Motivating Students To Learndocx

=== Motivating students to learn ===

Top of Form

Motivating Students to Learn

Heather Voke

Studies in the 1980s and '90s showed an alarming number of students disengaged from the instruction taking place in their classroom (Meece & McColskey, 1997). This lack of engagement was especially pronounced for adolescents and minorities attending schools in metropolitan areas (Goodwin, 2000). Although research attests that students are most likely to be engaged in learning when they are active and given some choice and control over the learning process—and when the curriculum is individualized, authentic, and related to students' interests—surveys of classroom practices reveal that instruction emphasizing student passivity, rote learning, and routine is the rule rather than the exception (Goodlad, 1984; Yair, 2000).

A growing body of research points to the essential role that student engagement plays in the learning process. It also indicates that some schooling environments are more effective than others at promoting student engagement—and that some common educational practices may actually promote student disengagement. Policymakers and educators must understand the importance of student engagement in the learning process, as well as the conditions that promote or discourage its development. Policymakers in particular must be attentive to the ways that well-intentioned education policies, such as high-stakes testing, may constrain educators from creating environments that support student engagement.

Defining [anonimizat] is student engagement? According to Fred Newmann, author of [anonimizat] and Achievement in American Secondary Schools (1992), engaged students make a “psychological investment in learning. They try hard to learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning the formal indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating or internalizing it in their lives” (pp. 2–3). According to this definition, an engaged student is one who is intrinsicallymotivated to learn—that is, motivated from a desire for competence and understanding, or simply from a love of learning, rather than a desire for a good grade, a teacher's approval, or acceptance into a good college.

Research shows that engaged students experience greater satisfaction with school experiences, which may in turn lead to greater school completion and student attendance rates, as well as lower incidences of acting-out behaviors. Researchers have also found that student engagement results in other, less obvious, benefits. As Stipek (1996) writes in the Handbook of Educational Psychology, engaged students are more likely to approach tasks eagerly and to persist in the face of difficulty. They are also more likely to seek opportunities for learning when the extrinsic awards are not available—for example, after formal schooling has been completed—positioning them to learn more over time than their disengaged peers.

Engagement also promotes a higher quality of learning. According to researchers Sheldon and Biddle (1998),

A huge literature now documents the relative advantages of intrinsic motivation. Although externally-motivated persons can demonstrate impressive feats of short-term, rote learning, intrinsically motivated learners retain such rote material longer, demonstrate a stronger understanding of both rote and more complex material, and demonstrate greater creativity and cognitive flexibility. This happens because intrinsically-motivated persons are more wholly engaged and absorbed in their activities, bringing more of their previous knowledge and integrative capacities to bear in their pursuit of new understanding and mastery.

Engagement is an essential prerequisite for the development of understanding. Understanding by Designauthors Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998) argue that if educators want students to understand what they learn in school and apply the knowledge and skills to real-life situations, they must make them go beyond restating basic facts on multiple-choice or short-answer exams. This development of understanding cannot happen if students are not engaged. As Newmann, Wehlage, and Lamborn (1992) write,

Students may only give token effort and still succeed in school. That is, they can tune out, complete some of the work with only minimal concentration, and even cheat. But if most of their learning is approached in this manner, it will yield only superficial understanding and short-term retention, unlikely to be applied or transferred beyond a few school tests. (p. 14)

Others argue that student engagement is essential because it lays a foundation for civic engagement. Historically, one of the primary missions of public education in the United States has been to prepare children for democratic citizenship. Research shows that student engagement in schools transfers to citizen engagement in democratic public life. Engaged students are more likely to develop the skills, understandings, and attitudes essential to civic participation—and to exercise them—than are disengaged students (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994).

The Child, the Family, and the School

According to a recent publication by the National Research Council (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), “Young children are actively engaged in making sense of their worlds” (p. 100). Children naturally learn when there is “no external pressure to improve and no feedback or reward other than pure satisfaction” (p. 90). Problem solvers and problem generators, children “not only attempt to solve problems presented to them, but they also seek and create novel challenges” (p. 90). And, when young children face something difficult or complex, they persist in learning because “success and understanding are motivating in their own right” (p. 100). But, even though children may begin life intrinsically motivated to learn, their engagement drops as they move through schooling, according to numerous studies (Brewster & Fager, 2000; Graham & Weiner, 1996). What leads to this change?

