The purpose of this qualitative research study was to discover the influence of a student achievement program implemented at one large urban high school that employed extrinsic motivation to promote student achievement on state assessments. Using organismic integration theory as the theoretical framework, 19 randomly selected students participated in structured interviews with their responses analyzed by the organismic integration theory taxonomy. This study invites a discussion of the use of extrinsic motivation to influence student attitude and behavior toward state assessments.
AmesC. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2.
AndermanE. M.AndermanL. H.YoughM. S.GimbertB. G. (2010). Value-added models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45, 123-137.
3.
AndermanE. M.MaehrM. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.
4.
AndermanE. M.MidgleyC. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298.
5.
BloomH. S.ThompsonS. L.UntermanR. (2010). Transforming the high school experience: How New York City’s small schools are boosting student achievement and graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/transforming-high-school-experience
6.
BongM. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 879-896.
7.
CameronJ.PierceW. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.
8.
CameronJ.PierceW. D.BankoM.GearA. (2005). Achievement-based rewards and intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 641-655.
9.
ChenowethK. (2007). It’s being done: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10.
ChenowethK. (2009). How it’s being done: Urgent lessons from unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
ColeJ. S.BerginD. A.WhittakerT. A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 609-624.
12.
CreswellJ. (2001). Standards of quality and verification. In ConradC. F.HaworthJ. G.LattucaL. R. (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 285-300). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
13.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M. (1999). The undermining effect is a reality after all—extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 692-700.
14.
DeciE. LKoestnerR.RyanR. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1-27.
15.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
16.
DotterA. M.McHaleS. M.CrouterA. C. (2009). The development and correlates of academic interests from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 509-519.
17.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
18.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
EisenbergerR.PierceD.CameronJ. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation—negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677-691.
21.
EklöfH. (2006). Development and validation of scores from an instrument measuring student test-taking motivation. Education and Psychological Measurement, 66, 643-656.
22.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
GlickmanC. D.GordonS. P.Ross-GordonJ. M. (2009). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
LeeV. E.ReadyD. D. (2007). Schools within schools: Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
MarzanoR. J.PickeringD. J.PollockJ. E. (2005). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
27.
MaxwellJ. A. (2001). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In ConradC. F.HaworthJ. G.LattucaL. R. (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 301-316). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
28.
McMurrerJ.KoberN. (2011). State test score trends through 2008-09, Part 5: Progress lags in high school, especially for advanced achievers. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
29.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Case studies as qualitative research. In ConradC. F.HaworthJ. G.LattucaL. R. (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 191-201). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
OddenA. (2009). Ten strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34.
PicucciA. C.BrownsonA.KahlertR.SobelA. (2002). Driven to succeed: High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools: Vol.1. Cross-case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Retrieved from http://www.utdanacenter.org/downloads/products/driven/ms_vol1.pdf
35.
RaywidM. A.SchmerlerG.PhillipsS. E.SmithG. A. (2003). No easy going: The policy environments of small urban schools and schools-within-schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
36.
ReevesD. B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press.
37.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
38.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
39.
RyanK. E.RyanA. M.ArbuthnotK.SamuelsM. (2007). Students’ motivation for standardized math exams. Educational Researcher, 36, 5-13.
40.
SundreD.KitsantasA. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26.
41.
TopolB.OlsonJ.RoeberE. (2010). The cost of new higher quality assessments: A comprehensive analysis of the potential costs for future state assessments. Retrieved from http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/120
42.
UllucciK.SpencerJ. (2009). Unraveling the myths of accountability: A case study of the California high school exit exam. Urban Review, 41, 161-173.
43.
WigfieldA. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
44.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
45.
WiliamD. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45, 107-122.
46.
WiliamD. (2011). What is assessment for learning?Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3-14.
47.
YinR. K. (2005). Introducing the world of education: A case study reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
ZerpaC.HacheyK.van BarneveldC.SimonM. (2011). Modeling student motivation and students’ ability estimates from a large-scale assessment of mathematics. Sage Open, 2011, 1-9. doi:10.1177/2158244011421803
