studies (refer to Table 5), systems have continued to embed themselves into workplace and social contexts. Whilst our results reach similar conclusions with regards to the average effects size for constructs such as enjoyment, we observed an increase in the number of studies examining motivations such as rewards which appear to be exerting strong effects in certain contexts under study. We now have a better sense of the role of rewards as extrinsicmotivation. For utilitarian systems such as ERP, motivations such as reward exert larger effects than motivations such as enjoyment. However, consistent with Gerow et al. (2013), enjoyment nonetheless exerts strong effects (>.0.5) across all systems. Use of hybrid systems is largely predicted by motivations such as enjoyment and playfulness and less by utilitarian motivations. This might be because we classified social network sites as hybrid. The use of utilitarian features in hybrid systems may also appeal to intrinsic and hedonic motivations of users. The results demonstrated that sampling strategy moderated the results. We expected based on van der Heijden (2004) that intrinsicmotivation may be more important to students, and based on Gu, Fan, Suh and Lee (2010) that extrinsic and utilitarian motivations may be more important to non-students e.g. workers. However, intrinsic and utilitarian motivations were both found important for students. Culture only affected the relationship between reward and behavioural intention. Mobility of the system moderated the relationship between enjoyment and playfulness with behavioural intention. Future researchers may consider coding moderators differently, e.g. America vs Europe or workplace vs non- workplace setting. Motivations such as curiosity and reward were subjected to relatively less attention and future research may wish to consider their inclusion. We also recommend that researchers are cognisant of the type of system under study (e.g. hybrid vs hedonic) and explore the extent to which different types of motivations surfaced in this paper may exert differential effects on system usage.
The undermining effect of extrinsicrewards on intrinsicmotivation (also referred to as the ‘motivation crowding out’ effect) has been reported in a variety of settings, for instance in relation to altruistic behaviour and charitable donations (e.g. Newman and Shen, 2012; Titmuss, 1970), volunteering efforts (e.g. Frey and Götte, 1999; Reeson and Tisdell, 2008), performance in creative and interesting tasks 2 (e.g. Calder and Staw, 1975; Deci, 1971; Lepper et al, 1973), as well as in relation to work motivation and performance, both in the private and the public sectors (Bellé and Cantarelli, 2015; Georgellis et al, 2011; Jordan, 1986; Kuvaas, 2006; Markova and Ford, 2011; Pouliakas, 2010). While the effect has been documented mostly in laboratory experiments (e.g. Deci, 1971; Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000a; Heyman and Ariely, 2004; Reeson and Tisdell, 2008), observations from secondary data (e.g. Georgellis et al, 2011; Pouliakas, 2010; Titmuss, 1970), field experiments (e.g. Gubler et al, 2016; Huffman and Bognanno, 2017) and surveys (e.g. Huang et al, 2014; Kuvaas, 2006) have generated further evidence in support of the undermining effect. Negative outcomes were observed predominantly in the case of providing monetary rewards contingent on engagement with specific tasks (e.g. Frey and Götte, 1999) or attaining certain levels of performance (e.g. Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000b), however non-cash incentives were sometimes found to have comparable effects (e.g. Kruglanski et al, 1971; Newman and Shen, 2012). In the majority of these studies, intrinsicmotivation was measured through self-reports of satisfaction with the task itself, differences in performance levels across different reward conditions, or through the ‘free choice’ method, whereby the time spent on unrewarded tasks for which rewards had initially been provided was regarded as a proxy for intrinsic interest. The following review begins with an account of studies documenting the crowding out effect in general (non-organisational) settings, and then moves towards a more focused discussion of the effect of financial rewards on intrinsicmotivation at work.
Working in a group means problem solve which this important to role of people who are motivated by creative work method, the work method must be efficient so the conclusion can achieved. If management never responding and lead the employee personally it is doesn’t work. In this case the social enviroment influence employee motivation because there will be always people who is arguing and asking for more detail information. Organizational development usually can be expense reduction. Motivation has become the most concern in today’s organization, and trying to Maslow’s basic needs. Though in some situation, it is being operated side by side. But as a research topic the aspects of motivation used by the agents of organization in enhancing their employee’s perfo rmance and the extent motivation that turn to evaluate the methods of performance in organization by some motivational factors like satisfies and dissatisfies.
