Seminar series sponsored by the British Psychological Society

Can current theories of motivation inform

practice in educational contexts?

Target paper for seminar on 8 th May, 2009 to be held at

The Faculty of Education, Cambridge University, U.K.

Goal theory and self-determination theory: Theory and current debates

Richard Remedios (Durham University, U.K.) and Ros McLellan (Cambridge University, U.K.)

Introduction to the target paper: The purpose of the first seminar in the series “Can current

theories of motivation inform practice in educational contexts?” focuses on theory and current

debates. With so many potentially useful theories, it was tempting to try and outline them all.

However, we were in danger of writing a book and have therefore chosen to focus on just two

main theories, Goal Theory and Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

The target paper has been split into two papers, one focusing on Goal Theory and one focusing

on SDT. In both papers, we outline the main theoretical underpinnings and then highlight a few

challenges that have emerged for these theories in the last few years. For those of you familiar

with the theories, you may just want to read the controversies.

We hope that the two papers are brief enough to serve as a useful introduction to the types of

conversations we would like to encourage during the day and throughout the series as a whole

but detailed enough to do justice to the finer points of the theory.

1

Goal Theory: Controversies of interest to theorists and educators

Richard Remedios

Durham University

richard.remedios@dur.ac.uk

Abstract:

This position paper focuses on the concept of goal theory. Goal theory is a particular from of an

achievement goal which in turn is a particular feature of achievement motivation. At the finer

level of distinction, there are also different types of goal theories. In this position paper, I start

by firstly outlining the category differences between the different achievement motivation

concepts to arrive at the suite of goal theories. I will then focus on Andy Elliot’s version of goal

theory and in particular, the theoretical debate that surrounds firstly the operationalisation of

goals. I explain the evidence that suggests the importance of a range of alternative goals and

outline the argument that goal theory may underplay the importance these goals. The second

controversy I will focus on is a practical one, namely, how can we use what we have learned

from the research on goal theory to inform practice in classrooms? These two controversies

share considerable space in the extant literature and so whilst there may be others, I hope by

outlining these two controversies, the scene can be set for further debate.

2

Achievement motivation, achievement goals and goal theories.

In 1938, Henry Murray produced a seminal piece of work entitled “Explorations in Personality”

(Murray, 1938). Murray was interested in behaviours that seemed to him to be motivated by

forces other than drives such as sex, hunger and thirst. He wanted to understand whether there

might be some other set of innate characteristics that operated in a drive-like fashion in the sense

that they energized behaviour in a particular direction. Murray developed the thematic

apperception test where participants were asked to describe what they thought was going on in a

series of pictures (see Fig 1).

Fig 1. Typical pictures from Murray’s thematic apperception test. Participants were asked to tell

a story about each picture.

From participants’ replies, Murray coded responses into themes and identified twenty-seven

concepts that he called “needs”. Amongst others, these “needs” included achievement. The need

for achievement was defined as “To accomplish difficult tasks, overcoming obstacles and

becoming expert”. These early concepts were developed by McClelland et al. (1953) and the

concept of achievement motivation was introduced to the literature. McClelland et al. proposed

that humans had an innate need to achieve, a need which was later described by Atkinson (1964)

as “a capacity to experience pride in accomplishment” (Atkinson, 1964, p. 214). This definition

became the driver for research into achievement motivation and the concept of The

Achievement Motive was born.

3

Having identified that what individuals were striving to do i.e. achieve, the next question was

why were they striving to achieve? In the mid to late 1970’s, researchers such as Carol Dweck

and John Nicholls began to suggest that in achievement-related settings, individuals may have

different goals. For example, Dweck and colleagues observed that ability-matched pupils

responded differently to failure; whilst one type of pupil persisted with tasks, another type

exhibited what Dweck referred to as a “helpless response” choosing to desist from tasks and

adopting a negative attitude towards those tasks e.g. “I don’t really like these types of tasks”.

(Diener & Dweck, 1978; 1980) Dweck suggested that faced with the same tasks, some of the

pupils were striving to demonstrate competence (performance approaches) whilst others were

simply trying to develop mastery and competence at the task (mastery approaches). So the

position was that motivation in achievement settings could be predicted on the basis of the goals

that individuals adopted when faced with achievement-related tasks. The concept of

achievement goals was born.

The goal approach became a popular line of research as theorists began to examine the

usefulness of the goal construct in helping to predict behaviour. Different nomenclatures for the

performance/mastery constructs emerged such as ego-involvement to replace performance goal

or a learning and task for mastery goals (Nicholls, 1984; 1989). In the early 1990’s, Elliot began

to emphasise the avoidance construct (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994, 1996) and by 2001, the

avoidance construct had been attached to both performance and mastery goals (Elliot &

McGregor, 2001). For example, Elliot and McGregor (2001) have added a fourth construct, mastery avoidance, characterised by a worry of not being able to learn or understand all there is to. So goals now had a four-construct structure where approach forms were characterised by the desire to demonstrate ability, while avoidance forms were characterised by a desire to avoid appearing less capable than one’s peers (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994; 1996; Elliot & Church, 1997). Each new term brought with it a set of underlying

theory until the broad-level achievement goal theory proliferated with a range of highly similar

but crucially different set of goal theories (e.g., Maehr & Midgely, 1991, 1996; Ames, 1992;

Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998; see Pintrich, 2003 and Elliot, 2005 for reviews).

4

As we will see, the definition of goals becomes important when we examine how goal theory

should be studied. But firstly, it is useful to describe some interesting research that has driven

the questioning of how goals should be studied.

Controversy 1: How should we study goal theory?

At first glance, the question seems a curious one because the answer should be “there are no

ways you should or should not study goal theory”. However, some authors have challenged the

position that questionnaire studies yield useful information about students’ goals. In particular,

the concept of a “performance-approach goal” has been challenged on the grounds that pupils

may have several reasons for adopting performance goals and typical answers on questionnaires

fail to capture the complexity and diversity of pupils’ goals. The following is a brief review of

this debate.

