For the fourth module of my MA in Character Education (2022-25), I returned to the idea that rewards can be used to lure otherwise unmotivated children into developing intrinsic (or more autonomous) motivation for virtuous behaviours (see Key concepts). In a previous essay, I outlined how this “lure” hypothesis might be tested in a controlled experimental setting. Here, I explore how it might be tested in a school-based intervention. This module was assessed via a presentation. You can find my slides below.
Testing the lure hypothesis requires, first, a virtuous activity. I chose visiting residents at a local care home – an example of service, a civic virtue.
Next, I needed a sample of children who were only extrinsically motivated to participate. I planned to recruit such children using a two-step script that would essentially filter out any intrinsically motivated children. I would first describe the activity to Year 7 students before asking whether anyone was interested in getting involved. Students who volunteered at this stage – before any mention of rewards – would be considered intrinsically motivated and thus excluded from the activity. I would then reveal that participants would receive 50 PRIDE points for each visit. Students who “volunteered” at this point would be considered extrinsically motivated and included in the intervention group.
These students would have the opportunity to visit the care home once a week for six weeks, earning PRIDE points for each visit. After that, the reward contingency would be withdrawn – no more points – but the opportunity to visit the care home would continue for another six weeks. Intrinsic motivation would be measured via the number of visits during this “free-choice” period. Even a single voluntary visit during this reward-free period would suggest a shift in motivation from extrinsic to something more internal.
However, what’s to say it would be the virtuous activity itself that prompts such a shift? Twelve weeks is a long time. Something else could happen to participants during this period. To rule out this possibility, what’s needed is a control group – students who are only extrinsically motivated to engage in a moral neutral activity, with whom the intervention group might be compared. For the control activity, I chose a maths task – you can’t get more morally neutral than that! Recruitment would follow the same sort of script as before, and the control activity would run parallel to the intervention activity.
This was a hypothetical intervention; it never actually happened. But it got me thinking seriously about how to evaluate educational strategies within a school setting. This would serve me well for my MA dissertation [coming soon].
One important ethical question arises from this intervention design: What about the intrinsically motivated students? What effect might being excluded from the activities have on their motivation? I would return to this issue in my next essay.