It is conventional to assume that students choose modules that they expect to find interesting. Entwistle (1981) and Elton (1988) argue that intrinsic motivations have large potential benefits, as students are more likely to work enthusiastically and independently, engage with material, understand meanings, make connections with previously studied material and with real life situations, etc. In other words, if students are intrinsically motivated then they will be ‘deep’ or ‘meaning oriented’ learners. Similarly, Ramsden (1992, p.81) argues that the “opportunities to exercise responsible choice in the method and content of study” is a factor encouraging a ‘deep’ approach to learning, while Howorth (2001, p.28) suggests that “Students who choose out of interest will learn more, enjoy more and as a bonus they may also get higher grades because they will have a better understanding of the subject.” Arguably, intrinsicmotivation is likely to dominate other motivations for module choice if the modules to choose from are equivalent in all respects other than the content. However, although elective modules usually provide the same number of credits, a perfect coordination of the assessment opportunities and perceived module difficulty is rarely possible. Hence, it is also necessary to get an understanding of the module characteristics. Such characteristics are wide and heterogeneous and include factors such as perceived ease of the module, space constraints, reputation of the lecturer, convenience of the class time scheduled, etc. In some cases these types of factors could also be linked with extrinsic
Writing skill has an important role in demonstrating the students’ learning (Coffin et al., 2003). Although students are evaluated by what they write, writing is generally regarded as a difficult skill and a complex task (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). Tan (2011) argues that writing is a difficult skill for native and non- native speakers because writers should balance various issues, such as content, organization, purpose, audience, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics. According to Nunan (2001), writing is a very complex procedure in which a great number of cognitive and meta-cognitive activities take place. Scarcella and Oxford (1992) state that writing in a second language (L2) helps L2 learners to improve their grammatical, strategic, socio-linguistic, and discourse competence in a foreign language. Manchón (2011) claims that L2 writing contributes to second language development; it helps the learners to perceive and understand new linguistic knowledge and improve automatism, knowledge integration and hypothesis testing. It is a facility in which students take power to create meaning as well as share their meaning. As a consequence, writing is more than just transferring one’s thought to paper but it helps us to shape and refine our thinking.
The objective of this research was to find out whether there was significant difference between students with intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation in reading comprehension. This was quantitative research applying ex-post facto design. 37 students of XI Science 4 Senior High School were selected as sample class of this research. The instruments that used in this research were questionnaire of the intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation and reading comprehension test. The data collected were analyzed by using Independent t-test. The result of computation showed that the t count was 3.122 at the significance level 0.05, meaning that t-count > t-table (3.122 > 2.030). Therefore, it can be concluded that there was significant difference between students who have intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation in reading comprehension.
various motivation intervention conditions (Group A, Group B and Group C). The implementation of this study was sponsored by the school, and implemented by school staff; therefore, the school was responsible for designing and implementing the teacher training related to the conditions that enhanced the motivation intervention among the participants in all three study groups. The training included how to complete the 1 minute weekly reading passages and how to provide constructive feedback, such as stating the students’ growth, the specific strategies used to sound out words, and how to work with the students to set attainable goals. Training also addressed how to review and reflect on the goals students set at the beginning of the following week in order for students to reflect on their progress to see if any adjustments need to be made in order to achieve their goal. Training with the Group B teacher again consisted of how to oversee the 1 minute weekly reading passage and how to administer the rewards and praise. Praise consisted of phrases such as, “good job”, “wow”, “way to go”, and “you’re doing great.” Next, training with the Group C teacher of the combination group consisted of how to oversee the 1 minute weekly reading passage as well as how to utilize weekly alternating intrinsicmotivation with goal setting and extrinsicmotivation such as rewards and praise. Finally, the following materials were gathered and distributed to all teachers: printed weekly reading passages, timer, goal setting sheets for the Group A and Group C teachers, and rewards for the Group B and Group C teachers.
5.5. A Concluding Puzzle
The economic approach to agency places a primary emphasis on the use of material incen- tives (pay, promotion, etc.) as devices to resolve principal agent problems. The economic literature offers a rich and varied set of evidence in support of the critical efficacy and impor- tance of material incentives. The theoretical literature reinforces these empirical findings. There are many situations in which firms eschew high-powered incentives, but for the most part this is the result of incentives having a powerful effect on behaviors. It is possible, as we have seen, to construct models where extrinsicrewards undermine intrinsic motives, but these models appear largely as elaborations and qualifications of the fundamental message: 68 Among the many other potentially relevant examples are the models of social image in Bernheim and Severinov (2003) and Andreoni and Bernheim (2009). The Bernheim-Severinov model is designed to explain the common practice of equal division of bequests. The model posits that children care about the extent to which they are loved relative to other siblings, and then studies bequests as a mechanism by which parents can signal love. Equilibrium behavior tends to pool at equal bequest division. Similar logic might explain the frequent organizational practice of equality in treatment (pay, work conditions, etc.) of workers who might differ quite widely in productivity. Andreoni and Bernheim’s refinement of these ideas might serve as a valuable microfoundation for studying the role of fairness (e.g., Fehr and Schmidt, 1999) in principal agent relationships.