The performance-approach goal has been captured using answers items such as “It is important

to me to do better than other students”, “It is important to me to do well compared to others in

my courses” and “My goal in my courses is to get a better grade than most of the other students”

(Elliot & McGregor, 2001). However, some authors have claimed that the goal of “comparing

oneself to others” is either over-emphasised (Brophy, 2005; Elliott, 2009) or under-emphasises

many other goals that pupils seem to have (Lemos, 1996; Urdan, 2004a, 2004b; Urdan, &

Turner, 2005; Urdan & Mestas, 2006). For example, Brophy (2005; Elliott, 2009) challenged the

operationalisation of performance goals. Their argument was that in goal instruments,

individuals are asked to record their level of agreement with a series of statements on a five or

seven-point likert scale. Examples of these statements are: “It is important to me to be better

than other students”, “It is important to me to do well compared to others in my courses” and

“My goal in my courses is to get a better grade than most of the other students” (taken from

Elliot & McGregor, 2001; see also Elliot & Church, 1997). Using a card sort task, Elliott (2009)

asked pupils to generate reasons why students might work hard in school. Pupils were then

given reasons which the pupils were told had been generated by the researcher and asked to sort

these into two piles, one representing the factors that motivated them for their schoolwork and

the others which definitely did not influence them. The key findings from this research were that

5

pupils chose to discard items that typically represented performance and avoidance goals. Also,

whilst pupils selected statements such as “to get good grades” and “to look intelligent”

frequently, the most frequent statement selected was “to get a good job/to get into higher

education”. In other words, the most important goals were not linked to comparing themselves

to other students, but towards the instrumental goal of attaining a good job.

In a similar criticism of performance goals, Urdan and Mestas (2006) suggest that limitations of

survey and experimental methods in goal research are that these methods fail to capture

differences in meanings about goals. Urdan and Mestas suggest that performance goals may

contain two components, the desire to appear able (appearance goal) and the desire to perform

better than others (social comparison goal) and that the different components would result in

different predictions: The desire to demonstrate academic ability to teachers and friends

(appearance goal) can be energising and adaptive for achievement but that the competitive

component of social comparison goal can be a hindrance. To understand more about their goals,

pupils were first asked to rate a particular statement e.g. “It is important to me that I do not do

worse than others in the class”, and were then prompted by follow-up questions such as “Tell

me a bit more about your rating of that item?” From participants’ answers, Urdan and Mestas

found that rather than focusing on statements about competence, participants focussed on four

categories, appearance-avoidance (e.g. “I don’t want to be the stupidest kid in this class and

everyone looks down on me”), appearance-approach (e.g., “Sometimes I want to compare my

grades because some people would be shocked, like ‘Wow’ you got this grade?”, competition-

avoidance (e.g., “I don’t want to do worse; its like my pride really) and competition-approach

(e.g., It’s important to me that I do better or, like, I’m top of the class. ‘Cuz it makes me feel

good even though my parents don’t care”).

Other researchers have also suggested that performance goals seem to play little role in

determining students goals for studying. For example, when students were not specifically asked

about their goals, Anderson et al. (1985) found that they did not make goal statements at all.

Rohrkemper and Bershon (1984) interviewed elementary students and from the suite of answers

found that students gave no indication they were pursuing performance goals and only gave

vague hints that they were pursuing mastery goals. When actually pressed about their goals,

6

Lemos (1996) found that participants cited seven goals, working goals, evaluation goals,

learning goals, complying goals, interpersonal relationship goals, enjoyment goals and

discipline goals. Although participants did mention evaluation goals, these were related to

getting good grades, not to impressing others.

In short, when pressed to verbalise their goals pupils seem to suggest a whole range of goals that

they report as being important to them.

Points for discussion

Of course, it may be that the underlying goals do not make any difference to subsequent

predictions and it may be that trying to develop a suite of additional of goals that pupils report as

being important may not be important at all (see the Single-Effects Model in Fig 2). On the

other hand, maybe these sub-goals are crucial and create a suite of alternative goals that each or

in combination produce a set of different outcomes (see the Multiple-Effects Model in Fig 2).

Fig 2: Two potential pathways from reasons to goals to outcomes

From Urdan & Mestas (2006, p363)

7

The discussion point here therefore is which model is a more useful way to consider the nature

of goals. Fryer & Elliot (2008) define an achievement goal as “… a cognitive representation of

a future object that the organism is committed to approach or avoid” (p.244) a definition that

emphasises an overarching aim as the organising and key predictive feature of a goal. The work

by Urdan & Mestas inculcates reasons and aims as part of the analysis of goals. This difference

in emphasis has implications. For example, Elliot (2005, p65) suggests that the aim-reason

definition of goals create different goal complexes and aim-reason accounts of goals are

different from his aim-only definition of goals (see also Elliot & Thrash, 2001). According to

Elliot and co-workers, goal complexes are different from goals; the definition of a goal is as

Elliot suggests, an aim. In other words, when we think of goals as aims, we adopt the single

effects model but when we think of aim-reason version of goals, we are examining a goal

complex which is captured by the multiple-effects model.

This difference in definitions becomes crucial when deciding how to study goals. Elliot (2005)

summarises the position by suggesting that when goals are conceptualised as aims, then research

should focus on how standards of evaluation influence behaviour. However, once the reason for

goals are introduced as an indicator of a commitment towards an aim, then research needs to

focus on those reasons. The point is subtle but a crucial one because the aims and reasons

arguments have added the conceptual debate about what is meant by a goal and therefore what

research into goal theory should really be focussing its attention on. Elliot and Fryer (2008,

p235) conclude that “simply put, consensual agreement on the definition and use of a goal in the

psychological literature does not exist”. If we are to understand whether goal theory is useful,

we do need to make sure we are talking about the same things when we talk about goals.

It seems as an almost obvious discussion point to address the question “what do we mean when

we talk about a goal?” However, the answers to this simple question lead to some far-reaching

implications for research design, methodology and subsequent theorising. This seminar series

offers a good opportunity to continue the debate.

8

Controversy 2: Can Goal Theory be usefully employed in classrooms?

Having introduced a theoretical debate about the nature and definition of goals, the next

controversy is tied to the emphasis of the first seminar series here in Cambridge and the two

seminars at Lancaster and Durham later this year which exclusively focus on practical

applications of motivational theory. Naturally the theorising creates the definitional structures of

goals so in this review I’ll just be reporting some findings from different interpretations of goal

theory to discuss the usefulness of the theory in classroom settings.

