Motivation, Learning and Flourishng:

Research and Perspectives from Self-Determination Theory

Richard M. Ryan

Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry and Education

and Director of Clinical training

University of Rochester

Motivation in Education Research Lab

NIE @ Nanyang Technological University

Avi Assor Ben Gurion Univ., Israel

Kimberley Bartholomew

Nottingham Trent Univ., UK •

Kirk Warren Brown Virginia Commonwealth

Valery I. Chirkov

University of Saskatchewan, CA

Joan Duda • University of Birminham, UK

Marylène Gagné

Concordia University, CA

Wendy S. Grolnick Clark University

Veronika Huta

University of Ottawa, CA

Hyungshim Jang Inha University, S. Korea

Tim Kasser

Knox College

Johnmarshall Reeve

University of Korea, S.K.

Guy Roth

Ben Gurion Univ., Israel

Bart Soenens

University of Ghent, BE

Martyn Standage

University of Bath, UK

Pedro Teixeira

Tech. Univ. of Lisbon, Port.

Geoffrey C. Williams

Univ. of Rochester Medical Ctr.

Maarten Vansteenkiste

University of Ghent, BE

John Wang

National Institute of Education, Singapore

Netta Weinstein

University of Essex, UK

An Incomplete List of Recent Collaborators

Youngmee Kim University of Miami

Ayoung Kim

Ewha Women’s Univ., S.Korea

Jennifer G. La Guardia

Univ. of Rochester Medical Ctr.

Nicole Legate

University of Rochester

David Markland

University of Bangor, UK

Kou Murayama

Univ. of Munich, Germany

Nikos Ntoumanis

Univ. of Birmingham, UK

Luc Pelletier

University of Ottawa, CA

Andrew Przybylski

University of Essex, UK

SDT Basic Research Areas

Intrinsic Motivation: Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Internalization: Organismic Integration Theory

Individual Differences in Motivation: Development and Impact

Well Being: Basic Need Theory and Hedonic versus Eudaimonic Processes

Culture and Gender: Universal Needs versus Cultural or Gender Specific

Motives

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Life Goals: Acquisition and Effects

Energy and Vitality: Dynamics, Determinants and Relations to Health

Mindfulness: Interventions and Relations to Self-regulation and Well-being

Nature: Impact of Natural Environments on Well-being and Energy

SDT Applied Research

Psychotherapy Motivation: Change & Maintenance

Educational Practice and Reform

Parenting and Effective Socialization

Health Care: Behavior and Adherence

Exercise and Physical Activity Motivation

Sport Motivation and Performance

Organizational Behavior and Work Performance

Religious Internalization and Motivation

Environmental Footprints and Consumer Behaviors

Virtual Environments and Video Games

What do students really need to

flourish?

Its in our “nature” to flourish

• To flourish is to learn and develop, and to become

more differentiated and integrated in functioning

• But it is by no means automatic

• It requires a nurturing environment

Can we provide this….

within a pressured and competitive world……?

Need: Something essential to a living entity’s

growth, integrity and well being

• when deprived of needs, entity shows evidence

of stagnation, degradation or harm

• when satisfied, evidence of thriving

Basic Psychological Needs: Essential for

psychological growth, integrity and wellness

• natural rather than acquired

• universal rather than culturally specific

• not necessarily consciously valued or pursued

Basic Psychological Needs Underlying

Optimal Motivation and Well Being

Optimal

Motivation,

Well-Being

Autonomy

Competence

Relatedness

SDT’s Three Basic Needs

Autonomy Behavior in accord with abiding

values and interests; actions are

self-endorsed; opposite is

heteronomy, not dependence

Competence Sense of effectance & competence

in one’s context

Relatedness Feeling cared for, connected

to, sense of belonging with

others

What autonomy is not

• It is not independence

• It is not about individualism or separateness

• It does not require an absence of external norms, inputs

or demands, but rather an authentic willingness to follow

them

What is intrinsic motivation?

