Teaching With the Brain in Mind

pursue rewards as a teaching strategy. We knew
very little about the brain at that time, and rewards
seemed cheap, harmless, and often effective. But
there was more to the use of rewards than most
educators understood. Surprisingly, much of the
original research by Watson and Skinner was
misinterpreted.
For example, the stimulus-response rewards
popularized by behaviorism were effective only for
simple physical actions. But schools often try to
reward students for solving challenging cognitive
problems, writing creatively, and designing and
completing projects. There’s an enormous difference
in how the human brain responds to rewards for
simple and complex problem-solving tasks. Shortterm
rewards can temporarily stimulate simple
physical responses, but more complex behaviors are
usually impaired, not helped, by rewards (Deci,
Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan 1991, Kohn 1993).
In addition, the behaviorists made a flawed
assumption: that learning is primarily dependent
on a reward. In fact, rats—as well as humans—will
consistently seek new experiences and behaviors
with no perceivable reward or impetus. Experimental
rats responded positively to simple novelty.
Presumably, novelty-seeking could lead to new
sources of food, safety, or shelter, thus enhancing
species preservation. Choice and control over their
environment produced more social and less aggressive
behaviors (Mineka, Cook, and Miller 1984). Is
it possible that curiosity or the mere pursuit of
information can be valuable by itself? Studies confirm
that this happens, and humans are just as
happy to seek novelty (Restak 1979).
We have all looked for solutions to “motivate”
learners. The long-term promise of better grades,
pleasing others, graduation, and future employment
are common “hooks.” Short term, teachers
63
offer choice, privileges, and getting out on time or
early. These kinds of rewards seem to work with
some, but not all, students. A study of 849 Los
Angeles County 8th graders found that they scored
13 percent higher when offered $1 for every correct
answer on a national math exam. This study
suggests, among other things, that some students
may actually know the material but be unmotivated
to demonstrate it, according to study
researcher Harold O’Neill (Colvin 1996).
A student can be momentarily in an apathetic
state, or the demotivation may be chronic and
debilitating. It takes a bit of detective work to
make the distinction between the two. If the student
goes in and out of “motivating” states and
occasionally engages in learning, it’s probably a
temporary condition. This state has an enormous
array of possible causes, but the solutions are relatively
easy. Learned helplessness, the more chronic
and severe demotivation, is quite different. (It was
addressed in the previous chapter.)
Temporary Demotivation
Motivation and Rewards
Students who make it to school each day have
demonstrated a certain amount of motivation.
After all, they’ve made it to class while the truly
unmotivated students are still in bed or anyplace
else but school. That’s why there are very few truly
unmotivated students. The students you see may
look like school is the last place they want to be,
but at least they’ve made it to your class. And,
most likely, they are temporarily unmotivated.
Why? There are three primary reasons.
The first has to do with associations from the
past, which can provoke a negative or apathetic
state. These memory associations may be stored in
the amygdala in the middle of the brain area