One of the most influential lines of research that has brought goal theory to the attention of

practitioners has been the work of Midgley et al. (2000). Midgley et al. (2000) developed the

Patterns of Adapted Learning Styles (PALS), an inventory that places an emphasis on classroom

contexts as a key influence of goal dispositions in pupils. Ames (1992) describes how classroom

features such as instructional demands and situational constraints can create classroom climates

which in turn can affect pupils’ orientations towards their studies. Features Ames (1992)

suggests are important are teaching strategies such as making tasks more personally relevant to

student, evaluating the improvement in pupil performance rather than the performance itself and

trying to give students autonomy, choice and voice wherever possible. Studies support some of

Ames’ claims. For example, Urdan and Midgley (2003) and Anderman and Anderman (1999)

have shown that when students perceive classroom climates to be mastery-orientated, they too

tend to adopt mastery-type approaches to their studying. Typical characteristics of mastery-

orientated classrooms are described by Urdan et al., (1999) who found that students perceived

that the teachers who gave the most mastery-goal messages were those who emphasised a

concern for the student and who were focussed on organising teaching around personal

relevance of topics for their students. In complimentary research, Anderman et al., (2002) found

that teachers who emphasised the importance of following rules and procedures were less likely

to be perceived as mastery-orientated. In terms of behavioural outcomes, Urdan, Midgley &

Anderman (1998) have shown that contexts that emphasise performance-goals are related to

motivationally maladaptive outcomes such as self-handicapping and the pursuit of performance-

avoidance goals.

9

To summarise, there seems at least some evidence to suggest that the goals emphasised by the

context of the classroom either directly by the teacher’s attitudes or the methods they use can

influence pupils’ outcomes. But how sustainable and practical are these teaching techniques in

classrooms on a day-to-day basis? It is this issue the (brief) analysis now turns to.

Urdan and Turner (2005) argue that many of the features thought to be adaptive in terms of goal

orientations are problematic. For example, at a structural level, they suggest that there are more

incentives in classrooms for students to show competence than for working on improvement.

Although Urdan and Turner’s work is largely based in the U.S.A. and therefore refers to the

performance-culture in American schools, the arguments seem relevant to schooling in the U.K.

So whilst goal theory may be a useful over-arching template, being able to emphasise mastery-

level techniques might be hindered in classroom situations by the structural problem that class-

level messages are likely to be superseded by performance-related messages inherent in the

culture.

A second argument made by Urdan and Turner (ibid) is that experimental research examining

the effects of goals has largely been conducted in laboratories on multiple single-sample

populations rather than at the class-level. This has meant that some of the effects derived from

the laboratory do not play out well in real-life classrooms. For example, Urdan et al., (1999)

found that teachers rarely discussed goals and students rarely noticed goal messages even when

the most blatant messages were given about various types of goals. In addition, experimentally

controlling for teacher-led mastery or performance-orientation message in a classroom is

problematic because it is difficult to give messages consistently and unlike the experimental

setting, it is unclear whether all students can pay attention. Urdan and Turner (ibid) argue that

experimental and in particular the use of surveys to capture goals actually distort the true nature

of the teacher influence in the classroom. They suggest that it is the reciprocal exchange of

messages that constantly affect the goals that students have and surveys cannot capture this level

of sophisticated interaction. Moreover, it may be that teachers respond to cues by students and

rather than producing mastery-orientated messages automatically, the messages are a function of

students’ implicit requests to be instructed in a particular way. In other words, the causality

10

direction may be difficult to assess because it may be that it is the students that are determining

the goal structures in classrooms. So whilst experimental research using surveys can be useful in

identifying types of goals, using these instruments to capture motivation in the classroom is

potentially problematic because of the subtlety of interactions that occur day-to-day in

classroom contexts.

A third line of argument is that notwithstanding the findings in studies such as those by Urdan

and Midgley (2003) and Anderman and Anderman (1999) mentioned earlier in this brief review,

the findings have not always been consistent. For example, Meece (1991) found that classes

rated as high in mastery-orientation did not differ in the complexity of tasks assigned relative to

classes low in mastery-orientation whilst Patrick et al., (2001) there was no relationship between

perceived classroom goal orientation and the rate that students were asked to demonstrate their

knowledge. Given the proclivity for journals to publish significant findings, the null effects

found in these studies may be nearer the rule rather than the exception. In other words, despite a

body of evidence suggesting some use of goal theory in classroom settings, the relationships and

effects may be equivocal.

Summary of the debate and its relationship to controversy one

Although Urdan and Turner’s (2005) review of the contribution that various theories of

motivation have made to practitioners acknowledge that goal theory has begun to look at

classroom processes in more detail, the practicalities of using goal theory as a way to improve

motivation in the classroom may be difficult to overcome. Both complimenting the claim about

practicalities and alluding to controversy one, Nolen and colleagues (Nolen, 2007; Frey et al.,

2005) has begun to suggest that the best way to understand goals in classrooms is by adopting a

more interactionist perspective and methodology. The more damning conclusion is that goals, as

defined in contemporary goal theory are both operationally problematic and might just not be

the best construct to understand motivation in the classroom. So whether we adopt the single-

effects model or multiple effects model actually makes no difference a) goals are difficult to

define and b) even when we define them, they become unworkable as a practical way of

improving motivation in the classroom.

11

Final thoughts

During the AERA conference in New York in March 2008, I sat down for dinner with Andy

Elliot, Sue Nolen, Tim Urdan and Joe Elliott for what ended up as an enlightening discussion on

the controversies in goal theory (enlightening for me at least). Most excitingly, some key

controversies seemed to be taking place at the table at that time. In composing this brief outline

of goal theory and two potential controversies, I have been aware of the “what about the

evidence from ..” arguments and the “what about the controversy about ..” voices from

colleagues and the research community as a whole. For example, in terms of usefulness of goal

theory, there is an impressive body of evidence from the field of motivation in sport (see Duda,

2005 for a useful review) and reading through the papers from this field it is difficult to argue

with the quality of the evidence. But as social scientists, controversies seem to me to be at the

heart of what we academics (try to) do best, namely, examine theory, examine evidence and try

to move knowledge forward. Goal theory is an exciting theory and as explained in the

introduction to this paper, has its origins in the work of Henry Murray back in the early part of

the 20th Century. As Murray’s ideas have been developed and refined, the critical development

of goal theory emerged throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’ with the work by Elliot, Dweck and

Harackiewicz. However, as we entered the 21st century, the work of authors such as Urdan,

Brophy and Nolen has provided a useful counter-point and goal theory stands at a point of

challenge. It is hoped that this challenge will be taken up by participants at the seminar series

today in Cambridge and in the two subsequent sessions at Lancaster and Durham.

12

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Anderson, L., Brubaker, N., Alleman-Brooks, J., & Duffy, G. (1985). A qualitative study of seatwork in first-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 86, 123-140.

Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 3, 167-176.

Diener, C.I., & Dweck, C.S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.

Diener, C.I., & Dweck, C.S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: (II) The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.

Duda, J. L. (2005). Motivation in Sport: The relevance of competence and achievement goals. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds). Handbook of competence and motivation. (p.318-336). New York. Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds). Handbook of competence and motivation. (p.52-72). New York. Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628-644.

Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994). Goal setting, Achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 968-980.

Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

13

Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchial model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 139-156.

Elliot, A.J. & Fryer, J.W. (2008). The Goal construct. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 235-250). New York: The Guilford Press.

Elliott, J. E. (2009). Are social comparisons the key drivers to working hard in school? The marginal role of performance goals. (in prep).

Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Eckstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social competence program: Linking goals, attributions, and behavior. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 171-200.

Lemos, M. (1996). Students’ and teachers’ goals in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 151-171.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school-wide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T., (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement Motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice and Performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press. London.

Nolen, S. B. (2003) Learning environment, achievement, and motivation in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 347-368.

Nolen, S. B. (2007). The development of motivation to read and write in young children: Development in social contexts. Cognition & Instruction, 25(2), 219-270.

14

Pintrich, P. (2003). Multiple goals and multiple pathways in the development of motivation and self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, BJEP Monograph series II, 137-154.

Rohrkemper, M., & Bershon, B. (1984). Elementary school students’ reports of the causes and effects of problem difficulty in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 85, 127-147.

Thorkildsen, T.A., & Nicholls, J.G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs: Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179-201.

Urdan, T. & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence and Motivation in the Classroom. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds). Handbook of competence and motivation. (p.297-317). New York. Guilford Press.

Urdan, T. (2004a). Using multiple methods to assess students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures. European Psychologist 9, 4, 222-231.

Urdan, T. (2004b). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structures and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 2, 251-264.

Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 2, 354-365.

15

Self-Determination Theory:

An overview and identification of Issues of interest to educators

Ros McLellan

University of Cambridge

rwm11@cam.ac.uk

This position paper focuses on self-determination theory. Self-determination theory emerged

from earlier work on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation (discussed further below) and first

appeared as a fully-fledged theory towards the end of the 1970s (see for instance Deci, 1980),

although it was developed considerably during the 1980s and 1990s. Two researchers, based at

the University of Rochester, NY in the USA, are particularly associated with the theory; namely

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, although they have collaborated with a number of other

researchers in developing the theory. Their institution hosts a comprehensive website1 providing

overviews of the theory, details of publications related to the differing aspects of the theory

(many of which are downloadable), links to instruments that have been developed and

information about people associated with the theory, conferences and the listserv discussion

forum. This provides an invaluable source of information for researchers in the field.

In the first half of the paper the main features of the theory are outlined. Some controversial

issues are then identified, and implications and usefulness of the theory are flagged up. This

second section is intended as an overview and does not claim to be exhaustive in coverage:

rather the aim is to stimulate thought and act as a starting point for discussion.

Overview of Self-Determination Theory

I will spend some space outlining the main aspects of self-determination theory (SDT), as it is a

complex beast and an appreciation of this is necessary to make sense of the controversies and

implications to be discussed later in the paper. I will start with the underpinning ontological

beliefs concerning the nature of development, which brings us to the concept of needs. I then

1 http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/index.html

16

move on to a consideration of several of the sub theories that have been developed within the

SDT umbrella including cognitive evaluation theory, organismic integration theory and

causality orientations theory.

The Underpinnings of SDT

At the heart of self-determination theory lies the ontological belief that:

‘… all individuals have natural, innate, and constructive tendencies to develop an ever

more elaborated and unified sense of self.’

(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 5)

Hence, individuals actively integrate experience into their sense of self. This type of account of

developmental processes has a rich and distinguished history, evident in humanistic theories of

personality (for instance, see Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1963) and cognitive theories of

development (Piaget & Inhelder, 1974).

Ryan & Deci (2002) characterise this process as involving autonomy (defined as the ‘tending

toward inner organisation and holistic self-regulation) and homonomy (the ‘tending toward

integration of oneself with others’) and note that healthy development entails the

complementary functioning of these two aspects. So the theory could be said to relate to the

development of self or personality rather than motivation, per se, and indeed the authors have

indicated that they are concerned with a broad range of issues including mental well-being

although this is couched in terms of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Indeed Deci and Ryan

make it clear that whilst their conceptualisation of motivation is that it ‘concerns what moves

people to act, think and develop’ (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 14), which is a fairly standard

definition of motivation, their focus is on ‘the conditions and processes that facilitate

persistence, performance, healthy development, and vitality’ (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 14) and as

such they are interested in the sociocultural conditions people act within.

17

The integrating developmental process described above is premised on the notion that humans

have innate psychological needs. Again, the ‘need’ concept has a long history in psychological

theorising about motivation dating back to Murray’s (1938) taxonomy of needs. Based on

previous work in the field (e.g. Baumeister & Leary, 1995; de Charmes, 1968; White, 1959) and

their own extensive largely experimental research spanning several decades, Deci and Ryan

postulate that there are three universal psychological needs:

Competence

‘…feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment and

experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities.’

(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7)

Autonomy

‘…being the perceived origin or source of one’s own behaviour.’

(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 8)

Relatedness

‘…feeling connected to others, to caring for and being cared for by those others, to

having a sense of belongingness both with other individuals and with one’s community.’

(Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7)

Healthy development depends on the fulfilment of these needs and humans have the capacity or

‘will’ to choose how to do this (Deci, 1980). Self-determination is ‘the process of utilising one’s

will’ (Deci, 1980, p. 26). In other words it is the process of choosing how to act to satisfy one’s

needs. This clearly relates most closely to the need for autonomy.

18

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Although the tendency towards integration is innate, healthy development is by no means a

given. The environment can either support or hinder the process. As Ryan & Deci note:

‘Social environments can, according to this perspective, either facilitate and enable the

growth and integration propensities with which the human psyche is endowed, or they

can disrupt, forestall, and fragment these processes resulting in behaviours and inner

experiences that represent the darker site of humanity.’ (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 6)

Much work has therefore gone into examining the conditions under which environments are

facilitative or disruptive to motivation and was certainly where much of the early efforts in self-

determination research were focussed. This stemmed from an interest in the field in the early

1970s in the concept of intrinsic motivation. This in turn had evolved as a concept from White’s

(1959) seminal work on ‘effectence’ motivation and links very closely to the underlying premise

of development noted in the opening sentence of this section. Intrinsic motivation has been

defined as:

‘the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s

capacities, to explore, and to learn.’

