Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2002. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-176). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

The study examines whether different kinds of choices provided in assignment for students can promote students’ intrinsic motivation towards completing assignment and their learning performance in mathematics. A total of 55 primary 5 students were recruited in 2 schools for an after-school programme. The participants were randomly assigned to three treatment conditions: 1) personalization choice, 2) action choice, and 3) no-choice control condition. Results from planned contrast tests showed that provision of action choice improved students’ perception of choice (autonomy) in doing assignment. However, the positive effect of personalization choice and action choice on students’ perceived competence, intrinsic motivation and learning benefits cannot be concluded from the current findings. The limitations and practical implications of the study are discussed. / published_or_final_version / Educational Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

No description available.

This exploratory study examined the predictive ability of perceived work environment characteristics on employees' level of motivation to learn and growth need strength. It looked at motivation to learn within the context of two types of training: formal training and on-the-job training. It also examined the existence of group differences in motivation and in perceptions of the work environment. The sample was 117 middle management staff at a Canadian research university, varying in age, level of education, job classification, work unit, and job and institutional tenure. Data was collected using a questionnaire consisting of scales from the management and educational literature. Using multiple regression analysis and MANOVAs, workplace environmental characteristics were found to be predictors of employee motivation. The best predictor of motivation to learn was a composite measure of incentives, while the best predictor of growth need strength was a composite measure of lack of independence and freedom of choice. No group differences in motivational characteristics were found, however, there were differences in perceptions of the work environment.

The aim of the study was to gain an understanding of factors that affect motivation of adolescent learners in the classroom. The pilot and main research study was conducted with 42 adolescent learners in Grades 8 to 12 at Sunflower Secondary School1 in Durban. The theoretical frameworks that underpinned this study were the ecosystemic perspective, the systems theory and the humanistic theory. These frameworks guided my focus on the interactions that learners, peers, and educators and the whole system of education have with each other as well as on the role they play in motivating each other. The study used a qualitative research methodology. This approach allowed the researcher to interview the participants of Sunflower Secondary to ascertain rich data as to what factors motivate adolescent learners in the classroom. A semi structured interview schedule was used. The interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed. Central themes emerged, revealing that educators and peers motivated adolescent learners to learn in the classroom. A list of guidelines was also developed to assist educators in motivating adolescent learners to learn in the classroom. / Thesis (M.Ed.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2006.

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of various incentives on the reading motivation of fourth-grade students. The students involved in the study attended an elementary school in a mid-size town in the South. Results were based on the participation of 28 students in the control group, 27 students in the treatment group who received books as incentives, and 36 students in the treatment group who received non-reading related rewards as incentives.Each student's level of reading motivation was measured at the beginning and the end of the study using the Reading Survey portion of the Motivation to Read Profile (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996) which was completed by each student and the Parent Survey which was completed by the guardian of each student participating in the study. Sixteen students were selected to participate in the Conversational Interview portion of the Motivation to Read Profile based on reading and motivation levels (Gambrell, et al., 1996). The Conversational Interview occurred at the beginning and end of the study. Six students from the treatment group who received non-reading related rewards as incentives were interviewed, while five students from the control group and the treatment group who received books as incentives were interviewed. The teachers of these two groups did not identify any students for the Unmotivated, Above- Grade Level category. Book logs were also used in the study to measure the students' motivation to read based on the number of books read. For the duration of the nineteen-week study, the students in each treatment group read books and received incentives, while the students in the control group read books and did not receive incentives.The findings of the study were:1. There was no significant difference in reading motivation between students who participated in Accelerated Reader with non-reading related rewards as incentives and students who participated in Accelerated Reader with no incentives.2. There was no significant difference in reading motivation between students who participated in Accelerated Reader with books as incentives and students who participated in Accelerated Reader with no incentives.3. There was no significant difference in reading motivation between students who participated in Accelerated Reader with books as incentives and students who participated in Accelerated Reader with non-reading related rewards as incentives.4. There was no significant difference in reading motivation within the treatment group that participated in Accelerated Reader with non-reading related rewards as incentives.5. There was no significant difference in reading motivation within the treatment group that participated in Accelerated Reader with books as incentives.6. There was no significant difference in reading motivation within the control group.7. Factors that influence children's interest in books include choice,characteristics of books, personal interests, and knowledge gained from the books.8. Sources that expose children to books consist of family, teachers, and the school library.9. Sources of motivation include family, teachers, the children themselves, and peers.10. Actions that motivate children to read include giving children books, reading to children, and sharing books with children. / Department of Elementary Education

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Graduate School of Education, Oral Roberts University, 2007. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-127).

Thesis (EdD ) -- Australian Catholic University, 2005. / Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Education. Bibliography: p. 242-259. Also available in an electronic version via the internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toronto, 2006. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 44-06, page: 2512. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-105).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: Earl Woodruff.