Initially, the child's home environment shapes the attitudes that a child develops toward learning (Lumsden, 1994). When that environment encourages exploration and curiosity and provides the resources that can enlarge the child's view of the world, the child's natural motivation to learn is encouraged. Additionally, when those close to the child nurture her sense of “self-worth, competence, autonomy, and self-efficacy,” the child comes to view herself as “competent and able”; her “freedom to engage in academically challenging pursuits and capacity to tolerate and cope with failure” are greatly increased (p. 2). Conversely, when a child's home environment discourages the child's natural curiosity and undermines his sense of competency and self-worth, he may, over time, form attitudes that inhibit engagement.

Others argue, however, that schools themselves are partially responsible for decreasing student engagement. The learning environment of most schools is dramatically different from the natural learning environment of the young child (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Children in schools generally have little control over when or what they are expected to learn; they are required to study subjects and master skills that may not interest them and have no apparent value to them, and they are forced to persist in learning when natural interest is not present. Furthermore, some commonly used pedagogical practices intended to enhance student engagement, such as the use of sanctions and rewards, actually undermine student motivation to learn (Meece & McColskey, 1997; Sheldon & Biddle, 1998).

The question then becomes, What type of schooling environments must we construct to preserve and enhance children's natural inclination to engage?

What Drives Student Engagement?

According to education researchers, children have certain basic psychological needs and are most likely to become engaged in the learning process when the learning environment is compatible with those needs (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; McCombs, n.d.).

For example, humans are driven by a need to achieve competence (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992), and their beliefs or expectations about their ability to perform certain tasks successfully influence future learning. When learners perceive that they have been successful at an endeavor, they are more likely to be motivated to learn in the future and to persist when faced with a difficult task; conversely, when learners have a history of failure, it becomes difficult to sustain the motivation to keep trying (Anderman & Midgley, 1998).

Humans also need to feel securely connected to others and “worthy and capable of love and respect” (Stipek, 1996, p. 101). They are motivated to achieve when they feel that they are able to make a positive contribution to the group (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Learners are most likely to feel that they are genuine members of a community when the group is organized around a clear purpose, when they are treated as valued and respected members of the group, and when they are treated with fairness (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). People also want to be physically and psychologically safe, and, when faced with physical or psychological threats, they are less motivated to learn (Jensen, 1998).

Humans are driven to engage in authentic, personally meaningful, and relevant work. According to motivational researchers, tasks that have personal meaning for learners are more likely to promote engagement (McCombs, n.d.; Stipek, 1996). As Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) write, “Learners of all ages are more motivated when they can see the usefulness of what they are learning” (p. 49). Similarly, humans are driven to exercise control over their own activities, and children are more likely to be motivated to learn when they believe that their actions are internally initiated and when they have opportunities to regulate their own actions or make choices (Alderman, 1999; McCombs, n.d.; Sheldon & Biddle, 1998). Learners who do not believe that they have control or choice are less likely to expend the effort necessary to learn.

Structuring Schools for Engagement

Children will be more likely to engage in learning when schools offer an environment that allows these needs to be met (Brooks, 1999). Educators must be attentive not only to teaching methods and the formal curriculum but also to the larger context of the school culture and disciplinary procedures; grouping practices; relationships between students, teachers, administrators, and parents; the physical structure of the school; and assessment strategies (Stipek, 1996; Yair, 2000).

Researchers agree that schools that maximize student engagement should have the following characteristics:

Each student should have a curriculum at an appropriate level of difficulty, and teachers must have high but achievable expectations for all students (Alderman, 1999; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Learning First Alliance, 2001). Instructional tasks should be of “intermediate difficulty”; they should be “tasks that students can complete but only with some effort, so as to engender feelings of increasing competence and pride” (Stipek, 1996, p. 89). Students should also be provided with clear, frequent, and constructive feedback so that they are able to see growth in their capacities and skills (McCombs, n.d.; Stipek, 1996; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

All students must have opportunities to participate in the decision-making processes of the school and to regulate and direct their own learning. Schools should encourage students to take responsibility for “regulating their own learning and for being self-determined and autonomous learners,” for when choices are given to students, “the evidence is clear that student motivation, learning, and performance are enhanced” (McCombs, n.d., pp. 7–8). Researchers emphasize that the choices students receive must be authentic—and not token measures intended to pacify students.

