The two scenarios (see Appendix) are caricatures depicting quite different management styles. Mr Jenson demonstrates a libertarian style while Miss Wheeler’s style is authoritarian. The details in each scenario provide data about various classroom processes, teacher practices and the nature of the relationships each teacher has with their students. Hence we may conclude something of the nature of each classroom’s climate. Indeed we may even infer these teachers’ philosophies of teaching, or at least some of the major theories upon which their practices appear to be based. Accordingly, this paper will analyse the scenarios and reflect on such conclusions and inferences as may reasonably be made (entering the spirit in which they are proffered and not being unduly critical of their contrived nature) about the likely impact each would have on the motivation of children who are five or six years old. Consideration will first be given to the meaning of motivation then various theoretical approaches to motivation will be introduced to inform our analysis of the scenarios. Some developmental details of these ages will be introduced where helpful to our discussion. Before concluding, a way of integrating theoretical perspectives will be briefly suggested. 

The word motivation derives from the Latin movere, meaning to move. In psychology it is a widely understood construct comprising the energising, directing and sustaining of behaviour. It addresses such issues as why bother to engage in certain behaviour, which behaviours to choose, how much effort to invest and degree of persistence. An individual may be motivated by many things (called motivators). Some come from within the person and give rise to individuals being described as self-motivated. Others, being external, are applied to an individual with more or less sophistication and specificity (or individualisation). Since separating the person from their behaviour is observationally difficult psychologists developed special terms for discussing motivation. Hence, individuals may be described as intrinsically motivated (that is, by factors in themselves or inherent in the behaviour) or extrinsically motivated (that is, by factors external to themselves and unrelated to the behaviour). McDevitt and Ormrod (2004, 456) unfortunately citing just three sources, conclude that “as a general rule, youngsters learn more effectively, and they achieve at higher levels in instructional settings, when they are intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated”. Analysis of the scenarios indicates that both teachers approach motivation very differently.

Mr Jenson has created a classroom climate that supports the development of intrinsic motivation. Establishing a classroom routine has provided suitable processes. Establishing classroom rules has set and clarified behavioural expectations. Building close relationships with the children and encouraging them to become independent learners, combined with trust that they could indeed achieve this, has enabled the children to become “self-directing”. Scenario 1 is a word-picture of happy children in a low stress environment operating in concert with what Kay and Lambert (2004) have described as humanistic principles, actively constructing their own learning. They are also working with key features of the developmental period rather than against them.

Miss Wheeler on the other hand, is struggling, expending considerable energy to engender associative learning. The picture in Scenario 2 is markedly different. The motivation strategies are extrinsic. It is Miss Wheeler who “is busy directing and controlling everyone’s behaviour” and the classroom climate is most unconducive to trust and likely to be stressful for all concerned. If the general rule cited above is indeed true, then of the two classrooms, it is likely that the children in Mr Jenson’s class will learn more effectively and achieve at higher levels than those in Miss Wheeler’s class. Why is this so? After all, both have children aged five or six years and we shall assume started the year essentially similar having variables in the children distributed more or less evenly between the classrooms. The answer lies in a detailed examination of what is happening in each classroom.

A conceptual coherence around certain classroom practices is evidence of underlying theoretical perspectives. The contrast between the scenarios or what is not mentioned in each may be as important in this regard as the details contained in them. Kamii (1985) colourfully suggests two clusters of concepts and practices. The first is behaviourism, associationism, psychometric testing and use of worksheets and drills. The second is developmentalism, constructivism and the use of play. Since Miss Wheeler’s practices involve controlling external behaviour, including ringing a bell (stimulus) to effect an activity rotation (response), and giving behavioural reinforcers in the form of tokenised feedback on student work, we may conclude that it is behaviourism that informs the teaching.

Behaviourism for our purposes may be restricted to a consideration of operant conditioning. This approach to motivation is sometimes described as ‘black box’ in that it is unconcerned with the details of cognitive processing and concentrates on observable behaviour. According to operant conditioning, individuals are motivated to engage in behaviour through anticipation of the associated consequences of those behaviours. Consequences that result in an increase in the behaviour are called reinforcers. Positive reinforcement is when the consequence involves obtaining something and negative reinforcement is when the consequence involves avoiding something. This distinction however is somewhat academic. For example, in practice, if the children dutifully rotate to the next activity centre in response to Miss Wheeler’s bell, are they doing so in the anticipation of desired praise (positive reinforcement) or to avoid expected negative consequences such as being yelled at or having an annoyed or more distant teacher for instance (negative reinforcement)?

