
Resource for discussion
Other resources on this topic
What do students want (and what really motivates them)?
Educational Leadership
Sept 1995
Richard Strong, Harvey F. Silver and Amy Robinson
Students who are engaged in their work are energized by four goals - success,
curiosity, originality, and satisfying relationships. How do we cultivate
these drives in the classroom?
Ten years ago, we began a research project by asking both teachers and students
two simple questions: What kind of work do you find totally engaging? and
What kind of work do you hate to do? Almost immediately, we noticed distinct
patterns in their responses.
Engaging work, respondents said, was work that stimulated their curiosity,
permitted them to express their creativity, and fostered positive relationships
with others. It was also work at which they were good. As for activities
they hated, both teachers and students cited work that was repetitive, that
required little or no thought, and that was forced on them by others.
How, then, would we define engagement? Perhaps the best definition comes
from the work of Phil Schlecty (1994), who says students who are engaged
exhibit three characteristics: (1) they are attracted to their work, (2)
they persist in their work despite challenges and obstacles, and (3) they
take visible delight in accomplishing their work.
Most teachers have seen these signs of engagement during a project, presentation,
or lively class discussion. They have caught glimpses of the inspired inner
world of a child, and hoped to sustain this wonder, enthusiasm, and perseverance
every day. At the same time, they may have felt stymied by traditions of
reward and punishment. Our challenge is to transcend these very real difficulties
and provide a practical model for understanding what our students want and
need.
Goals and Needs: The SCORE
As the responses to our questions showed, people who are engaged in their
work are driven by four essential goals, each of which satisfies a particular
human need:
* Success (the need for mastery),
* Curiosity (the need for understanding),
* Originality (the need for self-expression),
* Relationships (the need for involvement with others).
These four goals form the acronym for our model of student engagement -
SCORE. Under the right classroom conditions and at the right level for each
student, they can build the motivation and Energy (to complete our acronym)
that is essential for a complete and productive life. These goals can provide
students with the energy to deal constructively with the complexity, confusion,
repetition, and ambiguities of life (the drive toward completion).
Rethinking Motivation
The concept of "score" is a metaphor about performance, but one
that also suggests a work or art, as in a musical score. By aiming to combine
achievement and artistry, the SCORE model can reach beyond strict dichotomies
of right/wrong and pass/fail, and even bypass the controversy about intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, on which theories of educational motivation have
long been based.
Extrinsic motivation - a motivator that is external to the student or the
task at hand - has long been perceived as the bad boy of motivational theory.
In Punished by Rewards, Alfie Kohn (1995) lays out the prevailing arguments
against extrinsic rewards, such as grades and gold stars. He maintains that
reliance on factors external to the task and to the individual consistently
fails to produce any deep and long-lasting commitment to learning.
Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, comes from within, and is generally
considered more durable and self enhancing (Kohn 1993). Still, although
intrinsic motivation gets much better press, it, too, has its weaknesses.
As Kohn argues, because intrinsic motivation "is a concept that exists
only in the context of the individual," the prescriptions its proponents
offer teachers, are often too radically individualized, or too bland and
abstract, to be applied in classroom settings (See "Punished
by Rewards? A Conversation with Alfie Kohn).
Perhaps it is the tradition of separating extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
that is flawed. Robert Sternberg and Todd Lubart recently addressed this
possibility in Defying the Crowd (1995). They assert that any in-depth examination
of the work of highly creative people reveals a blend of both types of motivation.
Knowing the SCORE
After taking into consideration the needs and drives we've mentioned, our
model poses four important questions that teachers must ask themselves in
order to score the level of engagement in their classrooms.
1. Under what conditions are students most likely to feel that they can
be successful?
2. When are students most likely to become curious?
3. How can we help students satisfy their natural drive toward self-expression?
4. How can we motivate students to learn by using their natural desire to
create and foster good peer relationships?
Much of what we will discuss is already taking place in classrooms across
the country. The point of our SCORE model of engagement is first to help
teachers discover what they are already doing right and then to encourage
the cultivation of everyday classroom conditions that foster student motivation
and success.
Convincing Kids They Can Succeed
Students want and need work that enables them to demonstrate and improve
their sense of themselves as competent and successful human beings. This
is the drive toward mastery. But success, while highly valued in our society,
can be more or less motivational. People who are highly creative, for example,
actually experience failure far more often than success.
Before we can use success to motivate our students to produce high-quality
work, we must meet three conditions:
1. We must clearly articulate the criteria for success and provide clear,
immediate, and constructive feedback.
