Middle School Journal Research Articles
The Effects of Reward Systems on Academic Performance
By Lucinda M. Wilson & Deborah A. Corpus
Motivating students to achieve academically highlights the different philosophical debates
over intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Educators want to know how motivation can be
increased for middle level students who often arrive at middle school with a predetermined
attitude about their ability to succeed or fail. The fundamental competitive view of our
economic system often dictates the ways in which many reward systems are organized to
motivate students. Rather than finding ways to recognize each student as an individual as
suggested by many middle school experts, teams often set out to develop systems that will
manage both behavior and academics by rewarding those who comply and punishing those
who do not (Kohn, 1986; 1993; 1996).
The Skinnerian model of changing behavior by immediate feedback such as praise or
negative response remains in classrooms even though the theory itself has been found
ineffective for changing behaviors long term (Brophy, 1998; Carter, 1996; Jensen, 1998,
Johnson, 1999; Kohn, 1993). It is possible to control only low-level, physical behaviors
through extrinsic rewards (Brophy 1998; Jensen 1998; Kohn 1993; 1996). Based on current
research, however, it seems inappropriate to use behaviorist models to motivate students to
achieve academically. For the purposes of this overview, we will not address the complex
issues of extrinsic rewards used as social tools, such as behavior reward systems and their
effects on bullying behaviors, paying for pregnancy prevention, or rewarding students for
attendance. The focus of this article is on what research says about rewards and
punishments on students’ academic performance.
Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic motivation theory and research has a 40-year history beginning with White (1959)
who first challenged Skinner’s empirical reinforcement theory with the theory of competence
as a crucial element in motivation. Personal causation theory was developed by deCharms
(1968) as he researched young men’s motivation to achieve measured against some
internal standard of excellence. Bandura (1982) proposed the theory of social learning and
self-efficacy by studying people’s self-regulation. This sense of self influences the choice of
activity, how much effort one is willing to expend, and how persistent one will be in
accomplishing a task. Deci and Ryan (1986; 1992) provided evidence that extrinsically
caused behavior actually undermines motivation in the long run. Another aspect of selfefficacy is attribution theory, the individual’s belief that persistence will get a job done
(Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Schunk, 1989; Weiner, 1974). This research consistently
demonstrates that a student’s internal or intrinsic sense of self and belief in working hard to
achieve a goal are the determining factors in whether or not he will succeed. More recent
studies have focused on goal orientation and the idea that motivation is determined jointly
by the expectation that the effort will lead to the goal (self-efficacy) and that the goal is
worth attaining (Csikzentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989; Patrick, Ryan, & Pintrich, 1999).
Then can the goal be an extrinsic reward? Yes, it can; however, the individual makes the
determination if the goal is worth the effort. Deci and Ryan (1992) used the concepts of
intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation to examine self-regulation of
learning. They defined internalized extrinsic motivation as behavior that has a separable
consequence (reward or goal), but is integrated into a person’s life so that the person’s
behavior is wholly volitional. They also found that high quality learning is associated with
intrinsic motivation and fully internalized extrinsic motivation. They found that the social
contexts that allow this combination include choice, optimal challenge, feedback,
interpersonal involvement, and acknowledgment of feelings. Covington (1999) also explored
the coexistence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and found the students’ interest in
learning to be connected to task orientation rather than failure avoidance. No one individual
carries the same balance of motivations. Bandura (1977) found that “different aspects of
human behavior are regulated by different combinations and levels of incentives” (p.114).
Educators have a difficult task developing a single extrinsic reward system that will match
the motivational needs of various people.
Thus, offering ice cream coupons or pizza may motivate a few students to improve
academic performance for the short term. The research, however, is overwhelmingly
convincing that extrinsic rewards do not have a positive long term effect and can actually
have a negative long term effect (Johnson, 1999; McCullers, Fabes, & Moran, 1987).
Students in several of the studies demonstrated decreased motivation after attaining the
rewards (Carter, 1996; Simons, Dewitte & Lens, 2000). The evidence is compelling that
extrinsic motivational techniques while producing short term change actually produced
negative effects. In two different alternative learning studies, students with higher extrinsic
and peer recognition needs rarely completed the alternative program while those with more
intrinsic motivation finished the program and believed that they could return to school and
be successful (Hudley, 1996; Nichols & Utesch, 1998). In an electronic accelerated reading
program, students actually devalued reading and became unable to develop skills as
independent selectors of books (Carter, 1996). One recent study focused on leisure
activities of young adolescents and discovered that extrinsic rewards for activities actually
caused students to be bored with the activities because they did not have control over the
decisions (Caldwell, Darling, Payne, & Dowdy, 1999).