(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70)

Hence intrinsic motivation is also an inherent aspect of human existence and might therefore be

expected to be seen in everyday behaviour. However, by the early 1970s a number of studies

(for instance the well know study by Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973) had started to show that

intrinsic motivation could be undermined by environmental contingencies such as the provision

of rewards. Deci (1975) had shown that feedback could enhance or diminish intrinsic motivation

depending on whether it was positive or negatively phrased. This lead to the development of

cognitive evaluation theory (CET) (Deci, 1975), introduced as a sub theory within SDT.

Essentially it considers how social-contextual features such as feedback and rewards affect the

core needs for competence and autonomy, although much of the research has focused on the

19

latter rather than the former need. If events undermine a person’s sense of autonomy, they will

not experience their behaviour as self-determined, rather they will feel to some extent that their

behaviour is controlled by external factors; an external perceived locus of causality (Deci &

Ryan, 2008). They are acting for a reason other than the pure enjoyment, interest or curiosity

that originates autotelically from the activity, for instance they are acting to gain the reward.

This then undermines intrinsic motivation. Negative feedback can have a detrimental affect as it

compromises the need for competence. Further research conducted during the 1970s and 1980s

has shown that in addition to rewards and negative feedback, social-contextual features such as

threats of punishment, deadlines, pressurised evaluation, imposed goals and surveillance also

reduce intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Conversely the provision of choice,

acknowledgement of feelings and opportunities for self-direction can enhance intrinsic

motivation as they facilitate autonomy, whilst positive feedback which is seen as informational

enhances competence (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

More recent research has tended to move away from examining the role of the specific social-

contextual features, or events, discussed above, as these effects seem well established (for

instance, see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, for a review of the impact of rewards on intrinsic

motivation). Instead, there is a greater interest in the effect of interpersonal climate on intrinsic

motivation and this research has increasingly been conducted in real-world settings. Climate can

be assessed using the needs’ lenses and an accumulating body of evidence dating back to the

early 1980s (see for example, Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981) has demonstrated that

climates that feel pressurising and controlling undermine intrinsic motivation, whilst those that

feel supportive and informational have the opposite effect. Furthermore it is clear that

interpersonal climate can be influenced by other actors in the situation, notably authority figures

and this has inspired a large body of research focusing on the concept of autonomy support. This

is described by Deci and Ryan as follows:

‘Autonomy support involves one individual (often an authority figure) relating to target

individuals by taking their perspective, encouraging initiation, supporting a sense of

choice, and being responsive to their thoughts, questions and initiatives.’ (Deci &

Ryan, 2008, p. 18)

20

If an individual feels that another has offered this type of support they are more likely to believe

that they can be self-determining in their behaviour. Hence, in educational contexts, research has

focused on the role of the teacher in creating an autonomy supportive climate for students.

Obviously the issue of importance is individual’s perceptions of autonomy support rather than

actual support offered per se. Nevertheless, empirical research strongly indicates that positive

perceptions of autonomy support correlate strongly with intrinsic motivation, engagement,

learning and performance outcomes (see for instance, Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch,

2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Findings from a number of such

studies has lead Deci and Ryan (2008) to conclude that ‘the importance of autonomy-supportive

teachers and classrooms cannot be overstated’ (p. 19).

Organismic Integration Theory

Early research on intrinsic motivation contrasted this with extrinsic motivation, defined as ‘the

performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.

71). These two types of motivation are regarded as distinct, representing qualitatively different

types of motivation. Self-determination researchers share this recognition of different forms of

motivation with goal theorists but both theories represent a departure from earlier views of

motivation that only differentiated level and not type.

The definition of extrinsic motivation implies that behaviour is being regulated by an external

locus of causality and this would appear to mean that individuals in such circumstances would

be unable to be self-determining. However, in another divergence from earlier thinking, Deci

and Ryan have maintained that it is possible to be autonomously extrinsically motivated (Ryan

& Deci, 2002). To theorise this another sub theory; organismic integration theory (OIT), was

developed (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992). The crux of this theory links back to the core

ontological developmental assumption, and states that because people are inherently disposed to

integrate experiences into their sense of self, if they are prompted to do something that is not

interesting (i.e. they are not intrinsically motivated to do), they will tend to internalise the

initially external regulation. Internalisation is not a dichotomous variable; rather it takes place

21

along a continuum. Hence OIT theory posits that extrinsic motivation represents a continuum of

regulatory processes, within which a number of distinct categories have been identified. This is

summarised in the figure 1, reproduced from Ryan and Deci (2000, p. 72).

The different types of regulatory style can be illustrated with reference to the example of a

student completing a homework assignment. The assignment will not attempted by an

amotivated student, who lacks motivation. If the assignment is attempted, so motivated

behaviour is demonstrated, the student could be either extrinsically or intrinsically motivated. In

the perhaps more likely case that they are extrinsically motivated, the regulatory style behind

this could be external (they do homework because they fear the consequences of not doing it: for

instance they fear getting a detention), in which case the regulation is external and has not been

internalised. However the remaining three types of extrinsic motivation represent increasingly

internalised forms of regulation that are progressively more integrated with one’s sense of self.

So, if the student completes the homework assignment because they feel they ought to,

illustrating the operation of introjected regulation, this reflects the beginnings of

internationalisation as connections have been made with sense of self. Identified regulation

(doing the homework because the importance of doing so for oneself, perhaps to reach a future

22

goal, has been recognised and identified with) takes the internalisation a step further, and

includes some degree of autonomy as there is less of a perception that behaviour is being

controlled or pressurised by others. Integrated regulation represents the most internalised form

of extrinsic motivation associated with the greatest degree of autonomy. In this case the student

completes their homework because doing homework is something they associate with their

sense of self; something a good student does which they identify with. Behaviour related to the

last two types of regulation can be regarded as self-determining, however the motivation is not

intrinsic as the behaviour is not being engaged in for autotelic reasons.

Deci and Ryan are keen to point out that whilst there is strong empirical evidence for the

continuum (see Ryan & Deci, 2000, for further details) they are not implying that individuals

need to progress from one stage to the next. Furthermore in different contexts the same

individual can internalise from different starting points depending on situational factors and

prior experience. They do believe however that there is a developmental trend such that

children’s regulatory style tends to become more internalised and self-regulated with age.

