all rest on the foundational
tenet that support of the basic needs for autonomy, competency, and relatedness results inpositive motivation and healthy personal development.
Although there are more gradations and variations of these general theories, suchas evolutionary approaches (see Bernard, Mills and Swenson), this brief overview will
suffice for our discussion.

More About Self-Determination Theory
There is a large body of research that supports the SDT perspective (Vansteenkiste,
Simons and Lens; Gillet, Vallerand and Lafrenière; Wiest, Wong and Cervantes; Noels,
Clément and and Pelletier; Hagger and Chatzisarantis, the work of Deci and Ryan, andmany more. See the selfdeterminationtheory.org website or the reference section of anyof these papers for excellent starting points). Because this body of research is so large andthe theory robust, we will do well to examine it further.
While Deci and Ryan began with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), over time they began to distinguish different typesof extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions, 2000). They recognized that extrinsic motivation varies
in the degree to which it is inclusive of autonomy, that is, extrinsic motivations may be
more or less internalized (Ryan & Deci, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions, 2000, pp. 60–65). Thus, they conceived a continuumof extrinsic motivation with categories of increasing autonomy: amotivation, external
regulation, introjection, identification, and integration (Ryan & Deci, Intrinsic andExtrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions, 2000, p. 61). Hayamizu’s
work in Japan has supported this model, suggesting that these concepts may not belimited to a particular society or world view. Although presented as a continuum, theauthors explain that the model is not meant to be seen as sequential.

58Motivation in Education

The study of extrinsic motivation and this continuum fall into the sub-category of
SDT called Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), as mentioned earlier in this paper.
In their review of the evolution of SDT, Ryan and Deci explain that external regulation
was the only type of extrinsic motivation recognized by Skinner and the behavioralist
theorists. SDT’s more nuanced approach offers greater possibilities for understanding
complex interactions with our academic (and many other) environments.
Studies have shown that the more externally regulated are motivations, the lessinterest and effort students display and the more students are likely to blame others fornegative outcomes (Ryan & Deci, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions, 2000, p. 63). So, a greater internalization of extrinsic motivations
should lead to benefits in terms of active engagement and persistence by learners, and thishas been shown to be the case. If this is accurate, then creating learning environmentsthat foster the internalization of extrinsic factors may be one way to support positive
academic outcomes.
There seems to be general agreement regarding the role of autonomy in motivation.
With regard to external motivation, SDT argues that the greater the internalization of
extrinsic factors, the more autonomy or ownership a student feels toward them. But how
can we foster such internalization? Ryan and Deci propose that a feeling of connectedness
to the group that values the extrinsically motivated behaviors—a peer group, family, or
society—will positively impact the internalization process (Ryan & Deci, Intrinsic andExtrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions, 2000, p. 64). This feelingof connection they term relatedness. The identification with a social or peer group can,however, work against positive academic outcomes when the group perceives itself as
not able to achieve academically. Therefore, it is important to create a culture of learning
within academic environments in which there is a demonstrated ability to achieve. Thus,
the third basic need proposed by SDT, competence, must also be fostered.

Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation
There is a great deal of discussion among researchers and practitioners about therole of rewards in promoting motivation. A well known experiment conducted by Lepper
and his colleagues in 1973 concluded that rewards can produce an undermining effectin intrinsic motivation (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, Undermining Children’s Intrinsic