Locus of Control
Perhaps the continuing controversy in schools is actually about differing philosophies of
control. Most management systems for the classroom such as Teaching Students
Responsibility and Self Control (Bluestein, 1988), Assertive Discipline (Cantor & Cantor,
1992), and Discipline with Dignity (Curwin & Mendler, 1988) assume that the locus of
control is always with the teacher. The teacher manages the students and manages the
learning process. More recent cognitive theories encourage a shift of the locus of control to
the student in relation to his or her control over learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993;
Developmental Studies Center, 1996; Glasser, 1990; Grolnick & Kurowski, 1999).
Increasing the students’ belief in their own capacity to achieve, perform, and to apply skills,
may cause them to experience a sense of control over their learning. William Glasser in The
Quality School (1990) repeated his assertion that to “understand what motivation actually
is, it is necessary first to understand that control theory contends that all human beings are
born with five basic needs built into their genetic structure: survival, love, power, fun and
freedom” (p.43). No matter what teachers use as extrinsic motivations for students to learn,
some students will exert their need for power or control and simply not learn if they do not
agree with the reason for learning.
If students believe that they can succeed and choose to do so, they will. Csikezentimihalyi
and Nakamura (1989) studied intrinsic motivation and persistence in young adolescent
males. They noted that students who were challenged at just above their level of
competence and who had an intrinsic reason for attempting the challenge would reach a
stage of “flow.” The theory embraces the idea that the student is competing against himself
or herself rather than others. Low achievers, on the other hand, have experienced so many
failures, especially in relation to other students, that they will not put forth the effort (Lent,
Brown & Larken, 1984). Students who have experienced repeated failure often use selfhandicapping strategies such as procrastination or deliberately not trying so as to convey
the idea that these problems rather than lack of ability are the reasons for low performance
(Midgely & Urdan, 1995).
In the academic areas, we teachers determine the challenge inherent in a task. Vygotsky
(1978) developed the theory of a zone of proximal development. It is defined as the
distance between a child’s actual developmental level, what a child can do independently,
and the level of potential development, and the problem solving that a child can do under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. To be successful, a teacher
must teach within the zone of proximal development, working just beyond what the child
could problem solve independently.
Celebrations vs. Rewards
Brophy (1998) helps teachers make a distinction between positive recognition and providing
rewards. He stated that intrinsic motivation is not undermined by the use of rewards as
such, but offering rewards in advance of action as incentives leads students to believe that
they engaged in the rewarded behaviors only to earn the rewards. The students’ focus then
is on the reward, not on the learning that has value in its own right.
The distinction between celebration and reward is demonstrated by Krogness (1995) who
wrote of bringing in homemade quiche, salad, and cider to her fifth period class. When the
middle school students ask what it was for, she replied, “This is my treat to you because
you’re engaging in learning. You’re taking the lead, now. You’re making important
decisions; you’re taking charge of your work and your lives. I imagine that you’re feeling
better about this class, too. I know I am” (p. 94).
Implications for the Classroom
External rewards, while still popular, generally have only a short term positive effect and
possible long-term negative effects on learning. When students have a sense of control and
choice, on the other hand, and are challenged just above their level of competence, they
have increased intrinsic motivation, persistence, and belief that they can be successful.
It is no surprise, then, that to improve academic achievement of middle school students,
successful programs incorporate the social contexts for both intrinsic motivation and
internalized extrinsic motivation. These include cooperative learning lessons (Bassett,
McWhirter, Jeffries, and Kitsmiller, 1999; DeKeyrel, Dernovish, Epperly, and McKay, 2000)
and programs that promote problem solving, feedback, and students’ sense of control over
learning activities (Hootstein, 1996).
New studies strongly indicate that teacher attitudes and actions influence students’ sense of
their abilities in math and science. Student attitudes in these subjects are cemented during
middle school (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). Teachers need to give more sense of intrinsic
motivation to students by improving instructional practices that promote interest and
success. In a study of Hispanic science students, being able to see real life models of people
practicing science changed students’ attitudes and beliefs about their own abilities as well as
their interest in science (Sorge, Newsom, & Hagerty, 2000).