• IM is doing something because of the inherent

satisfactions the activity yields

• Children’s play is a prototype of intrinsic

motivation

• IM continues across the lifespan as an

important impetus to learning and revitalization

Intrinsic Motivation and Learning

• Most learning is by nature intrinsically motivated; it

is a deeply evolved basis of cognitive growth

• Learning through interested activity results in true

assimilation

• There is a well documented trend of decreasing

intrinsic motivation as children are exposed to

traditional schooling

.

“a great deal of mentation, at all developmental levels, is intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated”

(Flavell, Miller & Miller, 2002, p. 66)

Factors Associated with the Facilitation

of Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic

Motivation Autonomy (supports for

volition, IPLOC)

Competence (Optimal Challenge;

Positive Feedback)

Relatedness (Security of

Attachment)

Conditions that Facilitate Intrinsic Motivation

Autonomy-Relevant

Absence of Pressure

Goal Choice

Strategy Choice

Promotion of Task Interest

Competence-Relevant

Optimal Challenge

Pos. Feedback

Informational Rewards

Relatedness-Relevant

Empathy

Warmth

Acknowledgement of Feelings

Conditions that Undermine Intrinsic Motivation

Autonomy-Relevant

Pressure toward Outcomes

Punishment contingencies

Goal Imposition

Deadlines

Controlling rewards

Ego-involvement

Surveillance

Competence-Relevant

Non-Optimal Challenges

Negative Feedback

Relatedness-Relevant

―Cold‖ Interactions

Lack of Positive Involvement

Effects of Rewards on Free-Choice Behavior

Children

k = 7

d = 0.11

(-0.11, 0.34)

College

k = 14

d = 0.43*

(0.27, 0.58)

Verbal

k = 21

d = 0.33*

(0.18, 0.43)

Unexpected

k = 9

d = 0.01

(-0.20, 0.22)

Task Noncontingent

k = 7

d = -0.14

(-0.39, 0.11)

Children

k = 39

d = -0.43*

(-0.53, -0.34)

College

k = 12

d = -0.21*

(-0.37, -0.05)

Engagement Contingent

k = 55

-0.40*

(-0.48, -0.32)

Completion Contingent

k = 19

d = -0.44*

(-0.59, -0.30)

Performance Contingent

k = 32

d = -0.28*

(-0.38, -0.18)

Expected

k = 92

d = -0.36*

(-0.42, -0.30)

Tangible

k = 92

d = -0.34*

(-0.39, -0.28)

All Rewards

k = 101

d = -0.24*

(-0.29, -0.19)

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

When all students got

the offered rewards -0.36

When students got less

than maximal rewards -0.88

When some students got

no rewards -0.95

numbers are Cohen’s d effect size, all are significant

from Deci, Koestner, & Ryan (1999)

But in more typical situations, not all

students receive rewards……

The Undermining Effect: Deactivation of Bilateral Striatum as a Function of Rewards in Subsequent Performance

Right LPFC Changes During Reward and Post-Reward Sessions

The Risk of Rewards

The use of tangible rewards to motivate

learning runs a serious risk of

decreasing intrinsic motivation even

though rewards can motivate specific

behaviors.

Ego-involvement vs. Task Involvement

•Ego-Involvement is state of internal pressure and control

(rather than external pressure and control)

•Self-esteem is contingent on success

•Often the result of parental and teacher contingent regard

•Task Involvement, in contrast, is a focus on the properties of

the activity itself, rather than self-evaluations based on

performance

Free Choice Behavior Under Conditions of Ego Versus Task

Involvement and Controlling versus Informational Feedback

Effects of Motivation for Helping on Wellbeing

for Both Helper and Recipient

Pos. Affect Vitality Self-Esteem

From Weinstein & Ryan, 2010, JPSP

Teachers’

Autonomy Support

Intrinsic Motivation

Preference for Challenge .41***

Curiosity .56***

Mastery attempts .37***

Perceived Competence

Cognitive competence .29***

Global competence (self-worth) .36***

Relations of Teachers’ Orientations (autonomy-

supportive vs. controlling) to Students’ Intrinsic

Motivation and Self-perceptions

.15

.37

.17

.25

.26

.37

.42

.53

.41

Achievement (R 2 = .13)