Schools should organize themselves as communities that foster caring relationships between all members of the school community and treat all members fairly. Students are motivated to learn when they believe that their teachers care about their education and about them personally; therefore, they must have opportunities to share their ideas and perspectives, and schools must demonstrate to them that their perspectives are valued (McCombs, n.d., pp. 8–9). They should create a sense of community and common purpose; at the same time, they should recognize the diversity and individuality of each member of the community.

Whenever possible, instruction should be tied to topics and problems that naturally interest students (Ormrond, 1995; Stipek, 1996). Teachers should make connections between students' prior knowledge and experiences and illustrate the connection between the curriculum and the real world (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Rather than emphasizing that students learn material because it will be on the test, teachers should underscore the relevance of classroom instruction to students' personal lives and future aspirations (Ormond, 1995; Sheldon & Biddle, 1998). Motivational researchers insist that curriculum and instruction should be culturally relevant to promote student engagement, for “when students' community voices are underrepresented or devalued in the curriculum, students may feel silenced in classroom activities” (Kordalewski, 1999, p. 2).

Schools should provide a psychologically and physically safe environment. Classrooms and schools should not be overcrowded; the physical plant should be well-maintained and well-lit and have good ventilation. Security measures should be carefully selected to balance the need for a safe environment against the need for a comfortable and inviting learning environment (Learning First Alliance, 2001). Schools should minimize aggressive behaviors such as teasing and bullying by “creating an atmosphere in which civility, order, and decorum are the norms and antisocial behavior such as bullying, intimidation, and taunting are clearly unacceptable” (p. 14).

Obstacles to Engaging Students

Despite the research on promoting student engagement, many schools do not provide students with learning environments that foster it. According to McCombs (n.d.), many students do not

See the current educational content and practices as intrinsically interesting and engaging or relevant to their desired goals and personal interests. They also do not see the context as one that supports basic personal and social needs, such as to be self-determining, competent, and connected to others. (p. 4)

Particularly troubling is evidence that students who already have risk factors associated with academic failure are the least likely to receive the type of schooling that promotes engagement (Goodwin, 2000).

Many obstacles make it difficult for schools to engage students. For example, the type of instruction that is likely to engage all students requires that teachers invest considerable time in planning and preparation. Without sufficient time, teachers cannot “prepare simulations, organize projects and games, analyze novels, and preview videos and films” (Hootstein, 1994, p. 215), much less adapt the instruction to the interests and needs of each unique learner in their classroom. Educating students for engagement may also require greater financial investment as teachers seek to supplement the school's standard materials and resources.

Educating for student engagement also requires a great deal from teachers; they must have a solid understanding of multiple subject areas and sophisticated pedagogical skills to ensure that the curriculum engages students and covers the knowledge and skills that all students should learn. Whole-school reform is even more difficult, as many schools don't have the internal resources needed to engage in whole-school redesign (Ark & Wagner, 2000).

Parent and community concern may also constrain schools. Reforms that promote greater student engagement may be an effective way to bring about improvements in student achievement; however, the public may be uncomfortable with changes in the traditional structure or processes of the school. As Ark and Wagner (2000) write, “Our collective and idealized memory” of schools “may be the greatest impediment that we face” (p. 3). Teachers, too, may be uncomfortable modifying long-standing habits of instruction, believing that the safety of the tried-and-true method outweighs the risks associated with innovation.

Promising Practices

Despite these formidable obstacles, many educators have managed to develop schools and classrooms that foster student engagement. Consider how Ron Berger, a teacher at Shutesbury Elementary School in Massachusetts, organizes instruction in his classroom. Each year, Berger structures his class's studies around several themes, and students complete projects organized around them. One year, for example, his class studied water from September to January. Students in his combined 5th and 6th grade class teamed up with a 3rd and 4th grade class at another school to investigate the health of local ponds and streams. They spent a month collecting data and analyzing and writing their findings. They worked with a local scientist and college students, analyzed the chemicals contained in the local water, and presented their report to local citizens (White, 2000).

Berger and others assert that when students are given opportunities to engage in such projects, they demonstrate an enthusiasm and passion for learning that cannot be generated when curriculum and instruction is limited to textbooks and worksheets (Brewster & Fager, 2000; White, 2000). Berger and others maintain that as students engage in collaborative projects involving authentic work, they develop a deep understanding of subject matter and hone their problem-solving skills.