59

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29Interest With External Reward: A Test of the “Underming” Hypothesis, 1973). In theexperiment, a group of children who initially showed interest in a drawing activity
demonstrated a decreased interest after they had been presented with an award forparticipation in the activity. In contrast, the interest displayed by children who were notrewarded remained unchanged. In addition, the drawings of the non-award group were
judged (independently, by a blind panel of judges) to be of higher quality than those of
the award group. These results contraindicated the unrestrained use of token economies
in classrooms, where the behavioralist expectation that rewards would encourage any
desired behavior prevailed.
Since the time of Lepper’s experiment, many refinements have been made in the
study of rewards and their effects on motivation. As Lepper himself points out in his
conclusions to the original experiment, his study addressed a situation in which there wasinitially a high degree of intrinsic motivation to engage in the activity. He cautions that theresults might not be applicable in cases in which the intrinsic interest is low and motivationmust be encouraged extrinsically (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, Undermining Children’s
Intrinsic Interest With External Reward: A Test of the “Underming” Hypothesis, 1973, p.
136).
Self-Determination Theory, and in particular, Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
posits that autonomy is integral to instrinsic motivation. The undermining effect of
rewards on intrinsic motivation and autonomy has been an active area of research by SDT
investigators for decades.
However, in 1994, Cameron and Pierce published an article in the Review of
Educational Research that took CET to task (Cameron & Pierce, Reinforcement, Reward,
and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis, 1994). There followed a heated discussion
in the literature about the validity of the undermining effect of rewards on intrinsic
motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, The Undermining Effect Is a Reality After All—
Extrinsic Rewards, Task Interest, and Self-Determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce,and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999), 1999; Deci, Koestner,& Ryan, A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Rewards on
Intrinsic Motivation, 1999; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras, Understanding the Effectsof Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation—The Uses and Abuses of Meta-Analysis:
Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999), 1999; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron,
Effects of Reward on Intrinsic Motivation—Negative, Neutral, and Positive: Comment

60

Motivation in Education

on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999), 1999; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, Effects ofReward on Intrinsic Motivation—Negative, Neutral, and Positive: Comment on Deci,
Koestner, and Ryan (1999), 1999; Cameron & Pierce, The Debate About Rewards andIntrinsic Motivation: Protests And Accusations Do Not Alter the Results, 1996; Kohn,
By All Available Means: Cameron and Pierce’s Defense of Extrinsic Motivators, 1996).
In 2001, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan published another article in which they summarized
this debate and the results of their meta-analysis, also including the implications of theresearch for formal learning environments (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards
and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again, 2001). In this article
they reiterate the tenets of CET: the basic needs underlying intrinsic motivation arecompetence and self-determination/autonomy (p. 3). They further explain that external
events that increase perceived self-determination and competence will likewiseenhance intrinsic motivation, while those that decrease one’s perception of either selfdetermination or competence will have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (3).
These effects are seen in reward conditions, as well as in conditions of evaluations,competition, deadlines, and externally imposed goals (3). In addition, CET distinguishes
between the informational aspects and the controlling aspects of rewards, and between
verbal and tangible rewards (3).
In the case of verbal rewards, CET argues that the informational aspects of verbal
rewards have the potential to enhance intrinsic motivation by enhancing perceived
competence (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in
Education: Reconsidered Once Again, 2001, p. 3). At the same time, verbal rewards may
have a strong controlling aspect, which can decrease intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner,& Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once
Again, 2001, pp. 3–4). The context in which the verbal reward is given will influence
whether the verbal reward is seen primarily as informational or as controlling. Thus, theclassroom climate is paramount in this respect.
Tangible rewards, on the other hand, are typically offered to encourage behavior
that is not intrinsically motivated; thus, tangible rewards are typically seen as controlling(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education:
Reconsidered Once Again, 2001, p. 4). This is particularly true when the rewards
are offered in advance of the behavior, that is, when the behavior is in response to an
expected reward. If rewards are offered spontaneously, without any prior knowledge,

61

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29they are less likely to be perceived as controlling and therefore less likely to affectintrinsic motivation.
Since rewards that are not offered spontaneously necessarily involve an attempt
to control behavior, and since CET posits autonomy/self-determination as a basic
psychological need, such rewards are necessarily predicted to have a negative impact on
intrinsic motivation. However, these types of rewards may also provide information about
competence. CET makes predictions about the effect of tangible rewards on intrinsic
motivation based, in part, on the informational aspects of the rewards (Deci, Koestner,& Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once
Again, 2001, pp. 4–5). To analyze this, CET identifies three types of contingencies withregard to rewards: task-noncontingent rewards, task-contingent rewards, and performancecontingent rewards (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivationin Education: Reconsidered Once Again, 2001, pp. 4–5). Some researchers further
distinguish between two types of task-contingent rewards: completion-contingent
rewards and engagement-contingent rewards. Here is a summary of the predicted impactof each type of tangible reward on intrinsic motivation based on CET:
Reward Type

