Motivation \"Motivating the Seemingly Unmotivated

¶ … Motivation

"Motivating the Seemingly Unmotivated Student"

Approximately 25% of students in the late 1980's were living at or below the nationally established poverty level. Children from these poor families were identified as having higher rates of needing special instruction vs. other same age students from more advantaged homes (Young & Melnick, 1996). Today, the numbers of "at risk" students has grown exponentially and compounded for students who are recent immigrants, represent an ethnic or racial minority, and are poor (Barber, et al., 1988). As more than 90% of urban middle school enrollment, these youth attend schools with weak curriculums, limited access to more challenging academic instruction, and proven alternatives to instructional strategies (Russ, 1993).

Students who come to school facing challenges in the home, systematically disenfranchised because of race or ethnicity, may find it more difficult to focus in the classroom and may present as unmotivated. At the same time, instructors may seem frustrated not knowing what to do to capture that particular child's interest in learning, or holding their attention (Hootstein, 1998). In addition, students come from elementary schools with experiences, beliefs, and expectations that significantly contribute to their learning and motivation to learn. Oftentimes, students find they have not been sufficiently prepared for the increased rigor, limited flexibility, and expectations of most middle school environments (Frye, 2010). According to Rudolph, Clark, Lambert, and Kurlakowsky (2001), "adolescents who believe that academic success in not under their control… may feel ill-equipped to deal with the novel demands of middle school" (935).

As such, finding a way to successfully motivate the unmotivated student is very important; taking into consideration not only the academic challenges they face, but their home, social, and economic environments as well. In order to effectively motivate students, one needs to ensure relevant subject matter (to the child's interests, concerns needs, and experiences), having an interesting and motivated instructor and instruction, supporting a students sense of control within the learning environment, and expectations of success (Hootstein, 1998).

Literature Review

Ginsberg and Wlodkowski, in their work "Creating Highly Motivating Classrooms for all Students" point out that even in optimal learning conditions; wherein class sizes are reasonable, there is mutual respect between teachers and students, and families and school personnel work together, motivation can still be illusive (11). This is not a new phenomenon, as there has not been nor is there currently, in the United States, a classroom situation where all children and their circumstances and conditions are all alike and uniformly contribute to their academic success (11). Although new pedagogical frameworks and annually renewed strategies supported by sound empirically-based research can serve as a guide to possibilities, because every student is influenced and shaped by multiple social contexts, as well as socio-cultural influences such as poverty, racism, and other injustices, there are no easy answers as to how to motivate the unmotivated student (12).

"Understanding and encouraging motivation is an on-going process that requires educators to examine and reconsider their own histories, experiences, and interpretations" (12).

There must also be an investment in understanding from the students perspectives, their struggles and communities and apply that understanding to the ways in which they individually struggle with societal inequalities.

Ginsberg and Wlodkowski posit that every individual is motivated to learn and that the role of school personnel is to elicit, encourage and support each student's intrinsic motivation. In so doing, learning experiences must be engaging and relevant, respectful, and successes must be recognized in ways that matter to the students. Because motivation can not be precisely measured or directly observed, scholarly research has focused on stories for indications of interest, signs, behaviors and the words people say. Although the information may be helpful to teachers, it is still challenging to recognize and identify students intentions and to understand their behavior. Because students present with such varied experiences, histories, and worldviews, it is difficult for teachers to interpret their purpose and will; resultantly, misconceptions are common (19).

Because conventional wisdom and scholarly research indicate that students who are motivated with surpass those who are unmotivated in learning and performance, teachers commonly want to gain knowledge of motivation in order to give all students the best chance to have an excellent education. Teachers need to find learning activities that are satisfy students intrinsically.

In order for students to consistently learn well, they must feel respected, buy into their learning experiences being relevant, and accept challenges that can be effectively accomplished (Wlodkowski & Ginsbert, 1995; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Lambert & McCombs, 1998).