Engagement (R 2 = .53)

Proneness to Negative Affect

(R 2 = .45)

Intrinsic Motivation (R 2 = .64)

Self-Esteem (R 2 = .28)

Autonomy (R 2 = .23)

Competence (R 2 = .14)

Relatedness (R 2 = .24)

Autonomy Support

Controlling

-.48

.27

.48

.47

.-.57

-.19

Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009, Journal of Educational Psychology

Teacher Autonomy Support and Control in

a South Korean High School Sample

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Person A

Person B

Sample Mean

Daily fluctuations in Teacher’s Autonomy Supportive and Controlling Behaviors

Days

Using Experience Sampling to Predict Interest Experience

Mathematics German 2nd Language

Predictor B (Model 2) B (Model 2) B (Model 2)

Within-student level

Autonomy-support .25*** .31*** .28***

Controlling behaviors -.10*** -.10*** -.14***

Cognitive autonomy support .23*** .23*** .22***

Between-student level

Gender .02 .07 .03

Individual interest .28*** .24*** .29***

PM autonomy-supportive climate .19*** .34*** .26***

PM controlling behaviors -.15*** -.09** -.15***

PM cognitive autonomy support .35*** .16** .23***

Note. B unstandardized regression coefficient resulting from HLM analyses. ** p .01. *** p .001. See: Tsai, Y., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? the role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 460-472.

SEM Relating Autonomy Support/Control to Satisfaction versus Thwarting and Outcomes in Athletes

Secretory Immunoglobulin A (S-IgA) as Predicted by Need Thwarting Prior to Training Session

Motivation for

Multiplayer Online

Role-Playing

Games

We did a longitudinal

analysis of in-game

psychological need

satisfaction &

engagement and

persistence in World of

Warcraft over 8 months

Correlations and Simultaneous Regressions of Initial

Enjoyment and Need Satisfaction on Outcomes

8-Months Later

Intrinsic Motivation: To act for the inherent satisfactions of

activity

Extrinsic Motivation: To act in order to obtain or achieve

some separable outcome

See Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Correlations Among ASRQ Subscales for 3 Diverse

Elementary School Samples

.51*** .07 -.30*** Intrinsic

.46*** -.13 Identified

.35*** Introjected

Suburban (n=156)

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

.47*** .25*** .02 Intrinsic

.56*** .30*** Identified

.54*** Introjected

Rural (n=450)

.46*** .17 .04 Intrinsic

.53*** .10 Identified

.34*** Introjected

Urban (n=112)

Identified Introjected External Sample

Correlations Among Autonomy Subscales in

Japanese Elementary Students

Note. *** p < .001

From: Yamauchi & Tanaka (1998)

---- .68*** .35*** .08 Intrinsic

---- .50*** .26*** Identified

---- .62*** Introjected

---- External

Intrinsic Identified Introjected External Subscales

Correlations between Self-Regulation Styles and

Academic Goals, Values, & Learning Strategies

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; Yamauchi & Tanaka (1998)