Description

Effect on
Perceived
Competence

Effect on
Perceived SelfDetermination

Effect on
Intrinsic
Motivation

Task-noncontingent

Not related
to a task, e.g.
reward forparticipating inan experiment

None

None

None

Task-contingent/
engagement

Requiresengaging inan activity
but does
not requirecompletion

None

Controlling

Undermining

Task-contingent/completion

Requirescompletion ofan activity

Depends on thelevel of skill
requiredControlling/possibly
informational

Undermining
with somepotential offset
based on skill
required62

Motivation in Education

Performance-contingent/ Requires
standard-based
performing
to a pre-set
standard

Typically
comparisonbased,
controlling
effect tends
to outweighcompetency
effectControlling

Undermining

Performance-contingent/ Recognizes
excellence based
excellent
performance

Positive

Controlling/
Informational

Undermining
offset bycompetency

In addition to the factors described in the chart, as with verbal rewards, theinterpersonal context in which rewards are administered is seen as vital. The undermining
effects of rewards can be mitigated by a context which is perceived as supportive. In
contrast, a context which is perceived as controlling can enhance the undermining effects(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education:
Reconsidered Once Again, 2001, pp. 5–6).
The results of Deci, Koestner, and Ryan’s meta-analysis support the predictionsof CET (7–15). In their summary and conclusions, they specify the results pertaining
to verbal and tangible rewards. Verbal rewards tended to enhance intrinsic motivation
except with children or when offered in a controlling manner (15). They also foundthat unexpected tangible rewards and task noncontingent rewards had no effect on
intrinsic motivation. However, their analysis found that tangible rewards had a substantial
undermining effect, especially with children (15).

PraisePraise is a verbal reward. While praise is often taken for granted as a positive
reinforcer of intrinsic motivation (at least in the U.S.), the research suggests that thereality is more complex that this. In their review of the research literature on praise,
Henderlong and Lepper conclude that praise can have a range of effects from beneficial
through negligible to harmful (p. 791). The potential negative impact of praise on intrinsic
motivation can be a result of the way praise is delivered. For example, if the praise isperceived as insincere or controlling, it can have a detrimental effect. Furthermore,praise that has short-term positive effects on intrinsic motivation may have unintended
long-term effects, as when later setbacks occur in a domain in which a child previously

63

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29felt competent due to praise (790). In such cases, one might question whether the praise
actually enhanced intrinsic motivation or whether it became an extrinsic motivator.
The context in which praise is delivered is also important. As mentioned previously,
if the environment is perceived as supportive, praise and other rewards may be received
as supportive as well. But when the environment is perceived as controlling, praise
and rewards may have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, praisethat portrays competence via social comparison or that is delivered publicly may haveunintended negative effects (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002, pp. 788, 791). Insincere praise
or verbal rewards for easy tasks can also have an undermining effect as they convey
a message of lack of competence. Teachers and parents who praise lavishly may notconsider the potentially shaming effects of their behavior.
The often unacknowledged aspect of praise that can be particularly problematicis the fact that praise is a judgment (Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With
Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, 1993, pp. 102–103). As such,it implies or underscores an imbalance of power, which may not be welcomed by therecipient.
In their review, Henderlong and Lepper point out the potential differences in thecultural context of praise. In comparing attitudes toward and effects of praise on U.S. andCanadian students with those in China, Japan, and other collectivist cultures, they pointout that praise tends to be used infrequently in collectivist cultures and that its effects
may be quite different in those contexts (788–789). Collectivist cultures, they propose,tend to value self-improvement more than self-enhancement, and tend to more closely
equate effort and ability. It would be interesting to see more research that compares theuses and results of praise across cultures.

