What are the key elements for success in school learning?

What are the key elements for success in school learning?

李洁琼

乌鲁木齐市第七十中学

Abstract: Success in school learning lies in encouraging and helping students to learn in a motivated and active way. Rewards and teaching strategies should be the two key elements for success in school learning.

Key Words: school learning, elements for success

Education occurs in many places these days, within families, the internet and communities; however, school remains the primary place for youth’s transition into adult society. Schooling can affect society in both subtle and far reaching ways. For instance, United Nations data (UNICEF, 1996) showed that the level of schooling for women, especially in developing countries, was best predicted by increasing in family income, birth rates, children’s health and nutrition. According to Freiberg (2005), school learning is a significant factor in success of education organizations and future success of countries. The forms of school learning around the world are mostly similar with only slight variations. Schools are likely to have one teacher with a group of students, fixed time for instructions and similar assessments. As a result, there should be some similar key elements for success in school teaching as well.

In this paper, I will further explain these two key elements. Firstly, I will emphasize the importance of motivation, especially intrinsic motivation. Secondly, both verbal and tangible rewards will be interpreted and analysed critically. Specifically, praise and positive feedback which are two main forms of verbal rewards will be discussed first, followed by two forms of tangible rewards, performance- and task-contingent rewards. Thirdly, I will stress the significance of teaching strategies adopted by teachers with three teaching strategies critically discussed, including transmission, pure discovery teaching, and guided discovery teaching. Finally, I will give a conclusion about these key elements for success with evaluation.

From a student’s perspective, motivation (with which they will be energized and activated towards their learning) is of crucial importance in school learning. Especially intrinsic motivation, which is seen as the growth-oriented and proactive nature of human beings, it is the natural basis for the students learning and development (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). When students freely engage in learning for their own sake, either interesting or useful, their learning could be regarded as intrinsically motivated. However, this rarely occurs in school learning, instead most students require external rewards, such as praise and high marks to force them to learn. Therefore, teachers attempt to encourage and motivate students’ learning by offering them some rewards, even when their behaviour, to some extent, are intrinsically motivated (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000).

However, verbal rewards may be ineffective even counter-productive, if overused, for the independent and self-motivated students who are high achievers and get accustomed to success. They can also be less effective when the expected and desired rewards are not obtained (Eden, 1975). For those students who considers learning as intrinsically rewarding and worthwhile, verbal rewards are unnecessary (Moore & Anderson, 1969; Montessori, 1964). Therefore, verbal rewards should be appropriately applied in different situations with different students.

Performance-contingent rewards are rewards depending on certain levels of performance. It increases students’ intrinsic motivation when applied in school learning (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). Lepper (1981) also reports that performance-contingent rewards might produce an effective incentive function in regard to performance quality since it could motivate students to work harder and exert more effort in learning.

Performance-contingent rewards could lead students to choose the approach, which might determine how the students experience in the process of learning and whether they would continue to enjoy learning after rewards disappear, to complete the tasks. According to Harackiewicz & Sansone (2000), the promise of rewards for performing well indicates that performance quality should be the central issue and such rewards would definitely affect students’ motivational orientation toward the tasks. Thus, being offered performance-contingent rewards, students might define the learning as an achievement task in which they would be motivated to demonstrate and develop competence (Nicholls, 1984; Dweck, 1986). If students regard the performance-contingent rewarded learning as an opportunity or a challenge to assess their abilities, they might be more responsive and motivated to their performance feedback (Harackiewicz, Manderlink & Sansone, 1984).

Performance-contingent rewards provide feedback of performance quality as well. When students successfully receive or fail to receive the rewards, they learn whether they have achieved the performance criterion and have satisfied their the reward contingency. This feedback might influence students’ perceptions of competence which could affect their intrinsic motivation directly (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). According to previous studies, perceived competence was a dominant factor affecting intrinsic motivation (White, 1959; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Due to these formulations, students could enjoy learning when they felt a sense of mastery. The development of competence in learning could be intrinsically rewarding and could stimulate continuing interest for students (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). For instance, the mastery of new approaches to figure out the math problem may make math class more enjoyable for young students.

In the process of applying performance-contingent rewards, three factors would impact students’ intrinsic motivation, both enhancing and weakening, in their school learning. Evaluative threat, competence feedback, and symbolic cue value will be discussed separately in the followings.

The anticipation of evaluation might influence students’ experience and intrinsic motivation in their learning (Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1992). Although students are aware of the evaluation of their performance during the learning period, they might still feel pressured or controlled by it (Ryan, 1982; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Evaluative threat which debilitates students’ performance and motivation may also impact task involvement and affect how students’ feel about the learning. Geen (1980) suggests that people anticipating evaluation could be anxious about their performance. Wine (1971) indicates that people might become distracted if they think about their own inadequacies. Additionally, evaluative threat inherent in performance-contingent rewards will be one property responsible for decrease in students’ interest. Amabile (1979) claims that the anticipation of performance evaluation in non-reward situations undermine students’ intrinsic interest in learning and the similar effect will happen in performance-contingent rewards as well.