The pedagogy proposed by Ginsberg and Wlodkowski is culturally responsive and based on the intrinsic motivation to correct the imbalance of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. They posit a motivational framework that is culturally respectful and capable of creating a common culture among students and their teachers that is acceptable to them. The framework is composed of four motivational conditions that are continuously created and enhanced.

Establishing inclusion is one of the four tenants of the contextual framework of culturally responsive teaching. To establish inclusion, practices and principles that contribute to the learning environment that is respectable to all involved and facilitates connectedness between teachers, students and the community, must be employed. From a scientific viewpoint, when students are encouraged by the academic atmosphere to use their own cultural and social strengths, they are then able to construct cognitive connections that aid in making information and knowledge relevant and bring knowledge within their personal control (Vygotsky, 1978). A positive attitude must be developed through personal and cultural relevance. The assumption that students should simply be ready to learn is a misconception adopted by a number of school administrators. Enhanced meaning brings about challenges and actively engages students in the learning process. The concept of enhancing meaning strengthens and expands learning in ways that are important to students and possess social merit. Lastly, engendering competence utilizes principles and practices that aid students in authentically identifying that they are "effectively learning something valuable" (26).

According to the authors, a culturally responsive curriculum is a transformational curriculum, wherein students examine subjects from a variety of academic, political, and cultural perspectives in ways that are socially meritorious (Banks, 1997; Nieto, 1992; Butler, 1993). This kind of curriculum design encourages students to see themselves and others realistically and equally and this is supported through all resources for learning. In addition, a transformational curriculum requires teachers and school administrators to objectively evaluate materials currently used in the school to determine if they are fair cross culturally.

Further, Ginsberg and Wlodkowski purport that enhancing meaning provides connections and patterns that link perception to important questions or goals, motivation is intensified because of the obvious relevancy. This "deeper meaning" accesses more intense feelings that are interconnected to the ways in which we have been socialized in our homes, schools, communities, genders, ethnic affiliations, etc. Susanne Langer (1942) posited that there is a basic pervasive human need to attribute meaning in one's own environment and search for and find significance everywhere. This meaning, however, can't be separated from the people we are as cultural beings or what our purpose is (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000).

According to Ginsberg and Wlodkowski, there has been a great deal of scholarly research done with regard to assessments, grading practices, and their impact on student motivation. The authors maintain their philosophy regarding the essential purpose of assessments is to "engender competence" in students in ways that the students will perceive as valuable (p. 174). "Intrinsic motivation is elicited when people within and across cultural groups know they are competently learning from a meaningful activity that leads to a valued goal" (p.174).

When students are afforded a real life context for demonstrating what they have learned, their perception is enhanced because what they have learned is relevant, is appealing on a pragmatic level, and is affirmative as it relates to their experiences and background (Kasworm and Marienau, 1997).

Landen and Willems, in their article, "Do You Really Know How to Motivate Children?" posit that motivation in learning is a varied and complex process (p. 283). When viewing extrinsic incentives, they looked to the work of Greene and Lepper (1974) which indicated the use of external incentives to learning show that rewards can "backfire" and a child's intrinsic level of interest in learning and activities related to learning may be undermined by the use of these external rewards and the controls that accompany them.

Four separate studies were conducted with preschool and elementary school students where the students performed tasks to receive an extrinsic reward. Results indicated that the children's level of interest significantly diminished as compared to those children who were required to perform the tasks but received the reward without prior notice. The authors determined that the extrinsic reward was most ineffective when the children expected to receive a reward for task performance. Contingent upon these results, Greene and Lepper (p. 54) proposed that (1) immediate objectives should be attained without the sacrifice of the established long-term goals. When children were presented with a powerful extrinsic reward, their motivation was undermined at a higher level then when these rewards were absent; (2) When teachers or instructors assume extrinsic rewards are necessary to motivate students, they may become necessary because they undermine the students intrinsic desire to complete said tasks and perform.

Extrinsic rewards should only be used when other efforts to actively engage students in learning has failed; (3) In the event extrinsic rewards must be utilized, they should be "just powerful enough to control behavior" and should be eliminated in phases before all intrinsic motivation is lost.