The challenge for educators is to provide appropriate balance as middle school students
develop both intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation or goal orientation. As
teachers, we can provide the optimal challenge and the problem solving support for
academic success and a sense of “flow.” Teachers can provide the social contexts including
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
choice
feedback
interpersonal involvement
acknowledgment of feelings
celebrations rather than rewards
real life models
cooperative learning.
Strategies that provide students with renewed intrinsic motivation (Anderman & Midgley,
1997) are
• having meaningful tasks
• communicating the idea that ability is not fixed
• using a variety of instructional strategies
• providing a sense of competence and achievement along with some sense of
autonomy in the learning process.
These strategies along with positive teacher attitudes help young adolescents develop a
sense of competence and achievement through positive recognition for their work.
References
Anderman, L. & Midgley, C. (1997). Motivation and middle school students. In J. L. Irvin
(Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 41-48). Columbus,
OH: National Middle School Association.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bassett, C., McWhirter, J., Jeffries, J., & Kitsmiller, K. (1999, fall). Teacher implications of
cooperative learning groups. Contemporary Education, 71(1), 46-51.
Bluestein, J. (1988). 21st century discipline: Teaching students responsibility and selfcontrol. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic.
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brophy, J. (1998) Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Caldwell, L., Darling, N., Payne, L., & Dowdy, B. (1999). “Why are you bored?”: An
examination of psychological and social control causes of boredom among adolescents.
Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 103-122.
Cantor, L. & Cantor, M. (1992). Lee Cantor’s assertive discipline: Positive behavior
management for today’s classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Lee Cantor & Associates.
Carter, B. (1996). Hold the applause! School Library Journal, 42(10), 22-26.
Covington, M. (1999). Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter
appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 127-137.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of
adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp.
45-71) New York: Academic Press.
Curwin, R., & Mendler, N. (1988). Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York Academic Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1986). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning
and achievement. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A
social-development perspective (pp. 9-36). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyrel, A., Dernovish, J., Epperly, A., & McKay, V. (2000). Using motivational strategies
to improve academic achievement of middle school students. Unpublished masters action
research project. St. Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois.
Developmental Studies Center. (1996). Ways we want our class to be. Oakland, CA: Author.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Harper & Row.
Grolnick, W., & Kurowski, C. (1999). Family processes and the development of children’s
self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 3-15.
Hootstein, E. (1996). Motivating at-risk students to learn. Clearing House, 70(2) 97-81.
Hudley, C. (1996, April 8-12). Educational alternatives for at-risk adolescent learners: Two
case examples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Krogness, M. (1995) Just teach me, Mrs. K. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D. (1999). Creating fat kids who don’t like to read. Book Report, 18(2), 96.
Lent, R., Brown, S., & Larkin, K. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic
achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356-362.
McCullers, J., Fabes, R., & Moran III, J. (1987). Does intrinsic motivation theory explain the
adverse effects of rewards on immediate task performance? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(5), 1027-1033.
Middleton, J., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings,
generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 30(1), 65-89.
Midgley, C. & Urdan, T. ( 1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of selfhandicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389-412.
Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Nichols, J., & Utesch, W. (1998). An alternative learning program: Effects on student
motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Education Research, 91(5), 272-279.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Pintrich, P. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery
goal orientations of males’ and females’ self-regulated learning. Learning & Individual
Differences, 11(2), 153-172.
Schunk, D. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 13-44) New York: Academic Press.
Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Wanting to have vs. wanting to be: The effect of
perceived instrumentality on goal orientation. British Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 335-351.
Sorge, C.; Newsom, H., & Hagerty, J. (2000). Fun is not enough: Attitudes of Hispanic
middle school students toward science and scientists. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 22(3), 332-345.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. (1974) Achievement motivation as conceptualized by an attribution theorist. In
Weiner, B. (Ed.), Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66, 297-333.
Wilhelm, J. (1995). You gotta be the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with
adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lucinda M. Wilson is an assistant professor of education at Butler University, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
E-mail: lmwilson@butler.edu
Deborah A. Corpus is an assistant professor of education at Butler University, Indianapolis,
Indiana. E-mail: dcorpus@butler.edu
Judith L. Irvin is a professor of education at Florida State University, Tallahassee. E-mail:
irvin@coe.fsu.edu