Competence feedback may repair some of the damages caused by evaluative threat in task engagement. Bandura (1986) claims that perceived competence is considered as a significant determinant of subsequent interest for students in learning. If reward attainment makes students to regard themselves as competent, they might become more interested in learning. Fisher (1978) and (Ryan, 1982) have found the positive impacts of competence feedback on intrinsic motivation. Nevertheless, performance-contingent rewards do not guarantee all the positive performance feedback (Deci et al., 1996b). When students receive negative performance feedback, it may undermine their interest and motivation in learning. Deci et al. (1999a) suggested that the integration of evaluative threat and negative feedback could have deleterious effects.

Symbolic cue value could impact intrinsic motivation throughout the whole process of reward. It might affect interest independently of both evaluative threat and feedback (Harackiewicz et al., 1984). The symbolic cue value behind the performance-contingent rewards could instil feelings of pride, accomplishment and satisfaction. Once the rewards symbolize higher-level achievement, cue value would be greater (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). For example, a reward for reaching first in a math examination symbolizes a higher-level competence than reaching in the top five.
These three factors, evaluative threat, competence feedback and symbolic cue value, have simultaneously negative and positive effects. Thus the impact of performance-contingent rewards on students’ intrinsic motivation in learning when compared to no rewards would depend on the weighting of each factor in different situations. Specifically, if positive impacts of competence feedback and cue value outweigh the negative impacts of evaluative threat, then performance-contingent rewards would actually enhance students’ intrinsic motivation.

Compared to performance-contingent rewards, task-contingent rewards have a comparatively negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Task-contingent rewards are rewards offered simply on task completion. The undermining impacts of it on students’ intrinsic motivation have continued to grow in previous studies. Lepper et al. (1973) indicates that students, who initially possess high-level of intrinsic motivation for painting, experience a decrease both in their globally assessed quality of their paintings and their task interest. Greene and Lepper (1974) and McGraw and McCullers (1979) have also found the decrements in students’ intrinsic motivation and performance quality under the task-contingent rewards. Moreover, Shapira (1976) and Pittman et al. (1982) claimed that non-rewarded participants chose more complicated games or puzzles, while rewarded participants showed a preference for simpler ones.

Task-contingent rewards themselves may undermine students’ intrinsic motivation. However, if combined with goal setting, the effect will be different. Students should set themselves goals about what they want to achieve during the process of tasks (e.g. I would read two chapters of my physics textbook tonight). Purpose goals explain the reasons why students engage in a task (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). For instance, when rewards are contingent on task completion, students tend to possess achievement-purpose goals, such as the desire to demonstrate or develop their competence. Yet, purpose goals could also comprise of some other reasons for learning which do not involve competence, which includes having fun, enjoying group work and socializing. Purpose goals could facilitate to establish the motivational context which would affect students’ approach and experiences in learning (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). Target goals reflect specific guidelines for what students are required to do in order to achieve their purpose goal (Locke & Latham, 1990; Bandura, 1986). For example, when receiving task-contingent rewards, students tend to possess target goals which reflect the standard of the task and meet the task contingency. In the process of task-contingent-rewards, purpose goals help students reflect the reason why they are engaging in learning, while target goals help them to understand what they are trying to accomplish (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000).

Yet, discovery teaching could, to some extent, offset the passiveness of transmission strategy. Discovery teaching occurs when students are not required to receive the target information or conceptual understanding and should point it out independently with only materials provided (Alfieri et al. Aldrich, 2011). Students are free to study in such a learning environment with minimal or no guidance (Mayer, 2004). According to Svinicki (1998), discovery teaching actually focused on how students reacted when acquired 'they' new information. At the primary stage, students actively accommodate new information to the existing network of associations that they had or created new networks. At a higher stage, students need to independently emphasize the critical information since connections to prior knowledge should be discovered by students. They should continue searching for more accurate associations as well. During the process, students should be aware of how they came to such conclusions about understanding the accurateness of their associations by themselves.

