Deci, Koestner, and Ryan’s article, “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again”, the authors claim that rewards have a harmful influence on students. The issue that is being addressed is that extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic motivation in education because the student’s attitude becomes controlled by the stimulus. The abstract and the first few paragraphs of the article do a great job of letting the reader know what the issue is. The author’s start by giving examples of extrinsic motivators that are commonly used to reinforce student learning and that there has been controversy regarding the use of these motivators. They mention that while some psychological studies have shown that extrinsic rewards
…show more content…
They provide a table that allows the reader to see the differences between each researchers analysis and also mentions the errors in the study done by Cameron and Pierce. The meta-analysis of the authors consisted of a total of 128 experiments and involved looking at the effects of rewards on schoolchildren versus college students. The experiments were divided into two separate meta-analyses, the first one consisting of 101 of the studies that used a free choice behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation and the second one, which used 84 studies, consisted of self-reported interest as a dependent variable. (Deci, et al. 2001) They examined tangible rewards versus verbal rewards and also rewards that were unexpected versus expected. The results from the meta-analyses revealed that extrinsic rewards did have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. An interesting result of the research was that verbal rewards managed to improve intrinsic motivation, although not in children if they viewed it as being given in order to control them. Tangible rewards that were not expected or contingent on a task being complete also did not effect intrinsic …show more content…
helps the readers to understand why extrinsic rewards tend to undermine intrinsic motivation in students. The authors do a good job of explaining each type of reward ranging from verbal, tangible, unexpected, expected, task non-contingent, engagement contingent, completion contingent, and performance contingent. Each of these rewards is given a paragraph or two explaining what the rewards consist of, the studies that were done, and the results of the studies. By providing all of this information to the reader, the authors are giving the reader an in-depth look into their analysis, which allows the reader to see and understand how the authors came to their conclusion based on their research. Also, by providing a table that compares their analysis to the analysis of the Cameron and Pierce study, they study they are refuting, the authors allow the readers to see the differences and also provide explanations as to why they received different results and why the results provided by Cameron and Pierce in their paper were wrong. This is beneficial to the reader because the authors are not only backing up their research but they are also providing reasoning as to why the other researchers were
They provide a table that allows the reader to see the differences between each researchers analysis and also mentions the errors in the study done by Cameron and Pierce. The meta-analysis of the authors consisted of a total of 128 experiments and involved looking at the effects of rewards on schoolchildren versus college students. The experiments were divided into two separate meta-analyses, the first one consisting of 101 of the studies that used a free choice behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation and the second one, which used 84 studies, consisted of self-reported interest as a dependent variable. (Deci, et al. 2001) They examined tangible rewards versus verbal rewards and also rewards that were unexpected versus expected. The results from the meta-analyses revealed that extrinsic rewards did have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation. An interesting result of the research was that verbal rewards managed to improve intrinsic motivation, although not in children if they viewed it as being given in order to control them. Tangible rewards that were not expected or contingent on a task being complete also did not effect intrinsic …show more content…
helps the readers to understand why extrinsic rewards tend to undermine intrinsic motivation in students. The authors do a good job of explaining each type of reward ranging from verbal, tangible, unexpected, expected, task non-contingent, engagement contingent, completion contingent, and performance contingent. Each of these rewards is given a paragraph or two explaining what the rewards consist of, the studies that were done, and the results of the studies. By providing all of this information to the reader, the authors are giving the reader an in-depth look into their analysis, which allows the reader to see and understand how the authors came to their conclusion based on their research. Also, by providing a table that compares their analysis to the analysis of the Cameron and Pierce study, they study they are refuting, the authors allow the readers to see the differences and also provide explanations as to why they received different results and why the results provided by Cameron and Pierce in their paper were wrong. This is beneficial to the reader because the authors are not only backing up their research but they are also providing reasoning as to why the other researchers were