.13* .16** .40*** .38*** Surface Process

.56*** .54*** .27*** -.04 Deep Process

Learning Strategies

.58*** .49*** .24*** -.02 Value of learning and school

-.42*** -.37*** -.02 .19*** Work-Avoidance Orientation

.16** .33*** .50*** .28*** Performance Orientation

.62*** .58*** .37*** .15** Learning Orientation

Goal Orientation

Intrinsic Identified Introjected External Subscales

Predicting Engagement & Emotions from

Relative Autonomy

* p < .01; ** p < .001

-5.22** -0.93 Autonomy 0.91 0.12 SAT Anger

-6.52** -1.03 Autonomy -0.07 -0.01 SAT Boredom

-7.99** -0.87 Autonomy

-1.26 -0.10 SAT Anxiety

3.22* 0.31 Autonomy 1.47 0.10 SAT Participating

8.31** 1.86 Autonomy

-0.99 -0.16 SAT Curiosity

3.54** 0.70 Autonomy

1.02 0.14 SAT Persisting

t ß Predictor Variable Engagement Variable

Multiple Regressions Predicting Grades From

Achievement Tests and Student’s Autonomy

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

17.28*** .18 2,159 Model 4.17***

0.54 Autonomy 3.14** 0.30 SAT Social Studies

18.87*** .19 2,165 Model 3.73***

0.47 Autonomy 3.90***

0.36 SAT Language Arts

22.96*** .22 2,165 Model 3.48***

0.42 Autonomy 4.89***

0.42 SAT Math

* t ß f R2 df Predictor Variable

Chinese 5th Grader’s relative Autonomy and School Motivation/EnGagement

From Bao & Lam (2008), DP

Differences Associated With High

Versus Low Autonomy

• Greater persistence • Greater performance • Greater Creativity • Greater

interest/enjoyment in acting • Greater well-being

• Support for autonomy has important functional effects • Across Subject Matters • Across development • Across Cultures

Factors Associated with Greater Relative Autonomy of

Extrinsically Motivated Regulations and Values

Internalization

&

Integration

Autonomy

Support

Competence

Support

Relatedness

Minimal External Pressure Provision of Maximal Choice Internal Frame Reference Shared

Warmth, Involvement

Conveyance of Belongingness

Optimal Challenge Dev. Appropriate Demands Relevant Feedback

Autonomy-Supportive Environments

• Understand the other’s perspective

• Encourage self-initiation & reflection

• Offer meaningful choices

• Provide a rationale for requested behavior

• Minimize use of controlling language/rewards

Competence-Supportive Environments

• Design activities so that mastery is dominant

experience

• Structure provides scaffolding for active

development

• Feedback is informational rather than

controlling

• Praise focuses on effort and specific

accomplishments; not ability or comparisons

Structure Also Matters Multilevel Analyses Predicting Students’ Observed

Behavioral Engagement

Behavioral Engagement (133 classrooms) Variable Coefficient t(130) ______________________ ______________________ Teacher Autonomy Support .36* 7.31* Teacher Structure .38* 7.78*

Jang, Reeve, and Deci, JEP.

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

high structure moderate AS, low structure very low structure, very low AS very high structure, very high AS

Students’ autonomous motivation as a function

of perceived teaching profile

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Goossens, L., & Dochy, F. (2010).

Relatedness-Supportive Environments

• Covey respect for the individual

• Individual feels valued and significant

• Care and concern when facing challenges

• Warmth

• “My teacher likes me”

Effects of Group Leader Autonomy Support on Course

Performance, Controlling for Ability and GPA

Notes: + Ability = SAT Scores and AP Science/Math credits

Grades = Cumulative Grade Point Average

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

.24** .22** Step 2: Autonomy Support

.51*** .49*** Grades +

.20* .17* Step 1: Ability +

n=118 n=118 Overall Sample

Effects of Group Leader Autonomy Support on Course

Performance, Controlling for Ability and Grades

Final Grades

Final Exams

Final Grades

Final Exams

.03

.59**

.20

High

n=56

.07

.59**

.15

High

n=56

Note. + Ability = SAT Scores and AP Science/Math credits

Grades = Cumulative Grade Point Average

* p < .01, ** p < .001

.44** .37** Step 2: Autonomy Support

.46** .38** Grades +

.14 .16 Step 1: Ability +

Low

n=69

Low

n=69 Relative Autonomy

Estimated Latent Constructs’ Means and Variances for U.S. (N=116) and Russian (N=120) High School Samples

*A-S = Autonomy Support

p<.001 -4.21 .79 -.57 1.00 0.0 Life Satisfaction

p<.10 1.93 .85 -.25 1.00 0.0 Depression

p<.01 -3.15 .81 -.42 1.00 0.0 Self-Esteem

p<.001 -6.59 .48 -1.27 1.00 0.0 Self-Actualization

p<.001 -4.18 .71 -.54 1.00 0.0 Teacher A-S*

p<.01 -2.97 .90 -.41 1.00 0.0 Parent A-S*

p t Variance Mean Variance Mean Latent Constructs

Difference Tests Russia U.S.