In either event, they are evidently motivated to comply. There are hazards in adopting a behaviourist basis for classroom control however. McDevit and Ormrod (2004) discuss the emergence of secondary reinforcers following primary reinforcers and correctly point out that not all children will have the necessary connections to give the expected responses. A teacher such as Miss Wheeler who has not built close relationships with the children is not well placed to correctly interpret the non compliance. At ages five and six years it would also be quite important to ensure that reinforcers closely followed behaviours the teacher desired since the capacity to maintain the connection, or to delay gratification, is not great. Miss Wheeler appears to be too preoccupied with classroom control to be available to provide individualised and timely reinforcement. This actually raises questions about Miss Wheeler’s behaviour possibly being motivated by secondary gains. Perhaps the lack of closeness with the children combined with an environment structured to ensure that “Miss Wheeler is in constant demand” warrants exploration of Miss Wheeler’s needs.

Even greater concern stems from famous research that raised the possibility that the use of rewards for specific behaviour could have a detrimental effect. Lepper, Greene and Nesbett (1973) asked two groups of preschool children to draw pictures with special felt-tipped pens, an activity that initially held intrinsic interest. Children in one group agreed to do the drawing to obtain a desirable award certificate (the reinforcement). Children in the other group agreed to do the drawing but neither expected nor obtained an award certificate. Several weeks later when observed unobtrusively in their classroom, the expected award group showed less interest in drawing than the no award group. The researchers concluded that the provision of rewards turned play (an activity engaged in for its own sake) into work (an activity engaged in only when extrinsic incentives are present) and was thus demotivating. Healthy young children of five or six years do demonstrate an appetite for learning, as we glimpse in Mr Jenson’s classroom. Given Miss Wheeler’s predictable use of rewards in the form of expected stickers and stars it is not surprising that this “does not excite the children very much” and there is a distinct absence of motivation to learn. Indeed, as Hitz and Driscoll (2000) found, such habitual praise may be broadly counterproductive.

We noted earlier that part of Mr Jenson’s success can be attributed to working with, rather than against, certain features of the developmental stage of the children. Reason tells us that if children have an existing natural or culturally determined tendency to behave in a certain way, then facilitating its expression by channelling it into learning is to capitalise on internal motivation. Two distinct features include interest in play and patterns of association with other children. Hurlock (1980) documents the diverse play interests of this age group and Kamii (1985) asserts that play is highly beneficial for learning. In Mr Jenson’s classroom we observe that the children are free to incorporate play into their learning activities. In Miss Wheeler’s class children are forced into groups against their will, while the children in Mr Jenson’s class are free to associate with one another in pairs or small groups or to work individually. This is very supportive of the concern at this age to categorise companions as associates, playmates or friends (Hurlock, 1980). This foundational work on friendship and social skills is significant and does relate to motivation. Santrock and Yussen (1992, 447) state that “an important part of children’s social life involves choosing which goals to pursue in poorly defined or ambiguous situations”.

This recognition of the importance of others serves to introduce the social learning perspectives on motivation. These are concerned with the general principles of learning and motivation and focus on observation and modelling behaviour and the importance of self-perceptions and expectations. From this perspective children are considered more likely to behave in ways they expect will bring about desirable consequences. Whereas behaviourists consider that previous consequences of behaviours have a direct effect on present behaviour, the social learning perspective is that expectations of future consequences have a greater influence on motivating present behaviour. Furthermore, these expectations of consequences may be established vicariously, since children are more motivated to engage in behaviours for which they have observed others to be rewarded and less motivated to behave in ways for which they have seen others punished.