Intangible Rewards
So far, we have discussed praise and tangible rewards, but what about extrinsicallymotivated intangible rewards? Do they have the same undermining effects as tangible
rewards? Vansteenkiste and his colleagues have studied this in terms of goal framingwith both adults and children (Vansteenkiste M. , Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos,
Examining the Motivational Impact of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Framing andAutonomy-Supportive Versus Internally Controlling Communication Style on Early64

Motivation in Education

Adolescents’ Academic Achievement, 2005). Their research suggests that goals which
are motivated by such rewards as financial success or physical attractiveness may
motivate behavior, but that the learning tasks involved may be only superfically or rigidly
achieved, that is, deep learning and incorporation of the learned material is underminedby these extrinsic goal orientations.

Grades as Rewards
Grades may be seen as a particular sort of intangible reward. If the research
regarding the undermining effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation is accurate, and
if one of our goals in formal educational settings is to inspire a love of learning, thenour system of evaluation by grading may be seriously flawed. In his book Punishedby Rewards, Kohn takes a specific look at grading and even asks whether grading isneeded at all (1993, pp. 200–210). In arguing against the use of grades, Kohn refers
to the research results we have been discussing. These studies demonstrate that, once
rewards are introduced for intrinsically motivating tasks, the intrinsic motivation tends todisappear, to be replaced by the extrinsic motivator: the reward. Grades can operate thisway, as well, particularly in situations where they are seen as controlling. Kohn also cites
research that demonstrates that when people are working for rewards, including grades,
they tend to choose the easiest way to achieve the reward (1993, pp. 65–67), which is notnecessarily the easiest way to achieve the task (or necessarily even related to the task
activity, as with getting the answers to assignments in ways that don’t involve doing thetask). The task may become secondary to the reward. Kohn summarizes the issue thisway:
Do rewards motivate people? Absolutely. They motivate people to get rewards. (67)

Finally, Kohn questions the rationale of grading as a way to provide meaningful feedback
to learners about their progress. Studies indicate that a single instructor may assign
different grades to the same work submitted at two different times, and that the same
work graded by two different teachers will often be given two different grades (201).
These studies call into question the perceived objectivity of grades and thus the validityof the feedback. Furthermore, there are much more productive ways to offer feedback,such as by commenting on specifics of an assignment or engaging in dialogue with the

65

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29learner. As Kohn argues, the problem with grades is not just that they don’t provide
meaningful feedback about performance, but also that they fix the learner’s attention on
the performance and away from the learning (202).
While it is unlikely that our systems of grading are unlikely to disappear anytime
soon, we can try to minimize the focus on grading in the classroom. Students canbenefit by engaging in interesting tasks that have meaning for them. We can also devise
evaluation systems that are framed as supports to learning rather than as sorting devices.
With the current emphasis on ever more standardized testing, it can be challenging to
implement such changes. But the research suggests that it is vital that we do so if we wantto keep inspiration for learning alive in our schools.

What Inspires Teachers?
Teachers presumably have the same needs for support of autonomy, competence,and relatedness as students have. While there has been a lot of research documenting
and analyzing student motivation, research on teacher motivation is more scarce.
However, providing supportive environments for teachers seems vital to the health of oureducational systems. So, let’s take a look at what such supportive environments mightlook like within the framework of SDT.
How can educational environments support teachers’ feelings of autonomy?
A wonderful example can be found in Deborah Kinney’s book Born to Rise whichdocuments her experiences in creating the Harlem Village Academies. Kinney admits
that in her perfectionism and intense desire to create an environment in which student
learners could thrive, she overlooked the importance of supporting autonomy in teacher
learning and leadership during the early years of the schools (195–197). Interestingly,
it was through discussions with business leaders that she came to understand how
important the work culture is to supporting and sustaining the well being of teachers.
When Kinney began to share leadership of the schools with the teachers, the school
culture began to change and thrive; teachers took a more active role in designing thelearning environment and found innovative ways to support one another in developing
competence in the classroom (198–212).
Unfortunately, many school environments do not support teacher leadership, nor dothey allow teachers autonomy in terms of developing professional competence. Just as66

Motivation in Education

autocracy in the classroom can undermine the intrinsic motivation of students, so can an
autocratic administration undermine teacher motivation and performance.
Although SDT looks at autonomy, competence, and relatedness as separate
components, in life these are interrelated. What Kinney found was that an increasein teacher autonomy led to an increase in the teachers’ support of one another. This
culture of mutual support enhanced relatedness among the teachers. As a result, moreexperienced and skilled teachers found non-competitive and non-threatening ways tonurture new teachers, supporting competency and improving the working and learning
culture of the school.