Other Pertinent Features

Two further aspects require consideration. Firstly, whilst much of the research and development

of the theory has focused on environmental aspects, Deci and Ryan recognise in their

sociocultural conceptualisation of motivation that individuals differ in their inner resources

which have evolved with experience. In other words there are individual differences which

would orient individuals in the same situation towards different regulatory styles. This has lead

to the introduction of another sub theory within SDT; causality orientations theory (Deci &

Ryan, 1985b) and the development of self-report instruments to assess the level of each of three

orientations individuals are posited to exhibit. The three orientations (autonomy, controlled and

impersonal) are related in expected ways to the three types of motivation shown in figure 1 and

subsequently to performance outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1985a), nevertheless this adds a further

layer of complexity in predicting motivated behaviour.

23

Finally recent work has shown that the content of goals or outcomes interacts with regulatory

support style in determining behaviour and outcomes. Vansteenkiste et al (2004) showed, for

instance, that although when the main effects on learning and performance outcomes for both

the goal provided and the instruction style given were taken into account, students who were

furbished with an intrinsic goal and instructed in an autonomy supportive manner scored

particularly highly on the outcome variables.

Summary

This section has aimed to provide an overview of self-determination theory and it should be

clear by now that suggesting that self-determination is a single theory could be quite misleading

as it has spurned several sub theories and research across a large number of disciplines,

including education. Indeed, Ryan and Deci (2002) present self-determination as a series of

mini-theories sharing what they term the ‘organismic-dialectical metatheory’ (p. 27) and the

concept of basic needs. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the range of research under the self-

determination umbrella, there are a number of controversies that the theory has either initiated

or has yet to settle. These are the focus of the second part of the paper.

Controversies

It is impossible in an overview paper to do justice to the range of issues on which self-

determination theory can be brought to bear, therefore issues that seem particularly pertinent for

educational researchers have been selected for inclusion below. The first section raises some

important issues in education that are controversial on which self-determination theory can

relatively unambiguously provide some answers. The second section raises important questions

about self-determination theory itself and which require further elaboration and research.

Controversies SDT takes a Stance on

The SDT website itself lists two major controversies that self-determination theory can inform;

namely the impact of high-stakes testing and the use of rewards. Given the performativity

24

culture that UK schools operate within (Ball, 2004) and the common usage of rewards in school

as part of behaviour management systems (for instance using systems such as IRIS2 to monitor

behaviour and attendance which explicitly includes reward structures) it is worth examining the

perspective SDT offers on these debates.

High-Stakes Testing

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) suggests that situations and events that are perceived as

controlling undermine self-determination, whilst those that are perceived as informational can

actually enhance self-determination. Hence feedback per se can actually enhance motivation if it

is seen as informational, as it relates to the need for competence. However, empirical research

suggests that formal testing is generally perceived as evaluative and controlling, hence failing to

meet the need for autonomy and this in turn tends to promote surface-level rather than deep

learning (see for instance Grolnick & Ryan, 1987).

Furthermore research has also shown that when teachers are put under pressure to ensure higher

standards, which is certainly the case in the UK at present with the introduction of a series of

government accountability policies (Whitty, 2008), they are more likely to engage in controlling

behaviour in the classroom (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990). When teachers engage in such

behaviours, as was discussed above, they are not creating autonomy-supportive climates for

learning and this undermines student self-determination.

High-stakes testing, therefore, exerts a double whammy if this is interpreted through a SDT lens:

it impacts directly on students’ and teachers’ motivation by undermining self-determination and

it indirectly impacts on students through teachers by compromising the climate that the teacher

can create for learning.

What educators can do to try and address these issues will form part of the discussion at the

seminar.

2 See http://www.iris.ac/index.php

25

The Use of Rewards

CET clearly indicates that the use of extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation if

they are perceived as controlling rather than informational. This is because they, again,

compromise the need for autonomy. SDT researchers would therefore advocate that rewards

should not be used to motivate students. However, reward systems are ubiquitous in schools,

usually linked to behavioural management programmes / policies. Hence students may collect

merit points that can be exchanged for certificates or material goods such as vouchers. The

question for discussion at the seminar, therefore, is should reward practices continue to be used

in school?

To inform this discussion, participants will probably want to reflect on the fact that reward

systems were introduced in schools as a response to the findings from a vast body research

conducted within the behaviourist paradigm. Operant conditioning, initially described and

researched by Skinner, refers to the use of consequences to modify behaviour through a process

of reinforcement (Skinner, 1953). Rewards are therefore used by teachers to reinforce desired

behaviours. For instance, by rewarding students that have completed their homework

assignment, such students are more likely to continue to exhibit the desired behaviour by

completing future homework assignments. The empirical research findings linking behavioural

modification to the provision of positive reinforcement is not in question, however behaviourist

accounts of motivation are rather limited as motivation is equated with learning and the original

operant conditioning theory allows no role for cognitive processes. Although the behaviourist

paradigm no longer dominates the psychological research landscape, it is still informing some

contemporary work.

In recent years this has lead to a quite heated debate about the use of rewards, in particular

between two behaviourists, Cameron and Pierce, and Deci and Ryan. Meta-reviews conducted

since the 1980s to assess the impact of rewards on intrinsic motivation across a range of studies

have generally supported CET but Cameron and Pierce published a meta-analysis in 1994 which

suggested that rewards did not decrease intrinsic motivation. Several papers published in the

same journal in 1996 suggested that Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analysis was flawed (Kohn,

26

1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996) and a response from Cameron and

Pierce (1996) did not appear to address all of the issues raised satisfactorily. Deci and Ryan

conducted a further meta-analysis (Deci et al., 1999) which replicated earlier findings presented

in earlier meta-reviews that were supportive of CET. This triggered another exchange of views

in the same journal that the original spat was reported in, during 2001 (Cameron, 2001; Deci,

Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 2001), which Cameron and Pierce expand

upon in their 2002 book. Although some of the differences relate to statistical procedures used,

which help to account for the different perspectives in the papers, an important issue to raise is

that of the nature of the tasks being undertaken. Deci & Ryan maintain that rewards only

undermine intrinsic motivation if the task is interesting and do not include studies relating to

boring tasks in the main body of their meta-analysis. Their view is that if the tasks are boring,

students will not be intrinsically motivated to start with. Cameron and Pierce included such

studies as they claimed the distinction between boring and interesting tasks could not be made

as school-based studies would include both and they couldn’t judge what would be judged as

interesting by students. This then raises the issue of what constitutes an interesting task.