One further important feature of this perspective that is well supported by Mr Jenson’s approach involves the role of self-efficacy, the internalised belief that one is able to achieve certain goals or outcomes. The interactional openness fostered provides opportunities for children to closely observe and model other children’s behaviour. The role self-efficacy plays is that “when children see others of similar age and ability successfully accomplish a task, they are more likely to believe that they, too, can accomplish it” (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004, 460). In effect, Mr Jenson capitalises on these social learning principles, thereby multiplying learning opportunities. Unfortunately, Miss Wheeler’s lack of trust prevents this recruitment of allies. The children are controlled by assigning them to activities and waste time and learning opportunity waiting in line (though, not surprisingly, they do spontaneously break into “a lot of pushing and shoving during the wait”; bless them!).

Indeed, the drive for social contact is so strong that trait theorists propose that all people have a fundamental need to feel socially connected and to secure the love and respect of others. The degree to which individuals experience this differs and this gives rise to the concept of differing degrees of need for affiliation. One could equally express this as strength of motivation to affiliate. This natural variability is catered for by Mr Jenson’s flexible arrangements for activities in pairs, small groups or as individuals. Miss Wheeler’s arrangements lack this flexibility and give rise to dissonance and friction, where Ben constantly tries to go to his friend and Lydia “doesn’t want to be with the ‘mean’ kids at her table”.

Trait theorists also consider that people are strongly motivated to behave such that they will gain the acceptance and positive judgements of others. For our kindergarten children, unlike the need for affiliation which focuses on peers, this need for approval tends to focus on parents and teachers. The classroom in Scenario 2 could prove a quite stressful environment for a child with high needs for teacher approval. A high achievement motivated child could also find it stressful because the classroom is disruptive and low-functioning, making it less conducive to the pursuit of excellence for its own sake.

Interestingly, McDevitt and Ormrod (2004, 462) make the sweeping statement that “psychologists have radically changed their approach to the study of motivation and its development”. This is a classic illustration of the fallacy of attributing to the whole, what is true of only a part. Our discussion to this point has been quite valid since there is an abiding interest in and use of all of the preceding approaches, as is evidenced by diversity in the literature and observation in the real world. However, it is true to say that there has been an increased focus on the cognitive perspectives which examine thinking and concept development and their use by individuals. Chief among these are development of goals, attributions and intrinsic motivation.

From this cognitive perspective goals are of three main types. Mastery goals motivate children to behave in ways highly supportive of learning, such as paying attention in learning situations and engaging with them in ways likely to promote long-term memory storage. They also support persistence in the face of mistakes and permit development of a healthy perspective on effort, learning and failure. Performance goals are less useful. They motivate children to behave sufficient to obtain some form of acknowledgement and to avoid negative responses. As such, they may motivate children to avoid tasks considered too challenging and to limit effort to just sufficient to obtain the desired outcome. These goals are not mutually exclusive and may coexist, but in the five and six years age group it is likely that mastery goals will be the children’s primary concern (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004). The third type are social goals and while clearly relevant to the current scenarios under consideration, there is little more of value to be added to existing discussion than to note again that they will influence the children’s behaviour and performance in the classroom. Indeed, from a variety of perspectives there is acceptance of the notion that “learning is an inherently social activity” (Wigfield, Eccles & Rodriquez, 1998, 73).

The development of attributions however is of tremendous importance because they are intimately related to the development of self-concept. The psychological construct known as self-concept is closely related to, but distinct from, self-esteem. In brief, the self-concept is what one thinks about oneself whereas self-esteem relates to how one feels about what one thinks. With a poor self-concept it is difficult at best to sustain high self-esteem. Low self-concept and self-esteem have major implications for health and wellbeing as well as the ability to learn. The self-concept is an amalgam of one’s views of physical-self, social-self, student-self and so on. Strongly positive views of self in relation to some areas can compensate to varying degrees for less positive or even negative views in other areas but developing and sustaining a robustly positive self-concept is critically important.

Attributions then, are the thinking links between cause and effect. When sufficiently internalised they can function like self-beliefs. They are encountered in the form of explanations people give to account for their successes and failures. Children of five and six years are typically developmentally just beginning to distinguish between the possible causes for their successes and failures. According to Nicholls (1990 in McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004) the distinction between effort and skill is especially troublesome. This early confusion however does not prevent children as young as four and five years from developing the self-belief or attitude known as learned helplessness in relation to tasks they attempt that consistently result in failure (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004), an extreme form of demotivation. Unfortunately, learned helplessness has a tendency to generalise from one situation to others (Brown, Pedder & Bateman, 2000) which is one reason why teachers need to maintain a clear and detailed understanding of the progress or otherwise being made by each of their students. In this regard, it would appear to be safer to be a child in Mr Jenson’s class.