The Motivation To Educate
At the heart of this question about motivation in education is the deeper question
Why do we educate? This is a question with a complex array of answers and among thepossibilities are many on which we cannot all agree. A related question is How should
education benefit society and the individual? In societies where education is compulsory
and free up to a certain age, perceived benefits must exist to justify such a large
expenditure of funds.
One perceived benefit of education to society is economic. It is believed that a welleducated work force will help a nation’s economy to prosper, and likewise, will enable
individuals to have a standard of living that supports health and well-being. But wemight ask ourselves what characteristics and skills are needed by individuals in such awork force, and how our systems of education do or do not support their cultivation. Do
we need individuals with specific skills? Do we need workers who are innovative andflexible? Do we need people who can effectively evaluate and integrate new learning? Do
we need lifelong learners?
In countries with democratic governments, another perceived benefit is that
individuals who are taught to think clearly and evaluate evidence will be better able to
make sound political decisions. In nations with jury forms of criminal justice systems,
such skills are also needed to make fair judgments. How can our systems of education
support these qualities and skills?
Another perceived benefit by some is that formal learning environments canencourage the development of prosocial behaviors and effective social skills. Again

67

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29we can ask ourselves whether our current systems of education support this kind ofdevelopment and, if not, how we can improve in this area.
And finally, some believe that cultivating a deep love of learning can help sustain
a high quality of life for individuals and communities. Are we cultivating this in ourcurrent educational systems?

Thoughts for Future Directions
According to the tenets of Self-Determination Theory, humans have an intrinsic
desire to learn, and this desire is fueled by the basic psychological needs for autonomy,competence, and relatedness. If we want to engage individuals at all levels of oureducational systems in meaningful growth and learning experiences, we need to design
environments and systems that support these needs. We can do that by developing
educational policies at the governmental level that support the creation of systems
that encourage autonomy and competence rather than imposing rewards and sanctions
that undermine intrinsic motivation. At the system level, we need to encourage sharedleadership which leads to mutual ownership of the educational culture, supporting
autonomy, competence, and relatedness within the academic system and in conjunction
with the communities they serve. At the site level, be it in physical or in digital space, wemust support teacher autonomy and create non-threatening environments for enhancing
competency. We need to facilitate community-building between and among teachers,
learners, and families. The support of those learning communities must create safe placesin which learners can take the necessary risks that nurture the intrinsic desire to learn andgrow.
This all sounds wonderful, but our own habitual ways of thinking and our current
educational climate will typically contravene these efforts. What can we do?
● Start in our own communities, creating learning environments based on thetenets of SDT and see what works. SDT is not a prescriptive set of rules, but rathera philosophy that can help guide the creation of a learning culture.
● Design and implement meaningful research into teacher motivation, applying theresults to support and enhance the well-being of teachers.
● Communicate within and beyond our learning communities.
● Participate in enhancing the intrinsic motivation in others and in yourself.