Relations Between Parent and Teacher

Autonomy Support and Self-Regulation

in U. S. and Russian High School Students

(Chirkov & Ryan, 2001)

.48** .16 .60** .14 Intrinsic

Motivation

.43** .47** .36** .38** Identified

Regulation

.08 .15 .03 .06 Introjected

Regulation

-.28* -.26* -.25* -.21* External

Regulation

Teacher A-S Parent A-S Teacher A-S Parent A-S

Russian U.S.

Correlations Between Parent and Teacher

Autonomy Support and Well-Being

in U. S. and Russian High School Students

.36** .50** .34** .49** Life-Satisfaction

.08 -.48** -.14 -.09 Depressive Symptoms

.21* .54** .18 .40** Self-Esteem

.20* .39** .33** .35** Self-Actualization

Teacher A-S Parent A-S Teacher A-S Parent A-S

Russian U.S.

Inspiring Teachers: The Same Everywhere

22 nation study of high school students (n > 3000) Students wrote narratives about their most motivating, and most de-motivating teachers In EVERY sample, autonomy-support and relatedness emerged as the most frequent and salient characteristics, along with enthusiasm and energy In NO sample did rewards, good grades, rigor or control emerge as positive

Niemiec, Ryan, et al., under review

But what about Parents:

Relations Between Mother (M), Father (F), and Combined

Parents (C) Autonomy Support and Child Outcomes

Autonomy Support

M F C

Self-Report Indices

Relative Autonomy Index .36* .22 .34*

Teacher Rating Indices

Acting-Out -.43** -.29 -.41**

Teacher-Rated Competence .55** .49** .60**

Achievement Indices

Standardized Achievement .19 .34* .30*

Grades .46** .33* .46**

Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989)

Effects of Parental Autonomy Support On Early

Schooling

Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, and Landry (2005) examined relations between maternal autonomy support and school adjustment. Autonomy support was coded from maternal interviews-- children were 5. The coding system was comparable to Grolnick and Ryan (1989)

Outcome measures three years later showed that autonomy support was positively related to social and academic adjustment, reading achievement and higher overall adjustment, controlling for demographic and child factors at age 5

Effects of perceived parental control and responsiveness

on Jordanian adolscents’ need satisfaction and teacher rated outcomes

From: Ahmad et al., 2012

Autonomy Support and Relative Autonomy in a

Latino High School Sample

Jiang, Y. H., Yau, J., Bonner, P., & Chiang, L. (2011)

Parental A-S and Chinese Learners in Belgium

Teacher and Parent Effects on Scholastic and Social

Outcomes, Belgian High School Students

Teacher and Parent Influences: School and Job Search

Teachers need support too!

Engkey, a white, egg-shaped robot developed by the Korea Institute of Science of Technology (KIST),

Teacher Autonomy and Student Motivation

Pressure From Above and Below Affects

Teachers’ Autonomy

Pelletier, Levesque & Legault, 2002, JESP

Impact of transformational versus transactional

principal leadership on teacher motivation

Teacher

Motivation

and Well-

Being

Autonomy-

support

Competence

Supports

Relatedness

Just as for students…

Learners have some basic needs that

are universal

Need support promotes intrinsic

motivation and internalization, which

yields more effective performance and

better psychological health

Parents substantially influence learning

outcomes

Teachers also need support for

autonomy, competence and

relatedness

Summary

www.selfdeterminationtheory.org

At a policy level…

Standardized Testing

(assessment of educational attainments that allows for

meaningful and reliable comparisons across students and schools)

versus

High-Stakes Standardized Testing

(assessment plus the application of rewards/punishments contingent

on test score outcomes)

HST = assessment plus “motivation”

Is High Stakes Testing Based on

Behaviorism?