2. We must show students that the skills they need to be successful are
within their grasp by clearly and systematically modeling these skills.
3. We must help them see success as a valuable aspect of their personalities.
All this seems obvious enough, but it is remarkable how often we fail to
meet these conditions for our students. Take skills. Can you remember any
crucial skills that you felt you did not successfully master because they
were not clearly taught? Was it finding themes in literature? Reading and
interpreting primary texts? Thinking through nonroutine math problems? Typically,
skills like these are routinely assigned or assumed, rather than systematically
modeled or practiced by teachers.
So how can we help students master such skills? When teaching your students
to find themes, for example, deliberately model interpretation. Ask your
students to give you a poem you have never seen, and then interpret it both
for and with them. If they are reading primary texts, use what we call the
"main idea" strategy. Teach them how to find the topic (usually
a noun or noun phrase), the main idea (a sentence that states the text's
position on the topic), and reasons or evidence to support the main idea.
If students are concerned about writer's block, remember that perhaps the
most difficult task of a teacher is to teach how to think creatively. Model
the process of brainstorming, demonstrating that no idea is unworthy of
consideration.
These are not revolutionary ideas. They simply illustrate how easily classroom
practices can be improved, thus increasing the chance that your students
will succeed.
But what of the criteria for success? Teachers define success in many ways.
We must not only broaden our definition, but also make sure the definition
is clear to everyone. In this way, students will know when they have done
a good job, and they will know how to improve their work.
To achieve this clarity, we can present examples of work that illustrate
high, average, and low levels of achievement. Such exemplars can significantly
motivate students, as well as increase their understanding of their own
ability to achieve.
Arousing Curiosity
Students want and need work that stimulates their curiosity and awakens
their desire for deep understanding. People are naturally curious about
a variety of things. Einstein wondered his whole life about the relationships
among gravity, space, and electromagnetic radiation. Deborah Tannen, the
prominent linguistic psychologist, has spent years pondering the obstacles
that prevent men and women from conversing meaningfully.
How can we ensure that our curriculum arouses intense curiosity? By making
sure it features two defining characteristics: the information about a topic
is fragmentary or contradictory, and the topic relates to students' personal
lives.
It is precisely the lack of organization of a body of information that compels
us to understand it further. This may explain why textbooks, which are highly
organized, rarely arouse student interest. We have stimulated students'
curiosity by using a strategy called "mystery." We confront the
class with a problem - for example, "What killed off the dinosaurs?"
- and with the actual clues that scientists or historians have used to try
to answer that question and others. Clues might include:
* Mammals survived the changes that killed the dinosaurs.
* Chickens under stress lay eggs with thinner shells than do chickens not
under stress.
* While flowering plants evolved, dinosaurs increased in population and
in number of species.
* Some flowering plants contain alkaloids.
Students then work together in groups, retracing the steps scientists took
in weighing the available evidence to arrive at an explanation. We have
seen students work diligently for several days dealing with false hypotheses
and red herrings, taking great delight when the solutions begin to emerge.
As for topics that relate to students' lives, the connection here cannot
be superficial; it must involve an issue or idea that is both manageable
and unresolved. We must ask, With what issues are adolescents wrestling?
How can we connect them to our curriculum? Figure 1 illustrates some possibilities
for adolescents.
Encouraging Originality
Students want and need work that permits them to express their autonomy
and originality, enabling them to discover who they are and who they want
to be. Unfortunately, the ways schools traditionally focus on creativity
actually thwart the drive toward self-expression. There are several reasons
for this.
First, schools frequently design whole programs (art, for example) around
projects that teach technique rather than self-expression. Second, very
often only students who display the most talent have access to audiences,
thus cutting off all other students from feedback and a sense of purpose.
Finally, and perhaps most destructive, schools frequently view creativity
as a form of play, and thus fail to maintain the high standards and sense
of seriousness that make creative work meaningful.
How, then, should self-expression be encouraged? There are several ways.
* Connect creative projects to students' personal ideas and concerns. One
of our favorite teachers begins her study of ceramics by having students
examine objects found in the homes of a variety of ancient civilizations.
She then asks the class to design a ceramic object that expresses their
feeling about their home.
* Expand what counts as an audience. One of the most successful creative
projects we have seen involved an audience of one. Each student in a middle
school class was linked to an older member of the community and asked to
write that person's "autobiography."
* Consider giving students more choice. The medium of expression, for example,
is often as important to an artist as the expression itself. What would
have happened to the great tradition of American blues if the early musicians
were forced to adhere to traditions of European music? This is one more
argument for instructional methods that emphasize learning styles, multiple
intelligences, and cultural diversity.
