motivation

I really enjoyed both papers. I personally believe that motivation plays a huge part in what people learn and how well they learn a particular concept. There has to be some "reason" as to why to learn something. Especially of interest to me are the ideas of intrinsic value and utility value. When teaching there should be "utility value" present. Wigfield and Eccles state that "Utility value or usefullness refers to how a task fits into an individual's future plans". This is similiar to a teachers goal for a lesson plan or unit except the goal refers to the entire group. The difficult task is to then have the learners actually believe that it is usefull to them individually and personally. It's often difficult to see the bigger picture or to see into the future, especially with younger children. I think with younger children, intrinsic or interest probably plays a bigger part in achievement value for them. I also thought it was interesting older elementary children valued math, reading and instrumental music less than younger children did (Wigfield and Eccles). Is it because it becomes harder? Is it because they learn it and then don't think that they really need it in their everyday lives? Or do other things take there place in importance? For example, the authors state that the value of sports was higher with older elementary children. It sounds like society and television acting upon that.

I'm a little confused with the difference between interest value and intrinsic motivation. Also, in "Motivation Gaps: Belief is (Almost) Everything" the authors state "the root motive influencing all human behavior is a desire to be effective in our lives." I keep getting hung up on that phrase. Is the root motive for preschoolers or elementary children really the desire to be effective? The authors also state that "different people have very different ideas about what makes them effective." So, with a preschooler maybe it is just having fun and staying out of trouble and that is how they are "effective".
My biggest issue is that I keep trying to tie motivation to strongly to interest, intrinsic motivation and fun. When working with younger children it just seems that fun, games and interest are what keeps them motivated and then you can use that to help you get them to learn. The whole idea of "learning is fun".

In "Motivation Gaps:" they discuss "tangible incentives" and disputes about pay incentives. In the past I've tried to offer "tangible incentives" to younger children in the form of candy. This has back fired so much that I typically don't use it anymore. The participants "motivation" is no longer on the task but is on the "pay". I've used it to try to "bribe" them, which are what "quota schemes" and "piece-rate schemes" really are and as a reward. However, when giving young children rewards I've discovered that rewarding only a few and not rewarding the others is not a very pleasant experience. You can't give one candy without giving them all candy - which I end up doing. I tried stickers and bookmarks, which work better. However, I've discovered that a pat on that back, compliments, and corrective feedback works much better.
Also, in "Motivation Gaps:" the authors state "project your own expectation that they will succeed. If you do not expect them to succeed, you may be (or may become) part of the problem." This reminds me of the Garcia? paper - where learners can become self-fulfilling prophecies and issues of stereotyping.