68Motivation in Education● Innovate: try new things.
Works Cited“About the Theory.” Self Determination Theory. 9 September 2012 <http://selfdeterminationtheory.
org/theory>.
Ames, Carole and Jennifer Archer. “Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students’ Learning
Strategies.” Journal of Educational Psychology (1988): 260–267.
Ames, Carole. “Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation.” Journal of Educational
Psychology (1992): 261–271.
Bernard, Larry C., et al. “An Evolutionary Theory of Human Motivation.” Genetic, Social, andGeneral Psychology Monographs 131.2 (2005): 129–184.
Cameron, J. and W. D. Pierce. “Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis.”
Review of Educational Research 64 (1994): 363–423.
——. “The Debate About Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: Protests And Accusations Do Not Alterthe Results.” Review of Educational Research 66 (1996): 39–52.
Chirkov, Valery I. “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Autonomy in Education: A Self-Determination
Theory Perspective.” Theory and Research in Education 7.2 (2009): 253–262.
Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum, 1985.
Deci, Edward L., R. Koestner and Richard M. Ryan. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments
Examining the Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin (1999):
627–668.
Deci, Edward L., Richard Koestner and Richard M. Ryan. “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivationin Education: Reconsidered Once Again.” Review of Educational Research 71.1 (2001): 1–27.
——. “The Undermining Effect Is a Reality After All—Extrinsic Rewards, Task Interest, and SelfDetermination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, andGingras (1999).” Psychological Bulletin (1999): 692–700.
Eisenberger, R. and J. Cameron. “Detrimental Effects of Reward: Reality or Myth?” American
Psychologist (1996): 1153–1166.
Eisenberger, R., W. D. Pierce and J. Cameron. “Effects of Reward on Intrinsic Motivation—Negative,
Neutral, and Positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999).” Psychological Bulletin(1999): 677–691.
Eitam, Baruch, Ran R. Hassin and Yaacov Schul. “Nonconscious Goal Pursuit in Novel Environments:
The Case of Implicit Learning.” Psychological Science 19.3 (2008): 261–267.
Gillet, Nicolas, Robert J. Vallerand and Marc-André K. Lafrenière. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic School
Motivation as a Function of Age: The Mediating Role of Autonomy Support.” Social Psychology
in Education (2012): 77–95.
Hagger, Martin S. and Nikos L.D. Chatzisarantis. “Causality Orientations Moderate the Undermining

69

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 29Effect of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2011):
485–489.
Hayamizu, Toshihiko. “Between Intrinisic and Extrinsic Motivation: Examination of Reasons for
Academic Study Based on Theory of Internalization.” Japanese Psychological Research (1997):
98–108.
Henderlong, Jennifer and Mark R. Lepper. “The Effects of Praise on Children’s Intrinsic Motivation:
A Review and Synthesis.” Psychological Bulletin 128.5 (2002): 774–795.
Kinney, Deborah. Born To Rise. New York: Harper, 2012.
Kohn, Alfie. “By All Available Means: Cameron and Pierce’s Defense of Extrinsic Motivators.”
Review of Educational Research 66 (1996): 1–4.
——. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other
Bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.
Lepper, Mark R., David Greene and Richard E. Nisbett. “Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest
With External Reward: A Test of the “Underming” Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology (1973): 129–147.
Lepper, Mark R., J. Henderlong and I. Gingras. “Understanding the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on
Intrinsic Motivation—The Uses and Abuses of Meta-Analysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner, andRyan (1999).” Psychological Bulletin (1999): 669–676.
Lewicki, Pavel, Thomas Hill and Maria Czyzewska. “Nonconscious Acquisition of Information.”
American Psychologist (1992): 796–801.
Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. 3rd Edition. New York: Longman, 1987.
Murphy, P. Karen and Patricia A. Alexander. “A Motivated Exploration of Motivation Terminology.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (2000): 3–53.
Noels, Kimberly A., Richard Clément and Luc G. and Pelletier. “Perceptions of Teachers’Communicative Style and Students’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” The Modern Language
Journal (1999): 23–34.
Pintrich, Paul R. “A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 95.4 (2003): 667–686.
Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions andNew Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology (2000): 54–67.
——. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development,
and Well Being.” American Psychologist 55.1 (2000): 68–78.
Vansteenkiste, Maarten, et al. “Examining the Motivational Impact of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal
Framing and Autonomy-Supportive Versus Internally Controlling Communication Style on
Early Adolescents’ Academic Achievement.” Child Development 76.2 (2005): 483–501.
——. ““Less is Sometimes More”: Goal-Content Matters.” Journal of Educational Psychology(2004): 755–764.
——. “Motivating Learning, Performance, and Persistence: The Synergistic Role of Intrinsic-Goal
Content and Autonomy-Supportive Context.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(2004): 246–260.

70

Motivation in Education
Wiest, Dudley J., et al. “Intrinsic Motivation Among Regular, Special, and Alternative Education
High School Students.” Adolescence (2001): 111–126.
Wigfield, Allan and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. “Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.”Contemporary Educational Psychology (2000): 68–81.

71