Jones, Vermette, and Jones posit in their article, "An Integration of "Backwards Planning' Unit Design with the "Two Step" Lesson Planning Framework," planning and engaging students in effective lessons is a fundamental component of successful teaching and therefore, motivating students (Skowron, 2001). The authors created the concept of backwards planning which requires educators to start with a nominal list of essential questions all students must answer by the end of the lesson plan. With the end goal in mind, teachers then design assessments based on those understandings and strategically crafted lessons to achieve the desired objectives. Once the goals and assessments have been created, teachers are then required to create and implement lessons to address both unit and lesson objectives. Flynn, et al., (2004) refer to this sequence of planned events as the discovery and exploratory phases of the lesson.

According to Brozo and Flynt, children who are engaged when they have interests and as engaged thinkers they are better students (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). It follows that children who are motivated to read spend more time doing so then those who are unmotivated (Guthrie, et al., 1999). As reading is foundational to all other learning, this research becomes increasingly more important. An awareness of the importance of motivating students is a novel idea but finding ways to accomplish this task can be difficult. Motivating students and not just reluctant readers, particularly in the area of reading, requires content text, which can also be challenging to educators (Baker & Wigfield, 1999).

When text is unappealing or too cumbersome and the teaching pedagogy around the text does not successfully engage the students, then students may avoid reading in the required content areas (Strommen & Mates, 2004).

Academic self-efficacy as it relates to students is the belief and confidence about the capacity to accomplish tasks that are meaningful and produce the results desired in academic settings. According to Pajares, 1996, students who have elevated school related self-efficacy are more motivated and more engaged than those with low self-efficacy. This applies whether students are economically disadvantaged or not, tend to out perform students who are not engaged (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Educators can build self-efficacy by creating interest in new content. When this happens, students are more likely to assert the necessary effort to learn and read if the learning activities and materials associated with the activities is interesting to them (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). More than skill is required. Students must also have the will to learn and read. As such, teachers should be inclined to incorporate a number of instructional practices that encompass multiple forms of literacy, information sources, and students ability to choose when it comes to what they learn (Rycik & Irvin, 2001).

The authors maintain that the most interesting text to students is text they create from their everyday exist as well as content text they readily recognize. Alvermann (2003) argues that students, who may not appear as literate when it comes to academic text, are often very literate and engaged when it comes to utilizing technology that also requires reading such as texting, instant messaging, blogs, video games, magazines, etc. Motivating these students to read when it comes to content text therefore is most effective when connections are made to their regular multi-literary practices (Hinchman, et al., 2003/2004).

Resultantly, introducing text that students can most relate to, from their everyday existence in a variety of genres and transferring that to content lesson plans holds a lot of promise for motivating the "unmotivated student (Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999).

According to Guthrie, "collaboration for motivations refers to critical social networks that support students' literacy and content learning" including collaboration between students and teachers (2008). By creating opportunities for students to work collaboratively with each other in the pursuit of information, increased attention to social motivation serves to drive individual intrinsic motivation and greater academic achievement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).

Reeve, in his article, "Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive" describes a frequent and all too recurrent paradox in the K-12 classroom wherein teachers implement a controlling style of motivation even though students respond much more favorably developmentally and educationally when their autonomy is supported. The controlling behavior exhibited by teachers is the "interpersonal sentiment and behavior teachers provide during instruction to pressure students to think, feel, or behave in a specific way (Assor, et al., 2005; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).

Support of student autonomy is described as interpersonal behavior and sentimentality provided by educations to identify, develop, and nurture students' internal motivational resources (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Reeve et al., 2004). According to the author, this is important because students in autonomy supported situations exhibit significantly more positive classroom behavior, functioning, and achieve greater educational outcomes than students who have controlling teachers (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Recent research shows that teachers frequently enact both controlling behaviors and autonomy supporting behaviors during any given teaching episode; however, the controlling behaviors are much more common (Assor et al., 2002). The conditions that foster a controlling style to motivate students in educators, according to the authors, are when only the teachers' perspective is adopted; when students are pressured to feel, think, and behave in certain ways; and when students' actions, thoughts, and feelings are intruded upon. This may not be the instructors' goal; however, it is frequently the case particularly when teachers look at student motivation from their own perspective. Controlling instructional environments are created when the teachers' perspective overrides the student perspective.

