How effective are token economies? And how effective are teachers at evaluating when students are motivated and when they are not?

I was curious to find out how effective behavioral approaches are in guiding student behavior. I did some research into the effectiveness of token-economy behavior systems in elementary classrooms. The experiment, “Behavior Change and perceptions of Change: Evaluation the effectiveness of a token economy” by Reitman, Murphy, Hupp, and O’Callaghan (2004) had really important applications to motivation theory. The authors had teachers in 14 different classrooms evaluate student behavior every 10 minutes and reward positive behavior. If students behaved positively they were allowed to play a simple game. The authors found that token economy system lowered problem behaviors 50-75% (as measured by direct observation) though it did not lower teachers’ perceptions of problem behavior occurrence. This made me think about teacher’s skewed and sometimes biased interpretation of student motivation. As teachers we often mis-diagnose. We use anecdoctal evidence and project our own values and beliefs about what motivated looks like. For example, when I evaluate my students level of motivation, I usually do it through a lens of a what I look like when I am motivated. I project my actions and behaviors onto my students. This happens both implicitly and explicitly. If teachers were provided with objective data regarding student motivational styles and patterns this may be beneficial to everyone involved. If a trained psychological evaluator was allowed to give diagnostic information for all of my causing them to shut down) and avoid missing an unmotivated child that is just really good at looking motivated.

Reflections on the role of a teacher

When is the best time to teach intrinsic motivation and healthy attribution, and who is in the best position to teach it?

I was reflecting on the theme in Alderman’s text that teachers are in the best position to motivate students and that it is there responsibility to do so. On page 6 she explains that negative motivational patterns seen from effort and ability framework may be fostered by classroom practices. She suggests a variety of practical ways teachers can support positive emotional patterns throughout her book. For example, in chapter two, attribution, she offers strategies for teachers to retrain students’ attributions. She suggests that teachers collect attributional information, shift expectancies after success and failure, identify groups of students whose attributions may be self-deprecating, be cognoscente of how you offer help to students, genuinely reflect on your own beliefs about effort and ability, ensure students have ability to succeed, suggest strategies when appropriate, and give feedback according to student’s effort not ability (Alderman, 2001, pp 27-61). I absolutely agree with all of these strategies as well as the sentiment that teachers are in a crucial role to motivate students. I spend a great deal of time and energy looking for ways to get students interested in the material, engaged in learning it, and invested in producing excellent work. In the meantime, I need to be teaching for understanding, assessing each students current level and progress, connecting with students and creating relationships, contacting parents, creating excellent lessons, writing tests, grading assessments and homework, this list could really go on forever. Is there a way for students to take an actual class on motivation as elementary students? Certainly all secondary classroom teachers have an important role in motivating students. But, many of my students begin high school with poor attributional patterns in place. Further, I have had education and training on motivation and have some strategies to help my students. Most of my high school colleagues lack this experience and aren’t experts in motivating students, they are experts in instruction and their content area.

Most teachers receive no training on how to teach students to be intrinsically motivated and don’t have much time to do so. Most of my students have never worked for something in math, reading, or science class, achieved it, and been rewarded, so of course they are hesitant to work for something. Could this reward cycle be taught by a teacher for whom this is the only goal? Could they take a non-academic course in which the whole objective of the course is to teach students to be rewarded? It is so difficult to plan for these situations as teachers, especially when teachers lack education psychology background and value ability simply because it means we can get through the lesson. The long term benefits of a child fall second when you are struggling to teach them to add fractions today.

Connect to their limited motivation in high school; many students lack the ability to think about their thinking. Meaning they lack metacognitive skills. Perhaps this same class that teaches healthy motivation processes could also teach metacognitive skills. My 9^th graders, who are still not able to figure out there own way to understand something seem extremely challenged and behind. The handful of kids who consistently earn A’s, consistently attended class, and grew the most, although, interestingly, they also started the year very self-directed and inclined to seek rewards for academic achievement. All of the characteristics of self directed learners (intrinsic motivation, self-monitoring, and self evaluation) are so bundled. You can not teach one without the student HAVING the others already. Is there one that comes first? Is it hierarchal? Can we gets students intrinsically motivated if they are not able to evaluate their own lack of understanding? Can a student want to know something when they lack the ability to the even metacognitively self-appraise? And the reverse, can we teach a student to be metacognitive when they don’t intrinsically value the process? Must we attempt to solve this during content instruction, or is it best taught in a separate class and reinforced in content-specific classrooms?