Each of the measures above was limited in scope; however, the TSES was multi- dimensional and assessed instructional practices, classroom practices, and student engagement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Both the 24-item form and the 12-item form have been proven to be reasonably valid and reliable (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Unlike other measurements, the TSES covers a broader range of teaching tasks and assesses a broad range of teacher capabilities (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The TSES was designed to closely align with the theory of self-efficacy (Durksen et al., 2017). A comprehensive assessment tool must be utilized given that a teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is one of the most influential factors on motivation and, thus, professional behaviors (Durksen et al., 2017). Durksen et al. (2017) stated, “Teacher self-efficacy influences a teacher’s persistence, enthusiasm, job satisfaction, and successful teaching behaviours, and has been found to influence student achievement” (p. 56).
The results of this study link up to the understanding of some of the key issues identified in the previous quantitative studies related to motivations for e learning.
The data showed that the strongest motivator for faculty members is addressing the accessibility to Internet at faculty members‟ office (56%). The next strongest factors that would motivate faculty members to participate in e learning is adequate training of pedagogical and teaching strategies relative to Web 2.0 generation, provide financial aid to purchase software and others, provide on-going incentives, establish professional development programs for faculty members utilizing e learning. These four motivations contributed the same frequency with 50% frequent answers from the faculty members. Also, it was mentioned in (Singh, Gurmak, and John O' Donoghue and Harvey Worton, 2003) the people who are motivated to use the Internet would have more significant correlation to the motivation to succeed academically. Cahill (2008) cited the research made by Bonk, 2001; Herbert 2003; Schopieray, 2006 about support as a motivator. This is a crucial factor and also an important motivation for faculty participating in e learning. Quality technical and pedagogical training is important for faculty to learn how to teach effectively online. Also, with more complex applications, faculty may need extensive instructional and developmental support, and it is most essential for faculty who do not have advanced skills in this area (Bonk, 2001). It was found that a favorable environment to encourage e learning would include: ongoing workshops and seminars; follow-up support for ideas introduced; technical support for both students and faculty and recognition for the positive impact of new teaching.
The effect sizes analysed pertained to 15 different countries. However, only eight of them were significantly different from zero. A closer examination of these eight countries indicates that they were located in different parts of the world, thereby alluding to the intercultural application of cultural capital theory. However, it is difficult to extrapolate further in terms of country characteristics that may be associated with these significant effect sizes because of the small number of effect sizes corresponding to each country (other than the US), and the different ways that countries can be classified. For example, effect sizes were significant in both developed (US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel) and less developed (Chile, China, Sri Lanka, Jordan) countries. Furthermore, higher effect sizes were found in less developed countries such as Sri Lanka and Chile, thereby refuting the Heynemon-Loxley hypothesis that family relative to school effects were stronger in more developed countries (Baker, Goesling, & LeTendre, 2002). When countries were compared in terms of the level of equity in their education system (Perry, 2009), the nonsignificant effect size for Canada (an equitable education system) might be easily understood. However, it was less clear why effect sizes for countries with less equitable systems (e.g., Norway, Netherlands) were similarly nonsignificant. By the same token, it was understandable why effect sizes in countries with greater government intervention in mitigating socioeconomic differences in student achievement (e.g., Greece, Netherlands; Xu & Hampden-Thompson, 2012) were nonsignificant. However, it was less clear why the effect size for New Zealand, a country with minimum government intervention, was also nonsignificant.
According to the American National Research Council’s report (1989) expertise in most occupations requires at least a basic knowledge of mathematics and geometry. Tobias (1978) stated that mathematical knowledge is a key factor that increases the chances of employment in recruitment exams done by the army, private, and government institutions. Therefore, one of the primary goals of education should be to make students reach high competence in mathematics (Tall and Razali, 1993). Considering the importance of mathematics for students and individuals, national policy makers, educators, and researchers have been examining factors that may have meaningful and consistent relationships with mathematical achievement. One factor that has received considerable attention is motivation. “To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is thus characterized as unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or activated toward an end is considered motivated” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.54). Studies on mathematics show that students should have high motivation in order to achieve a high standard of mathematical education. Students who have high motivation take education more seriously, participate in classroom activities, consider teachers’ recommendations, and have higher academic achievement scores (Pajares and Schunk, 2001; Wolters and Rosenthal, 2000). Motivation also makes students display their real potential (Eggen and Kauchak, 1997). Thus, motivating students to be enthusiastically receptive is one of the most important aspects of mathematics instruction.
