Proposal presentation

305 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
305
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
44
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Proposal presentation

  1. 1. Educational Problem: <ul><li>Schools in our country are paying students for achievement. </li></ul><ul><li>This struck me as morally and economically problematic </li></ul><ul><li>Led me to the greater question: </li></ul><ul><li>What is the most effective way to motivate under-achieving students? </li></ul>Yikes!!!
  2. 2. Research Findings Snapshot: <ul><li>Ego-involved subjects displayed less free choice behavior then their counterparts and reported less enjoyment. </li></ul><ul><li>There were no differences among the sexes of the subjects. </li></ul><ul><li>The subjects who were given ego-involving inductions with the nonconfirming feedback were more likely to display free choice behavior then the task-involving induction subjects. </li></ul><ul><li>There is a positive correlation between involvement in free choice activity and positive feedback. </li></ul><ul><li>Ego-involved subjects who received no feedback displayed more free choice persistence then those who received positive feedback. Task involved subjects displayed the opposite. </li></ul><ul><li>The results of the study indicate a minimal increase in the Bagrut rates among girls only. (Israel) </li></ul><ul><li>There were no significant differences in the number of books read among the the treated and control groups. </li></ul><ul><li>The treated group in this study had higher test scores then the untreated group. </li></ul><ul><li>The financial incentives did increase the rates of all of the measured categories, put had negative impacts on the rest of the family. (Bogota, Columbia) </li></ul><ul><li>Financial incentives for student achievement are only effective for student input when students do not possess P.F., but have not impact for student output. (DC, Chicago, Dallas and NY) </li></ul><ul><li>General conclusion: Sometimes financial incentives are helpful, but there is not a lot of compelling data in favor of them, it is not successful for all types of tasks for all types of students and there is evidence of negative repercussions. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Key findings that guided my proposal: <ul><li>*Deci, Edward L, Koestner, Richard, Ryan, Richard M. focus on motivation. </li></ul><ul><li>* ego involvement means : threats to esteem by others, threats to self-esteem, and personal importance can be involved in a task (and other’s are evaluating them based on this outcome.) </li></ul><ul><li>*The means-ends orientation puts people “on trial” with themselves. </li></ul><ul><li>**Ego-involved tasks cause pressure to perform & can undermine motivation </li></ul><ul><li> part of a greater cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan 1980) </li></ul><ul><li>*Their 3 experiments tested free-choice persistence of a task (for us this would mean homework, outside reading, etc…), interest and enjoyment of the task & perception of choice. </li></ul><ul><li>Illustration: (Experiment 1) </li></ul><ul><li>-putting a puzzle together of cartoon-like drawings, the name NINA appears several times and subjects circled it each time it was found. </li></ul><ul><li>-Instructions given by tape-recorder to eliminate variances in instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>-One was done first as an example, then subjects are told to do 3 more on their own & were allowed 2 min. for each. The number of “NINA’s” found by each subject was recorded and measured against an average. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Variations in Task vs. Ego inductions: <ul><li>Ego-involved subjects: told that “this is a test of creative intelligence, as part of a broader IQ test which requires the capacity to break down & reorganize a perceptual field.” </li></ul><ul><li>Task-involved subjects: the task was explained without drawing attention to the relationship with creative intelligence. </li></ul><ul><li>Free-choice period: subjects were told to wait in another room where more puzzles and current magazines were available & they could do what they wanted while they waited for questionnaires. The subjects completion of additional puzzles was recorded and measured. (primary dependant variable) </li></ul><ul><li>Results: Ego-involved subjects completed less puzzles in their free choice period then task-involved subject and had reports of lower interest and enjoyment than their counterparts.  How we introduce as task as teachers may impact student motivation! </li></ul>
  5. 5. Use of Non-confirming feedback: Exp.2 <ul><li>(used in a social, not creative intelligence task) Subjects were given pictures: </li></ul><ul><li>of romantic couples and subjects had to decide whether it was posed or genuine </li></ul><ul><li>pictures of 2 business people and they had to decide which one was the boss. </li></ul><ul><li>Ego-involved subjects: told, “This is a test of social intelligence, it will show how well you are able to see through social situations. This particular form of social intelligence puts people in a better position to influence or manage others. In fact, preliminary research with this instrument suggest that effective leaders generally tend to do better at it.” </li></ul><ul><li>Task-involved subjects: told, “This task is a kind of game that you might find interesting. We are trying to get some idea of what people’s reactions to it are and how well people can do. It is fairly typical of new types of social perception tasks being designed by psychologists.” </li></ul><ul><li>Nonconfirming feedback- led subjects to believe they had an average </li></ul><ul><li>performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Ego-Involved: “That should give you some idea of how you stack up against others in terms of this particular form of social intelligence.” </li></ul><ul><li>Task-involved: “That should give you some idea about your performance.” </li></ul>
  6. 6. Results & Implications: Exp. 2 <ul><li>Ego-involved subjects completed more of the target behavior during free-choice period, but had low reports of enjoyment. </li></ul><ul><li>Using nonconforming feedback for ego-involved subjects, relative to task-involved subjects led to internally controlling persistance. </li></ul><ul><li>Implications: free-choice behavior does not always reflect internal motivation, but can be manipulated by external factors! </li></ul>
  7. 7. Putting it all together: Exp.3 <ul><li>This final experiment sought to elicit both intrinsically motivated persistence and internally controlled persistence in the same experiment. </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy: cross task-involvement vs. ego-involvement with positive feedback vs. no feedback (4 dependent measures) </li></ul><ul><li>Results: ego-involved subjects who received no feedback displayed more free-choice persistence than those who received positive feedback. Task involved subjects displayed the opposite pattern </li></ul><ul><li>Implications: task-involved students may complete more of a target activity if given positive feedback! </li></ul>
  8. 8. Applying ideas from this study: <ul><li>Students will be given task-involved inductions to the target activity (participation in an electronic academic monitoring program.) </li></ul><ul><li>Sample: 3 groups of 10 from 3 BCPS high schools with equal demographic representation and all pulled from the school’s deficiency list. </li></ul><ul><li>Independent variables: confirming feedback and financial incentives. </li></ul><ul><li>Dependent variable: changes in report card grades. </li></ul><ul><li>Measures: HSA scores, report cards, surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Expected outcome: subjects receiving confirming feedback will see equal improvement in report card grades to students receiving financial incentives with no feedback. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Analyzing Anticipated Results:
  10. 10. My proposal will seek to: <ul><li>Show correlations between interest/enjoyment of tasks and student motivation. </li></ul><ul><li>measure the effectiveness of financial rewards against other interventions. </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright Jennifer Meltzer 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×