Research on student engagement suggests that changes in the classroom should be coupled with schoolwide initiatives, one of which is the establishment of small schools or schools-within-a-school. Many communities across the United States are replacing their large schools with smaller schools or dividing the student population within large schools into smaller communities or clusters. For example, Patterson High School in Baltimore, Md.—with a student population of 2,000—has been reorganized from a single large school into several smaller, self-contained units called academies. The reform has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in teacher satisfaction and student attendance and promotion rates (McPartland, Jordan, Legters, & Balfanz, 1997). Advocates of this type of reorganization argue that smaller schools counter the anonymity, alienation, and student disengagement that can be associated with large high schools. They believe that when the student body is reduced, schools are more likely to develop into caring, learning communities in which teachers and students come to know and care about one another (Lee & Smith, 1995).

Project-based learning and the small-schools movement are just two examples of how educators are working to modify the traditional practices and structures of schooling to foster increased student engagement while working within the framework of public schooling. Although the two approaches could be optimized by additional training and planning time for educators—and additional funding and resources for schools—both work to increase student engagement within current constraints.

[anonimizat] and the High-Stakes Environment

Beginning with the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 and continuing into the present, there has been widespread concern about declining student achievement. Over the last few years, accountability systems have been strengthened, and there has been a movement at the state and national level to use test scores to “determine which students progress to the next grade level or receive a diploma, which teachers receive bonuses, or whether a school receives awards or sanctions” (Ananda & Rabinowitz, 2000, p. 1). The sanctions attached to high-stakes testing have proven an effective tool for focusing educators' attention on improving student achievement; teachers and administrators are under tremendous pressure to produce satisfactory student test scores (Popham, 2001).

Some argue that the current context of standards and high-stakes accountability is compatible with—and supportive of—student engagement. They argue that the use of standards and accountability measures gives schools an incentive to improve educational quality and provide all students with access to “challenging and creative lessons” (Achieve, 2000, p. 4). Achieve, a national organization created by governors and corporate leaders advocating higher standards and rigorous accountability measures, asserts that “high standards—and ways to measure progress against high standards—are essential to ensuring that all students have access to the kind of high-quality learning experiences that many young people have not been receiving” (p. 3). Driving the accountability movement is a concern that many students, particularly African American and Hispanic children and those attending schools in inner-city, rural, or high-poverty communities, have been subjected to low expectations, poor instructional practices, and unappealing curriculum. Advocates of high-stakes accountability argue that holding schools accountable for student achievement will compel them to improve the quality of education provided to these students, giving all children access to a quality education (Achieve, 2000).

However, others, such as Heubert & Hauser (1999), argue that the high-stakes environment may have unintended consequences. Critics assert that the movement discourages educators from exploring new ways of teaching and organizing schools that might ultimately lead to improvements in student engagement and achievement. When the stakes are high, teachers and administrators are less likely to invest time and resources in experimenting with practices that might not lead to immediate results in test scores (Sheldon & Biddle, 1998).

Sheldon and Biddle (1998) point to studies showing that teachers in a high-stakes environment are more likely to exercise controlling behaviors and less likely to allow students to explore and experiment, practices that promote student engagement. As they write,

Accountability systems can and often do create negative forces that are inimical to key goals of education. . . . Too much focus on tests can lead teachers to adopt a narrowed curriculum, dampening student interest . . . stultifying instrinsic motivation in the subject . . . and forestalling the self-directed exploration that is crucial to deeper understanding and mastery.

Sheldon and Biddle (1998) observe an unfortunate paradox arising from the accountability movement:

Although maximal student growth may be the goal, if student attention is focused on tests that measure that growth, or on sanctions that reward or punish it, that growth will not be maximized. In contrast, if students are challenged, if their interests in the subject matter are encouraged, if they are given autonomy support, then their intrinsic interests, their motivation for learning, and their test scores will all grow more effectively.

Ironically, the desire of education policymakers to bring about immediate and easily measurable improvements in student achievement may inhibit the practices that research indicates are most likely to promote student engagement and ultimately result in greater understanding and growth (Anderman & Midgley, 1998).

References

Achieve. (2000, Summer). Testing: Setting the record straight. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: Author.