Following on from this, if interesting tasks can be defined, how does this relate to the day-to-day

experience of students in schools? This is an aspect for discussion at the seminar.

Controversies SDT has yet to resolve

Given that SDT consists of a number of mini-theories under an overarching organismic-

dialectical metatheory, which have been developed through empirical work in a wide range of

fields, it is not surprising that there are elements of the theory that would appear to require

further conceptual clarification or development. Contributors to Deci and Ryan’s (2002) edited

book raise a number of issues, as do Vallerand, Pelletier and Koestner (2008) in their plenary

article in a special edition of Canadian Psychology devoted to self-determination theory. Due to

space restrictions it is only possible to include a small number of issues that could usefully be

debated and those selected seem either fundamental to the underpinnings of SDT, or they have

particular implications for the education community. Consequently, the first sub section relates

to the nature of needs and their relationship to each other, and the second sub section focuses on

27

notion of the simultaneous operation of multiple motivations and within this the role of

identified and integrated regulation.

Issues relating to Needs

A number of issues have been raised in the literature in relation to needs, including questions

about their scope (Elliot, McGregor, & Thrash, 2002; Vallerand et al., 2008) and their

interrelationships (Little, Hawley, Heinrich, & Marsland, 2002), which will be briefly outlined.

Elliot et al (2002) argue for a reconsideration of the remit of the need for competence construct.

They argue that Deci and Ryan’s original conceptualisation, defined earlier in the paper, which

is based on White’s (1959) ‘effectence motivation’ construct, is too limiting and suggest that

this only really applies for young children. Views about ability change with age (Nicholls &

Miller, 1984) such that secondary school children can be expected to hold quite different

conceptions than primary school-aged children. For this reason Elliot et al suggest that a broader

conception that includes a desire for past-referential and other-referential competence as well as

task-referential (effectence) competence, which would also draw together theoretical ideas on

the need for achievement initially introduced by Murray (1938) and later developed by

McClelland et al (1953) and Atkinson (1964) with White’s views, would be a more useful

conceptualisation. Elliot et al also make the valid point that theoretical conceptualisation of the

need for competence in terms of effectence motivation and operationalisation of it with

reference to past activities in self-report instruments is a mismatch, that the broadening the need

for competence construct would overcome. Given that academic settings emphasise

performance outcomes and these relate to need for competence, further elucidation and

discussion of the nature of this construct could prove fruitful so is flagged up for discussion at

the seminar.

A second question relates to the role of the need for relatedness. Early work in SDT makes little

reference to the need for relatedness and indeed it appears to play little role in CET or OIT.

Papers in the 2008 special edition of Canadian Psychology emphasise the importance of

relatedness and relatedness support in research within therapeutic settings (La Guardia &

28

Patrick, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2008) but this does not appear to have been explicated or

extensively researched within educational settings. However, an accumulating body or research

looking at school belonging, which has not been informed by SDT, suggests that school

belonging is important for well-being and academic outcomes (Goodenow, 1993; Goodenow &

Grady, 1993; Juvonen, 2007; Smith, 2006). A recent study based on SDT suggests that peer-

related belonging and teacher-related belonging operate in different ways in relation to

engagement (Van Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009), which clearly merits further investigation.

Implications of this will be considered at the seminar.

Finally questions have been asked about the relationship and balance between the three core

needs. Sheldon and Miemiec (2006) showed that optimal well-being is experienced if needs are

balanced, yet much of SDT appears to be premised on the particular importance of the need for

autonomy. For instance the need for autonomy appears to be the most important factor

underpinning CET. The status of the need for autonomy is also commented upon by Little et al

(2002) who suggest that:

‘..autonomy seems to function more as an aspect of actions that support either the need

for competence or the need for relatedness rather than an important need. In this sense,

autonomy is a characteristic of one’s actions, and satisfying one’s need for autonomy is

thereby mediated by actions that are directed toward competence or relatedness needs’

(p. 392)

Vallerand et al (2008) note that little research has focused on the consequences of thwarting one

or more needs, and if the need for autonomy does have a hierarchical relationship with the needs

for competence and relatedness this needs further exploration. This matter will be discussed

further at the seminar.

Multiple Motivations and the Role of Identified and Integrated Regulation

Most research conducted within the SDT stable has taken a variable-centred approach to

analysis. Typically this has entailed asking participants to fill in self-report measures, such as

29

the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire3 (Ryan & Connell, 1989) and then examining

scores on the various motivational dimensions tapped, in this case external regulation,

introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation. These individual measures

may be aggregated into a single composite index, the relative autonomy index (RAI)4, which is

then used as the basis for further analysis to compare different groups (ANOVA) or as a

predictor variable (in regression). Within the goal theory field there has been a tradition in

recent years of taking a person-centred approach to analysis to form a motivational profile, often

through using the statistical procedure of cluster analysis (Ainley, 1993; McLellan, 2006; Meece

& Holt, 1993; Pintrich, 2000), and then using individual profile types in further analysis. The

person-centred approach retains the distinctive features of an individual’s motivational profile,

which is lost when aggregate scores are calculated so is potentially a more sophisticated analysis

method. Rather surprisingly, however, self-determination informed studies have only just started

to adopt such analyses approaches. This is certainly a way forward, although the limitations of

such correlational research designs dependent of self-report data should be flagged. Indeed

Vallerand et al (2008) make this point specifically and calls for more experimental designs.

Added to this, I would suggest that mixed-methods designs involving the collection of

qualitative data would also help to illuminate the processes at play.

However, a small number of studies have started to use person-centred statistical approaches

and they are beginning to uncover some interesting findings that open up new avenues of

research and for this reason are discussed in this paper. Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose and

Senecal (2007), for instance, compared the motivational profiles that emerged when testing

three different groups of students (two high school- and one university-level). Interesting the

same profile types emerged from analysis of the two high school student samples but these

differed to the profiles emerging from university-level students. In particular there was no ‘high

autonomous low controlled’ motivation profile in high school students, although this did exist

for the university-level students, leading the authors in this and later work (Guay, Ratelle, &

Chanal, 2008) to suggest that profiles are influenced by the environment. The more controlling

conditions in high schools compared to universities (see for instance writers such as Anderman

& Maehr, 1994; Covington, 1984; Eccles et al., 1993, for a discussion of stage environment fit 3 Downloadable from the SDT website4 Calculated through the formula: 2 X Intrinsic + Identified - Introjected - 2 X External

30

and the lack of rewards in competitive school environments undermining the motive for self-

worth) do not allow high autonomous profiles to flourish. Given the exacerbation of this issue

within the current performativity culture discussed earlier, this is something that requires further

consideration. How educators might attempt to combat this will form part of our deliberations at

the seminar.