* Use the "abstracting" strategy to help students fully understand
a genre and to maintain high standards (Marzano et al. 1992). Too often,
students prefer video art to a book because they perceive it as less demanding
or requiring less commitment. Teaching students to abstract the essence
of a genre will change their perceptions.
Begin by studying examples of high-quality work within a genre (the science-fiction
story, poster art, sonnets, frontier diaries, television news programs,
and so on). Examine the structure of the works and the standards by which
they are judged. Then, ask students to produce their own work in that genre
that expresses their own concerns, attempting to meet the high standards
embodied in the original work. Finally, have the students ask themselves
four questions about their work: How good is my technique? Does my work
truly express my own concerns? Does it demonstrate my understanding of the
genre in which I am working? Does it successfully relate to its audience?
Some people worry that the stringency of this model might actually block
self-expression, but our experience is precisely the opposite. Students'
drive toward self-expression is ultimately a drive to produce work that
is of value to others. Lower standards work to repress, not to enhance,
the creation of high-quality work.
Fostering Peer Relations
Students want and need work that will enhance their relationships with people
they care about. This drive toward interpersonal involvement is pervasive
in all our lives. Further, most of us work hardest on those relationships
that are reciprocal - what you have to offer is of value to me, and what
I have to offer is of some value to you. In general, unbalanced, nonreciprocal
relationships prove transient and fail to generate much energy or interest.
How does this insight apply to life in the classroom? Consider a student's
perception of homework. The only relationship that can be advanced through
the typical homework assignment is the one between student and teacher.
And this relationship is essentially unbalanced. Students do not feel that
the teacher needs their knowledge, and the teacher, with possibly 145 students
a day, probably isn't seeking a deep relationship either.
But suppose student work is complementary: one student's job is to learn
about tortoises, another's is to learn about snakes, and a third student
is boning up on lizards. After they do their research, they jointly develop
a poster comparing and contrasting these three reptile types. The students
actually need one another's knowledge.
Annemarie Palincsar Brown has applied this "jigsaw" strategy to
inner-city students using in-classroom computer networks (Brown et al. 1993).
She found that it significantly improved their motivation, reading, and
writing. Elizabeth Cohen (1994) builds reciprocal groups by asking students
with different talents and abilities to work on one project that requires
all of their gifts.
Orchestrating Classroom Performance
As teachers, the first thing we should try to "score" is our own
performance. Different people value the four goals we have discussed to
different degrees in different situations. Which ones are particularly important
to you? How does this preference affect the way you run your classroom?
By observing and understanding how classroom conditions can create or repress
student engagement, we can gradually move toward a more successful, curious,
creative, and reciprocal school system.
All students, to some extent, seek mastery, understanding, self-expression,
and positive interpersonal relationships. But they are all different as
well. Imagine what could happen if we engaged our students in a discussion
of these four types of motivation. What might they tell us about themselves
and their classrooms? Could we actually teach them to design their own work
in ways that match their own unique potential for engagement?
Last, we can score the change process itself. What professional conditions
block teachers' motivation? We can redesign staff development to promote
understanding and respect among school staff members.
By seeking to break down boundaries between teacher and teacher, teacher
and student, student and the learning process, we will learn what students
want and need. As a result, more and more teachers may go to bed at night
remembering the images of wonder, enthusiasm, and perseverance on the faces
of their students.
References
Brown, A., D. Ash, M. Rutherford, K. Nakagawa, A. Gordon, and J. Campione.
(1993). "Distributed Expertise in the Classroom." In Distributed
Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, edited by G. Salomon.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous
Classroom. 2nd Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive
Plan. A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Marzano, R., D. Pickering, D. Arredondo, G. Blackburn, R. Brandt, and C.
Moffett. (1992). Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria, Va.: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schlecty, P. (January 1994). "Increasing Student Engagement."
Missouri Leadership Academy.
Sternberg, R. J., and T. I. Lubart. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating
Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: The Free Press.
Richard Strong is Vice President and Director of Curriculum Development,
Harvey F. Silver is Vice President and Director of Program Development,
Amy Robinson is Director of Research and Publishing, Hanson Silver Strong
and Associates Inc., 34 Washington Rd., Princeton Junction, NJ 08550.
OTHER RESOURCES ON THIS TOPIC:
MiddleWeb
Listserv Conversations
What Do
You Do with a Kid Like This One?
Discipline
and Classroom Management
Re-Dos and
Missing Homework
How Do
We Help Troubled Teens in Our Schools?
How
Do We Grade for Participation?