Although this study contributes to the motivation literature by incorporating aspects of mental health, it has several limitations. Firstly, causality cannot be addressed because of the lack of temporal sequence resulting from its cross-sectional design. Experimental or longitudinal designs would allow causal inferences to be made, and are, therefore, warranted for future research. Secondly, only one mental health outcome exceeded its cut-score for the cohort, suggesting that it was a predominantly healthy cohort. Therefore, future research with athletes who have a clinical mental health diagnosis may reveal different relationships to those presented in the SEM (e.g., larger beta values between controlled forms of motivation and mental health outcomes). Thirdly, measurement of psychological needs thwarting would be useful given its association with controlled forms of motivation (e.g., Healy et al., 2014 ) and negative outcomes (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011 ). Fourthly, the size, level, location, and structure of the sample somewhat limit the generalizability of the findings. Replicating the study with other athlete populations is, therefore, warranted. Fifthly, examination of gender and sport effects, and the interaction of these variables, was not possible due to sample size and composition. Finally, self- report measures may be subject to bias, and could be augmented with other methods (e.g., interviews) in order to provide greater depth of information.
Extrinsicrewards, on the other hand, are external to the job itself. They comprise such elements as pay, fringe benefits, job security, promotions, private office space, and the social climate. Other examples include competitive salaries, pay raises, merit bonuses, and such indirect forms of payment as compensatory time off (Mottaz 1985: 366, Mahaney and Lederer 2006: 43). Firms are able to improve worker productivity by paying workers a wage premium- a wage that is above the wage paid by other firms for comparable labor. A wage premium may enhance productivity by improving nutrition, boosting morale, encouraging greater commitment to firm goals, reducing quits and the disruption caused by turnover, attracting higher quality workers and inspiring workers to put forth greater effort (Goldsmith, Veum and Darity 2000: 352). As a result, people are attracted to well-paying jobs, extend extra effort to perform the activities that bring them more pay, and become agitated if their pay is threatened or decreased (Stajkovic and Luthans 2001: 581). Extrinsicrewards are used to show that the company is serious about valuing team contributions to quality. The monetary rewards consist of a cash bonus allocated to each team member. The team bonus would be given separately from the salary. On the other hand, team rewards must be used in ways that avoid destroying employees’ intrinsicmotivation to do their job. The need for continuous improvement requires employees to be innovators; devising novel solutions that improve a work process or that delight the customer. The use of extrinsicrewards that are tightly linked to team performance may teach team members to become money hungry and undermine their intrinsic interest in the work itself (Balkin and Dolan 1997: 43).
However, it is important to note that this study has fo- cused on one kind of extrinsic reward and one kind of intrinsic reward, money and social group bonding. Fur- ther studies are required to investigate the relationship between other examples of rewards and the AAS score. Additionally, it should be noted that the observed rela- tionships between rewards and appetitive aggression is one of correlational nature, i.e. appetitive aggression might also for example determine whether an abductee receive money or not. The analyses also show that the duration of time spent in the armed group has no effect on the AAS score of the former combatant. Hecker et al. found similar results . The number of self-reported combat actions is in contrast to duration, positively re- lated to appetitive aggression, which also coincided with previous research .
A substantial amount of the educational psychology literature has focused on the importance of motivation and the associated emotions. Dweck’s (1986) goal orientation model suggests that the way individuals approach a task determines both the outcome and the regulatory system involved. Thus, goal orientations represent internal cognitive representations (structures) that result in successful or unsuccessful self-regulation. Dweck (1986) and Nicholls (1989) described two such orientations 1 , a task (or mastery) and an ego (or performance). A task orientation is grounded on intrinsicmotivation and represents one’s pleasurable engagement with an activity whereas an ego orientation describes individuals who focus on outperforming others and gain favourable judgements. Numerous studies suggest that goal orientations are extremely important in accounting for the behavioural manifestations of motivation and associ- ated emotions (e.g., Elliot et al. 1999), and may account for various personality constructs (see Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and McGregor 1999, 2001; Harackiewicz et al. 2002). Given that goal orientations are grounded on the early motivational orientations of IM and EM, a valid motivational scale (i.e., AMS) should account for substantial amounts of the variability in goal orientations. Furthermore, those predictions should be in the desired directions. Thus, it was predicted that a task orientation would be strongly linked to IM (and its respective constructs) whereas an ego orientation should be predicted by EM and the focus on external reward structures. It was also predicted that amotivation would be linked negatively, albeit weakly, with both goal orientations. Furthermore, it was predicted that IM would demonstrate stronger correlations with cognitive and affective motivational-relevant constructs such as enjoyment, effort and perceived competence, whilst EM and amotivation would correlate more strongly with anxiety-related constructs such as pressure. Given the added complexity of domain-specific measures, the study was conducted in the physical education setting. This setting was chosen as the context to test the concurrent validity of AMS because children’s covert behaviour can be readily evaluated in the PE setting (i.e., children cannot day-dream, pretend they are engaged, fool around, etc.).
