Motivational consequences of computer- and teacher-generated attribution feedback
ResearchPublished 1988
This paper reports on part of an investigation of the effect computers may have on student motivation. It compares two types of motivation feedback (bad luck and low effort) when they are delivered by two different sources (computer and human tutor). Students who received either type of motivation feedback persisted far more than students who received no feedback, and students whose failures were attributed to bad luck persisted more than those whose failures were attributed to low effort. Students' expectation of success with the next problem significantly predicted their persistence. The study suggests that deflecting the burden for failure away from the student and onto bad luck may be better at motivating students to persist when failures might threaten their sense of self-worth. This is equally true when humans and computers deliver the motivation feedback.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Available
- Year: 1988
- Print Format: Paperback
- Paperback Pages: 36
- Paperback Price: $20.00
- Document Number: P-7461
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
Peter, Orli, David J. McArthur, and Cathy Stasz, Motivational consequences of computer- and teacher-generated attribution feedback, RAND Corporation, P-7461, 1988. As of October 13, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7461.html
Peter, Orli, David J. McArthur, and Cathy Stasz, Motivational consequences of computer- and teacher-generated attribution feedback. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1988. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7461.html. Also available in print form.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.