 | |
| Vol. 16, No. 36 | July 10, 1997 |
| |
| Vol. 16, No. 36 | July 10, 1997 |
The time has arrived when children exchange the pleasures of summer fun for back to school and the classroom during this annual migration, many parents and teachers share common concerns about ways to motivate young learners to be creative, learn and do t heir best.
One of the ongoing discussions in the fields of psychology and education is the effect of rewards on performance. One school of thought states that giving rewards is counterproductive and lessens creativity, because a child focuses on the reward rather th an on learning for its own sake. Rewards are viewed as an attempt to control children and undercut their natural interest in a subject.
However, UD psychology professor and researcher, Robert Eisenberger, who works with Judy Cameron of the University of Alberta, offers other insights on the effects of rewards based on his research with elementary school children. This research shows that, given appropriately, rewards are an effective tool in stimulating interest and creativity.
Eisenberger's findings have attracted much attention in educational, business and psychological fields. He was interviewed by Michelle Trudeau on National Public Radio, and articles in the American Psychology Association Monitor, the American Psychologist and the upcoming 1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica Science and the Future Yearbook highlight his work.
Rewards should be given for good performance and effort, not just performing, Eisenberger said. They should encourage a child to try to do well in a task. If rewards are given to everyone, regardless of effort, there is less incentive to do well and rewar ds are not effective, Eisenberger pointed out.
In the classroom and at home, tasks should not be too easy but challenging. At the same time, goals should be geared to a child's capability, so that they are not impossible for a child to meet, he advised.
Eisenberger said it is important that children understand what is meant by creativity and what is expected of them to earn a reward. When working with children, he has a training exercise to get them started. He gives them every day objects (i.e. rubber b ands, paper clips, boxes) and asks their usual functions are and then to think up some unusual uses. Kids come up with ideas such as using the box as a planter, the paper clip as an earring and the rubber band as a bracelet. They learn what is meant by cr eativity and are rewarded for their efforts.
After the training session, children are given sheets of paper with blank circles on them and are asked to create drawings using the circles. By comparing and tabulating the repetition of the drawings, creativity is determined and rewarded. For example, s ince most children draw happy/sad faces in the circles, these are not rated highly on the creativity scale. However, a creative child might make the circle into a fish or a ladybug or the top of a soft drink bottle. These show ingenuity and creativity, wh ich is then rewarded by pennies or nickels.
When carrying out these experiments, those who are rewarded in the training portion work harder to be creative in the circle exercise, suggesting that reward for creativity in one task carries onto a different task.
"What we discovered," he said, "is that when rewards are given across the board regardless of performance, they are not effective. A reward--whether it is praise, a good grade, free time in the class room, pizza, a tangible gift or money--should be given for carrying out a task well.
"Another factor is that a child clearly understands what goals they are trying to achieve, whether it is showing improvement in math or reading or whatever. This holds true for children at home and in school," he said.
"Common sense, experience and accumlated research show that rewards, if used correctly, can give kids incentives to do well. This carries on into adult life in the workplace as well where people say they like a task better after praise or a tangible award that depends on the quality of performance. When compensation and promotion do not depend on competence, employees learn that their performance is irrelevant to reward and there is less incentive to work harder," Eisenberger pointed out.
Eisenberger is the author of Blue Monday, The Loss of the Work Ethic in America and has published numerous articles on learning and motivation, personality psychology and industrial/organizational psychology.
| --Sue Swyers Moncure |