Once motivational profiles are identified, a pertinent question to ask is which type of profiles are

most adaptive in educational settings? Ratelle et al’s study showed that ‘high autonomous high

controlled’ profiles were most adaptive in terms of positive indices of school functioning such

as satisfaction, and (lack of) anxiety and distraction and there were also correlations with

performance and (lack of) absenteeism. Earlier work had shown that when tasks are not

interesting the best predictor of positive outcomes is integrated or identified regulation rather

than intrinsic motivation (Koestner, Losier, Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996). Arguably many

school tasks are not intrinsically motivating so this suggests that identified and integrated forms

of regulation might be more adaptive than intrinsic motivation. Hence identified / integrated

regulation would appear to have an important role to play. This argument would appear to

parallel an ongoing debate in the goal theory field about the adaptiveness or otherwise of

performance approach goals (see for instance Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash,

2002, versus; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). The implications for educators therefore

need to be discussed in the seminar.

Concluding Thoughts: The Usefulness of SDT for Education

There appears no doubt in my mind from the issues raised above, that SDT does speak to

educators and can help them frame educational issues of importance in ways that are useful in

suggesting ways forward. In particular the realities of the twenty-first century classroom, would

appear to make it impossible for students to be intrinsically motivated all the time but SDT has

un-demonised extrinsic motivation by offering the possibility of autonomous extrinsic

motivation (in the form of identified and integrated regulation) as a positive outcome.

31

At the same time SDT is a broad umbrella and within this a number of questions have been

raised that require further investigation. For instance how exactly do we create autonomy,

competence and relatedness supportive classrooms and how do these interpersonal climates

interact with individual motivational profiles and how are these in turn changed by the climates

they operate within? These types of issues need to be considered further in the seminar.

As a final thought, SDT was conceived as a broad theory of motivation which has been applied

to a number of fields including inter-personal relationships and well-being. Given that the UK

was ranked 21st out of 21 rich nations on six components of well-being in education in a recent

UNICEF study on child poverty (UNICEF, 2007), it seems timely to consider what SDT can

offer to help us understand well-being and act upon this accordingly.

32

References

Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of Engagement with Learning: Multidimensional assessment of

their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 85(3), 395-405.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and Schooling in the Middle Grades.

Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Ball, S. J. (2004). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy. In S. J. Ball (Ed.),

The RoutledgeFalmer reader in sociology of education (pp. 143-155). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-

529.

Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation: A limited phenomenon:

Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71(1),

29-42.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward and intrinsic motivation: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation:

Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39-

52.

33

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the

controvery. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Covington, M. V. (1984). The Self-worth Theory of Achievement Motivation: Findings and

implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 5-20.

de Charmes, R. (1968). Personal Causation: The internal affective determinants of behaviour.

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The Psychology of Self-Determination. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments

examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological

Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in

education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination

in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human

Behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being

across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,

NY: University of Rochester Press.

34

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Koestner, R. (2001). The pervasive negative effects of rewards on

intrinsic motivation: Response to Cameron (2001). Review of Educational Research,

71(1), 43-51.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess

adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on

intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology,

73(642-650).

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., D, R., D, M., & H, F. (1993). Negative Effects of

Traditional Middle Schools on Students' Motivation. Elementary School Journal, 93,

553-574.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci

& R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination (pp. 361-387). Rochester, NY:

The University of Rochester Press.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining

children's self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 916-924.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to

motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21-43.

Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends' values

to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental

Education, 62(1), 60-71.

35

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and

individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,

890-898.

Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of

self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 233-240.

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of

Achievement Goal Theory: Necessary and Illuminating. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 94(3), 638 - 645.

Juvonen, J. (2007). Reforming middle schools: Focus on continuity, school connectedness and

engagement. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 197-208.

Koestner, R., Losier, G. F., Vallerand, R. J., & Carducci, D. (1996). Identified and introjected

forms of political internalization: Extending self-determination theory. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1035-1036.

Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce's defense of extrinsic motivators.

Review of Educational Research, 66, 1-4.

La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of

close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 201-209.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest

with extrinsic award: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Lepper, M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards: A

commentary on Cameron and Pierce's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,

66, 5-32.

36

Little, T. D., Hawley, P. H., Heinrich, C. C., & Marsland, K. W. (2002). Three views of agentic

self: A developmental synthesis. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-

determination research (pp. 389-404). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester

Press.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper.

McClelland, D., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The Achievement Motive.

New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

McLellan, R. (2006). The impact of motivational 'world-view' on engagement in a cognitive

acceleration programme. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 781-819.

Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A Pattern Analysis of Students' Achievement Goals. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85(4), 582-590.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,

for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 77-86.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Development and its Discontents: the differentiation of

the concept of ability. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The Development of Achievement

Motivation (Vol. 3, pp. 185-218).

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The Child's Construction of Quantities. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

37

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple Goals, Multiple Pathways: The role of goal orientation in

learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous,

controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734-746.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by

increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(147-169).

Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic

dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16,

165-185.

Rogers, C. R. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to "motives" and to consciousness. In

M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 1-24). Lincoln:

University of Nebraksa Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization:

Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce's

claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational

Research, 666, 33-38.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

38

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic-

Dialectical Perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-

Determination Research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: The

motivational basis for effective change. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 186-193.

Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It's not just the amount: Balanced need satisfaction

also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 331-341.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behaviour. New York, NY: Free Press.

Smith, D. J. (2006). School experience and delinquency at ages 13 to 16 (No. Edinburgh Study

of Youth Transitions and Crime, Number 13). Edinburgh: Centre for Law and Society,

University of Edinburgho. Document Number)

UNICEF. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich

countries. Florence: Innocenti Research Centreo. Document Number)

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on Self-Determination

Theory. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 257-262.

Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness and

engagement in school as contributors to adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 38, 1-12.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating

learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents

and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2),

246-260.

39

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation Reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological

Review, 66, 297-333.

Whitty, G. (2008). Twenty years of progress? English education policy 1988 to the present.

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36(2), 165-184.

40