In addition, teacher intrusion is described by Assor and colleagues (2005) as "explicit attempts to fully and instantly change the behaviors children presently engage in or the opinions they hold" (398). These instructor imposed pressures and intrusions cause students to abandon their own internalized frame of reference and natural rhythm and inclination for learning; rather, absorbing and responding to the pressures to alter or change their way of thinking, behaving and feeling.

The controlling motivational style is displayed in two distinct ways, according to Reeve, including external or direct control and internal or indirect control (Assor et al., 2005; Assor, Roth & Deci, 2004; Barber, 1996; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2005). Direct or external control involves a teacher's overt and explicit attempts to motivate students by creating "external compulsions to act" including but not limited to verbal commands, environmental incentives, and imposition of deadlines. This modus operandi causes an externally perceived locus of control for students and environmentally controlled regulation (Reeve 202).

Reeve posits seven reasons why teachers adopt a controlling motivational style.

However, indirect or internal controlling motivational style involves a more subtle approach by the instructor with covert attempts at student motivation by creating internal compulsions to act; for example, through feelings of shame, anxiety, and/or guilt (Barber, 1996), threats to withdraw approval or attention (Assor et al., 2004), attaching a way of thinking, behaving, or feeling to a student's self-esteem (Ryan, 1982), grooming perfectionist self-representations or standards (Soenens, et al., 2005), or offering "conditional regard in a more general way (Assor et al., 2004).

Reeve posits seven reasons why teachers adopt a controlling motivational style. (1) Teachers are in an inherently powerful social role and their interactions with students' places them in a context of an "interpersonal power differential between interactants" (213). Because teaches occupy the position of power in the relationship between students and teachers, they have a significant amount of influence over students. As students are "one down" in this relationship, they are vulnerable to teacher control (Deci & Ryan, 1987). According to empirical research, the person in the one up position typically talks first, sets the tone for any interaction, and takes charge. The person who is one down defers, acquiesces, listens first and can be influenced by the proactive behavior from the one deemed more powerful (Magee, Galinsky & Gruenfeld, 2007). The controlling motivational style is more or less the default interaction style and is consistent with the teachers' inherent social role (Reeve 213).

(2)Teachers are both accountable and responsible. These dual burdens routinely place teachers in job conditions whether they are responsible and accountable for student outcomes and behaviors. There are a number of external forces, for example, state standards, administrators, high-stakes testing, media reports, and parents that assist in placing this dual burden on educators. A trickle down effect tends to occur as teachers feel pressure from administrators or other external forces they tend to exercise more controlling motivational tactics towards students (Pelletier et al., 2002). Teachers become social conduits that absorb and relay pressure to students when they are pressured to produce specific student academic performance and behavior.

(3) In the United States culture, teachers who use controlling motivational styles are seen as more competent then those who use autonomy-supportive strategies and teachers are aware that these controlling behaviors are culturally valued. These controlling strategies, in the U.S., are seen as optimal ways to garner maximum performance (Barrett & Boggiano, 1988). Pressure on and controlling by instructors is exacerbated and valued when policies are in place and become the norm within the school community (Maehr & Midgley, 1991). The belief that the extent to which immediate benefits effect controlling strategies may have outweighs the negatives that are overlooked as well as the negative and "less salient long-term effects these strategies may have; for example, interference with conceptual learning and turning off developmental motivation (Boggiano, et al., 1987; Vansteekiste, et al., 2005). Empirical research counters common cultural thought as it has been statistically shown that students who are in receipt of these controlling motivational styles and strategies fair worse than students who receive autonomy supportive strategies (Fink et al., 1990).