We have come nearly full circle, back to the much vaunted notion of intrinsic motivation. Space does not permit a discussion in detail of this interesting concept so we shall introduce those aspects which arise from the scenarios. Deci and Ryan (1985, 1992 in McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004) suggest that intrinsic motivation is more likely when children have a sense of self-determination, a belief that they have some degree of choice and control in what they do. This is real empowerment at work, in the sense of ‘E’ in the SPACE model (Holliday, 1997; Harrison, 1998). Ryan, Connell and Grolnick (1992 in McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004) have suggested that three conditions promote the development of intrinsic motivation. First, children should have a warm and supportive environment in which they feel a sense of relatedness to important adults. Mr Jenson has established close relationships with the children and the self-belief enhancing, bracketing exchange with young Andy demonstrates warmth and support. Second, children should have some autonomy. We have already acknowledged that Mr Jenson’s children do indeed have freedom to choose and they have been actively encouraged to become self-directing. Thirdly, children should have appropriate guidance and structure setting out expectations of behaviour, why they are important and the consequences of inappropriate behaviours. Again, Mr Jenson has taken time to help the children learn the routine and the classroom rules. Indeed, it would appear that Mr Jenson illustrates implementation of the whole of the SPACE model by facilitating: Self-belief, Personal meaning, Action or activity, Collaboration and Empowerment. Each of these elements has strong support in the research literature discussed by Wigfield, Eccles and Rodriguez (1998).

There is no doubt that the model provided in scenario 1 is far preferable to that in scenario2. The variables that can impact on the possibility of implementing a version of scenario 1 however are considerable. There are significant personal and professional variables in the teacher; school environment variables relating to people (children and adults), physical space and resources; family and child variables; and so on. While acknowledging that many of the ingredients of success found in Mr Jenson’s classroom are part of children’s daily experience as documented for one school in England (Rowe & Humphries, 2001), were all these variables to be taken into consideration and a real kindergarten class studied it is most likely that a small number of students, at least, would continue to occupy a significant amount of the teacher’s time. Persistent genuine warmth and an authentic caring attitude will always be paramount in achieving success with the implementation, but it would be unwise to completely abandon the possibility of recourse to behaviourism. Skilfully employed behaviour modification interventions for significant individual behaviour problems continue to be very valuable indeed.

Overall in our analysis of the scenarios we have seen that the approach adopted by the classroom teacher has major direct implications for the nature and degree of motivation for learning likely to be exhibited in students. A humanistic, constructivist approach which facilitates learning by implementing the SPACE model is likely to engender intrinsic motivation. An approach with little warmth or trust, rigidity and reliance on little more than a behaviourist understanding is likely to have difficulty engendering significant motivation. One model is likely to enable significant personal and professional satisfaction and develop happy, well-adjusted children. Sadly, the other may well achieve the opposite.

References

Anderman, L. & Midgley, C. (2001). Motivation and middle school students. (ERIC database. http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed421281.html)

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth, Great Britain: Penguin.

Brown, D., Pedder, J. & Bateman, A. (2000). Introduction to psychotherapy: An outline of psychodynamic principles and practice. London: Routledge.

Gething, L. & Hatchard, D. (1989). Life span human development First Australian edition. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Graham, S. (9190) Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham and V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 17-36.

Harrison, H. (1998). The S.P.A.C.E. model: Optimal conditions for teaching, learning, and assessment. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Auckland, New Zealand.

Hetherington, M. & Parke, R. (1995). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hitz, R. & Driscoll, A. (2000). Praise in the classroom. (ERIC database. http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed313108.html)

Holliday, R. (1997). Module 1: Introduction to Teaching, in EPT409 Practice of Teaching (Primary) 1: Learning and Teaching. Bathurst: Charles Sturt University.

Hurlock, E. (1980). Developmental psychology A life-span approach (5^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kamii, C. (1985). Leading primary education toward excellence: Beyond worksheets and drills. Young Children, 40(6), 3-9.

Kay, R. & Lambert, B. (2004). EED404 Education studies: Child development Study guide (Revised). Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.

Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. & Nisbette, R.E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28:129-37.

McDevitt, T. & Ormrod, J. (2004). Child development Educating and working with children and adolescents (2^nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Rowe, S. & Humphries, S. (2001). Creating a climate for learning at Coombes Infant and Nursery School. In A. Croft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. London, UK: Continuum, pp. 159-174.

Santrock, J. & Yussen, S. (1992). Peers, play, and the media. In Child development: An introduction (5^th ed.). Dubuque, IA: William Brown, pp. 443-450,460.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12: 1-14.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education, 23, 73-87, 94-97, 107-118.

Appendix

Scenario 1

Mr Jenson’s kindergarten class has just come in from recess and the children are moving purposefully around the room as they prepare for their next activity. They have the freedom to choose among a number of learning experiences that have been set up, some for small groups, some for paired work and some for individual work. The children decide for themselves whether to change their reading folders now or later. The classroom is alive with the sound of decision-making as children refocus their energies.

Some go and get their reading folders and find a comfortable spot in which to continue reading until Mr Jenson changes their books. Beau and Desmond take their folders into the dramatic play area where reading becomes a part of their play as they read to the dolls. The others are by now seated at different learning centres. Those in pairs or small groups are chatting as they work, others are working on their own.

Earlier in the year, Mr Jenson had taken time to help these children learn this routine and the classroom rules. He also made it a priority to build close relationships with the children in his class and he has encouraged them to become independent learners. Now he uses his time in the morning to observe and record the children’s progress and to spend time with individual children. Mr Jenson trusted the children’s ability to become self-directing, he ahs guided them in how to self-direct their self-choice time and they have lived up to his expectations.

Andy struggles at school, yet he loves it and his attitude is very positive. Today he chooses to finish a task begun the previous day, in which the children were drawing a picture about their favourite part of a story that Mr Jenson had read to them.

Andy approached Mr Jenson and said: “I’m going to finish my story about Phoebe’s adventure. But I’ll do more than one drawing ‘coz I’ve got more than one favourite bit. I like drawing you know, I do it at home all the time. Mum says I’m good at it.”

Teacher: “What a good idea. I’m glad there was so much of the story that you liked.”

Andy: “I’ll write about it too – so I’ll make my own book now, won’t I?” (Note that Andy can’t yet write.)

Teacher: “You know I’d like you to do that because then I can put it with our reading time books on the open shelf and we can all enjoy it.”

Andy: “But I might say some different things it because Phoebe’s going to have more adventures in my book. It’ll probably be a bigger book you know! But I haven’t written a book before.”

Teacher (Laughing): “Well you’d better get started because I’m dying to read it! I ca help you with it if you need any help.”

Andy went back to his desk grinning broadly. 

Scenario 2

Next door, Miss Wheeler has no time for observing. She is busy directing and controlling everyone’s behaviour. In her kindergarten class, all the children must change their reading folders after recess. This schedule means that the children have a long wait in line, and there is a lot of pushing and shoving during the wait. It isn’t easy but once their books are changed Miss Wheeler makes the children sit still until everyone is finished. She then assigns the children by table to specific learning activities where they must stay until she rings a bell signalling rotation to the next activity centre.

In Miss Wheeler’s class, Ben is a constant problem. He is always trying to sneak out of his assigned centre and go to the one that his friend is assigned to. Another child, Lydia, cries a lot, saying that she doesn’t want to be with the ‘mean’ kids at her table. Miss Wheeler is in constant demand, not only to settle disputes but also to make children stay where they are supposed to be. She sees the situation in her classroom as clear evidence that the children are not capable of self-direction.

Miss Wheeler has little time for individual interactions. She always rewards good work with ‘excellent’ or ‘you are the best’ stickers and stars but wonders why this does not excite the children very much. To children who do not manage to complete their work to an appropriate standard, she either says ‘keep trying’ or ‘try harder’ or writes such comments on their work. But she does wonder why these children do not show an increased interest in doing better after receiving these responses. She relies heavily on worksheet activities and wonders why, despite these opportunities to practice new knowledge, the children are not progressing as facts as she would like.

[The scenarios have been extracted from: Lambert, B. (2004). Education studies: Child development Subject outline, Spring 2004. Faculty of Education, Charles Sturt University.]