Svinicki (1998) also claimed that discovery teaching strategy lay in two underlying functions: active learning and meaningful learning. Students are active participants during the process of discovery learning rather than 'being' passively filled by teachers. Active learning produces several benefits as Svinicki (1998) referred. Firstly, students would pay more attention to their learning in general. It is easier to get distracted when passively receiving information from teachers while active participation attracts students to respond to the task appropriately. Secondly, active involvement forces students to discover answers to the questions which may produce deeper processing of information rather than mere memorization. Thirdly, active learning could result in an “episodic memory” which binds the specific memory to an event. With episodic memory, students can reconstruct the idea from the memory related to an event when they cannot remember it. Lastly, active participation is motivating which may arouse the interest of students. Svinicki (1998) claims that discovery learning results in meaningful learning since the association's students actively discovered in problem-solving were more meaningful than artificially imposed associations. Svinicki (1998) insisted that meaningful learning in discovery teaching strategy lies in following dimensions: first, discovery learning is more meaningful since it integrates students’ personal associations with their understanding. Following the teacher’s idea is not a good way for students to actively combine their own experience with received concept. Discovery learning provides opportunities for students to incorporate new information into their own existing networks and experience; second, discovery learning is more concrete which is easier for beginners in a field to understand. Piaget (1970) concluded that children had difficulties dealing with abstractions until they got old enough. Thus, beginners in a field will also have difficulties with abstractions so they are required to be more concrete in thinking.

However, pure discovery teaching strategy does not always function efficiently. It encounters a great deal of challenges in discovery of problem-solving rules compared to guided discovery teaching strategy. Craig (1956) studied how to facilitate students to learn how to solve logical problems between the pure discovery group and the guided discovery group. It turned out that the latter group with some hints learned more efficiently. In Kittel’s (1957) research of studying the immediate retention, delayed retention and transfer to solving new problems, the pure discovery group performed worst while the guided discovery group performed best. Pure discovery teaching did not perform the best as expected in discovery of conservation strategies. Piaget (1970) maintained that the best way for students to discover the conflictions between their current conceptions and observations in solving conservation problems is for them to rely on their own without corrections provided by teachers. Nevertheless, Gelman (1969) and May and Tisshaw (1975) demonstrated that kindergarteners learned better in solving conservation problems through the guided discovery teaching. Wallach and Sprott (1964) and Beilin (1965) suggested that the guided discovery teaching illustrated the reversibility rule resulting in great improvements on subsequent conservation tests.

Teachers should attempt to adopt appropriate strategies in various situations. In some cases, the pure discovery teaching is needed to promote students learning actively and independently but in others some mixture of guidance is required (Mayer, 2004). Therefore, the teachers should learn to balance the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy and adopt the teaching strategies flexibly, but never over-use it or under-develop it.

In this paper, I defined success in school learning as encouraging and helping students to learn in a motivated and active way and figured out that the two key elements for success in school learning should be rewards and teaching strategies at the beginning. Then I critically analysed the first key element, rewards. I first stressed the significance of motivation, especially intrinsic motivation which is the natural basis for students’ learning and development from students’ perspective. Then I critically discussed verbal rewards and tangible rewards which would enhance students’ motivation. Verbal rewards which mainly involve praise and positive feedback could be a particular desirable and valuable form of the reinforcement (Brophy, 1981). Such reinforcement could be widely used by teachers to increase frequency of students’ good behaviours in school learning. Furthermore, verbal rewards could also effectively motivate students to build self-esteem, to learn actively and independently (Brophy, 1981). Yet, verbal rewards may be ineffective even counter-productive, if overused, for the independent and self-motivated students who are high achievers and get accustomed to success. Thus, verbal rewards should be appropriately applied in different situations with different students. Performance-contingent rewards do not always have a positive effect on students’ intrinsic motivation as well. It could lead students to define the approach to complete the tasks and provide feedback of performance quality as well. However, three factors (evaluative threat, competence feedback and symbolic cue value) would impact students’ intrinsic motivation, both enhancing and weakening, in their school learning. Evaluative threat which debilitates students’ performance and motivation may also impact task involvement and affect how students’ feel about the learning. Competence feedback may repair some damage caused by evaluative threat in task engagement. Symbolic cue value could impact intrinsic motivation throughout the whole process of reward. Once the rewards symbolize higher-level achievement, cue value would be greater (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). Since these three factors have simultaneously negative and positive effects so that the impact of performance-contingent rewards on students’ intrinsic motivation are different in different situations. Compared to performance-contingent rewards, task-contingent rewards have comparatively negative effect on students’ intrinsic motivation. Nonetheless, if combined it with the importance of goals, the effect will be different.

Although both rewards and teaching strategies may not always enhance students’ school learning, they are still encouraging and helping students to learn in a motivated and active way. In actual school teaching, teachers should learn to take more use of these two and avoid their weakness.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cheng, Y. C. (2001). In search of new teacher education. Tai Po, Hong Kong; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Eisler, R. (2000). Tomorrow’s children. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fay, A. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1994). Benefits of teaching design skills before teaching LOGO computer programming: Evidence for syntaxindependent learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11,187–210.

Goodman, P. (1962). Compulsory Miseducation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

6