Seminar series sponsored by the British Psychological Society
Can current theories of motivation inform
practice in educational contexts?
Target paper for seminar on 8th 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?”, competitionavoidance (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 masteryorientated 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 performanceavoidance 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 masterylevel techniques might be hindered in classroom situations by the structural problem that classlevel 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 singleeffects 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, 628644.
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 schoolbased 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 selfdetermination 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 socialcontextual 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 selfdetermination 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 selfdetermination 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 IRIS 2 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 organismicdialectical 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 peerrelated 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
3
4
Downloadable from the SDT website
Calculated through the formula: 2 X Intrinsic + Identified - Introjected - 2 X External
30
& Maehr, 1994; Covington, 1984; Eccles et al., 1993, for a discussion of stage environment fit
and the lack of rewards in competitive school environments undermining the motive for selfworth) 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), 497529.
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 metaanalysis. 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, 3952.
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 selfdetermination 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 OrganismicDialectical Perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of SelfDetermination 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