In fact, the majority of the research on the effects of environmental events on intrinsicmotivation has focused on the issue of autonomy versus control rather than that of competence. And this issue has been considerably more controversial. The research began with the demonstration that extrinsic re- wards can undermine intrinsicmotivation (Deci, 1971; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), which we interpret in terms of the reward shifting people from a more internal to external perceived locus of causality. Although the issue of rewards has been hotly debated, a recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koes- tner, & Ryan, in press) confirms that virtually every type of expected tangible reward made contingent on task performance does, in fact, undermine intrin- sic motivation. Furthermore, not only tangible rewards, but also threats (Deci & Cascio, 1972), deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), direc- tives (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), and competition pressure (Reeve & Deci, 1996) diminish intrinsicmotivation because, according to CET, people experience them as controllers of their behavior. On the other hand, choice and the opportunity for self-direction (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) appear to enhance intrinsicmotivation, as they afford a greater sense of autonomy.
included as a covariate (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
Similar to previous daily diary studies examining the association between intrinsic goal motivation and emotion (Perunovic et al., 2011; Sheldon et al., 1996) as well as studies
examining motivational tendencies and emotion (Kasser & Ryan, 2001), we found that intrinsic goal motivation was associated with higher positive affect and pride and lower negative affect and guilt. However, extrinsicmotivation was not associated with daily emotion in our sample. We note that Perunovic et al.’s (2011) study included a cultural component, and the results for their Asian-identifying (but not Western-identifying) group also showed no relation between extrinsicmotivation and emotion. Studies that have used trait-like measures of motivation and emotion, rather than daily diary methodology, have found that extrinsicmotivation, compared to intrinsic, is less strongly associated with emotional consequences (Kasser & Ryan, 2001; Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, & Koetsner, 2006). In general, results across studies seem to suggest that intrinsic motivational tendencies as well as intrinsic goal motivation in daily life are consistently associated with higher positive and lower negative affect, including self-conscious emotions; the relationship between extrinsicmotivation and emotion appears to be weaker and less stable. Previous work using trait-like measures of motivation has suggested that SPP and SOP are associated with extrinsic and intrinsicmotivation, respectively (Harvey et al., 2015; Miquelon et al., 2005). An important question is whether these trait-like associations also can be observed on a daily level, as people go about pursuing personal goals in their everyday lives. Our results revealed only nonsignificant trends in the expected directions, with SPP predicting daily extrinsic goal motivation and SOP predicting daily intrinsic goal motivation. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine perfectionism in relation to goal motivation assessed daily, and our results suggest that this relation is quite weak relative to that found with measures of motivational tendencies. Future studies using experience sampling or diary approaches are clearly warranted to further examine these associations.
This mixed study examined the existing level of primary school teachers’ perceived intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation and their performance assessed through respective head-teachers. Data was collected through adapted teachers’ and head-teachers’ questionnaires having both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions. Teachers’ questionnaire involved 38 (11=intrinsicmotivation, 14 =extrinsicmotivation) and three open ended questions within the same questionnaire used for obtaining qualitative data. They asked for teachers’ insights into existing problems and the measures to improving teachers’ motivation and performance; whereas, head-teachers’ questionnaire implicated 13 Likert-scale items asking for respective performance of the teachers. Overall internal consistency of the tool was measured through Cronbach’s alpha which stood good (.82). The alpha values stood at .89, .74 and .85 for intrinsicmotivation, extrinsicmotivation; and teachers’ performance respectively. The multi-stage random sampling involved 348 teacher-respondents and 40 head- teachers of District Hyderabad, Sindh. Data was analyzed through SPSS package of 16.00 for descriptive statistical analyses at 0.05 confidence-intervals. Descriptive statistics revealed that teachers ranked their intrinsicmotivation better (mean ranged1.62 to 2.18 for 11items) against extrinsicmotivation (mean ranged from 2.50 to 3.97 for 14 items). Teachers’ 13 performance items did not catch supporting evidence i.e. means ranged from 1.93 to 3.97 (with 2.82 mean of means) which is disappointing one.