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderman, L. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Motivation and middle school students. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421281)

Ananda, S., & Rabinowitz, S. N. (2000). The high stakes of high-stakes testing. San Francisco: WestEd.

Ark, T. V., & Wagner, T. (2000, June 21). Between hope and despair. Education Week, 19(41), 76, 50.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, A. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Report of the National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000, October). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Brooks, R. B. (1999). Creating a positive school climate: Strategies for fostering self-esteem, motivation, and resilience. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Educating minds and hearts: Social emotional learning and the passage into adolescence. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001, May). Assessment and accountability across the 50 states. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Goodwin, B. (2000, May). Raising the achievement of low-performing students. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 62–84). New York: Macmillan.

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hootstein, E. W. (1994, March/April). Motivating students to learn. The Clearinghouse, 67(4), 213–217.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kordalewski, J. (1999). Incorporating student voice into teaching practice. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED44049)

Learning First Alliance. (2001, November). Every child learning: Safe and supportive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. (1995, October). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.

Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370200)

McCombs, B. L. (n.d.). Understanding the keys to motivation to learn. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

McPartland, J., Jordan, W., Legters, N., & Balfanz, R. (1997, October). Finding safety in small numbers. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 14–17.

Meece, J., & McColskey, W. (1997). Improving student motivation: A guide for teachers and school improvement teams. Tallahassee, FL: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for the social studies. Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ormrond, J. E. (1995). Educational psychology: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Popham, J. (2001, March). Teaching to the test? Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16–20.

Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 164–180.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85–113). New York: MacMillan.

White, N. (2000, October 1). Project-based learning and high standards at Shutesbury Elementary. Retrieved from http://www.glef.org

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students' learning experiences. British Educational Journal, 26(2), 191–210.

Resources

ASCD
For more resources related to student engagement, visit the ASCD Web site at http://www.ascd.org.

Every Child Learning: Safe and Supportive Schools
The latest publication of the Learning First Alliance, a partnership of 12 national education associations, this report provides an in-depth, research-based blueprint to guide educators and policymakers in establishing safe and supportive school environments. Available online athttp://www.learningfirst.org.

First Amendment Schools: Educating for Freedom and Responsibility
For information about the project, visithttp://www.firstamendmentschools.org, or contact ASCD's Mike Wildasin at 1-703-575-5475 or [anonimizat].

Project-Based Learning
The George Lucas Educational Foundation (http://www.glef.org), a nonprofit organization devoted to gathering and disseminating information about innovative models of teaching and learning, has numerous resources related to project-based learning.

Small Schools
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committed to helping administrators, teachers, and communities redesign large high schools into smaller, more personalized schools with high expectations for all students. To learn more about the foundation's Small Schools Initiative, seehttp://www.gatesfoundation.org.

Copyright © 2002 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Requesting Permission

For photocopy, electronic and online access, and republication requests, go to the Copyright Clearance Center. Enter the periodical title within the "Get Permission" search field.

To translate this article, contact [anonimizat]

0 comments

Log in to submit a comment.

To post a comment, please log in above. (You must be an ASCD EDge community member.)Free registration

Print This Page

Online Store

ASCD's Top 5 Books

The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units

The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2nd Edition

Engaging Students with Poverty in Mind: Practical

The Core Six: Essential Strategies for Achieving Excellence with the Common Core

Better Learning Through Structured Teaching, 2nd edition

Shop

1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714

MISSION: ASCD is a global community dedicated to excellence in learning, teaching, and leading. ASCD’s innovative solutions promote the success of each child.

© 2016 ASCD. All Rights Reserved.

portal2

ABOUT ASCD

Contact Us

Help

Press

ASCD Job Ramp

Privacy Policy

Permissions

Terms of Use

Advertise With Us

Sponsorships

ASCD Careers

CONNECT WITH US

Affiliates

Connected Communities

[anonimizat] Interest Communities

ASCD EDge.

ASCD on Twitter

ASCD on Facebook

ASCD on YouTube

ONLINE STORE

ASCD Store Home

Books & E-Books

Videos

Online Learning

Periodicals

Conferences

Join ASCD

PROGRAMS

Conferences and Institutes

Leadership Institute for Legislative Advocacy (LILA)

Educator Advocates

The Whole Child

Emerging Leaders

Bottom of Form