Superficial Resemblance: Finn (1991) states: “The problem is that academic success yields

such few rewards (sic) and indolence brings few penalties” (p.120)

.

On deeper reflection: Behaviorists distinguish between behaviors and outcomes

e.g., effort, right strategies, reinforced

not outcomes per se

issue is controllability

……a danger with this outcome focus is that a wide variety of potential behaviors, both desirable (e.g. changes in instruction, improved effort, etc.) and undesirable (e.g. teaching to the test, narrowing of curriculum, cheating) can be equally “reinforced” so long as they produce the desired outcome.

From Ryan & Brown (2005):

Legislating Competence….

Predictions based on SDT concerning HST (e.g.,

Ryan & La Guardia, 1999; Ryan & Brown, 2005; Weinstein & Ryan, 2009)

• Test Scores Will Go Up

– Curricula will narrow

– “Teaching To Test” will occur

• Negative impacts on students

– Less engaging; increased dropout, GED

– Less choice, less enrichment

• Lack of Transfer of Score Gains

� Teaching to the Test;

• (Hoffman et al., in press; Mc Neil & Valenzuela, 2000; Moon, Callahan, and Tomlinson, 2003)

• Especially true in high poverty schools

� Narrowing the Curriculum; loss of choice and personalization

• “One size fits all”

• Non-optimal challenges

• Loss of alternative approaches, experiments and specialties

� Lack of transfer of HST test score gains;

• (e.g., Klein, Hamilton, McCaffery, and Steecher, 2000; Amerein and Berliner, 2002; Neil & Gayler, 2001)

Constraints on teachers ability to create motivating lessons, “focus on coverage”

Loss of student autonomy and interest

More controlling teacher styles in classroom

Loss of teacher creativity and enthusiasm

Greater teacher pressure and burnout

See, e.g., Deci, Speigel, Ryan, & Koestner (1982); Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett (1990)

Pelletier, L. G., Levesque, C. S., & Legault L. (2002); Ryan & Brown ,(2005); Roth, ,

Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan,. (2007); Ryan & Weinstein,( 2009)

In the news…

• Springer et al., of the National Center on Performance Incentives paid math teachers bonuses for score gains; over 3 year study-no positive effect

• Fryer and colleagues: Financial incentives for achievements. Results disappointing; no improvements in achievement in elementary or middle school; small effect in high school for those already high in achievement (gap widener?)

Are Tests Useful? • Tests can provide meaningful feedback for the learner which

can be informative and motivating if the tests are not linked to

high stakes.

• Tests serve as potential inputs that can inform teaching

practice, but should not be strongly linked to high stakes for

teachers or administrators.

• The important point is not to confuse evaluation and

motivation.

Although test–based information can have very important value for school reform and improvement, high-stakes policies tend to convert this potential information into controls and diminish best practice and autonomously motivated learning, and can negatively affect teachers’ motivation.

Bullying

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Person A

Person B

Sample Mean

Within-person effects: Daily fluctuations

Days

Positive and Negative Affect on the Days of

the Week

Need Satisfaction on Days of the Week

Autonomy

Competence

Relatedness

Adult Working Sample

Ryan, Bernstein & Brown, 2010, JSCP

Satisfaction of Psychological Needs on

Weekdays vs. Weekends

Ryan, Bernstein & Brown, 2010, JSCP

Teacher and Parent Influences on Scholastic and Social

Outcomes in Belgian High School Students

Tests, Tests and more

Tests —

The Current Climate

of Learning &

Teaching “…(active education) requires that the student’s efforts should come from the student himself, instead of being imposed, and that his intelligence should undertake authentic work instead of accepting predigested work from the outside” ~ Piaget, 1970

Can Tests Motivate?

They can:

• Inform: they can provide effectance relevant

feedback, affirm competence, facilitate

improvement, and enhance motivation

• Control: they can be used to pressure students

to study in specific ways, and undermine

autonomous motivation

• Amotivate: they can signify poor performance

and diminish all motivation

Informational versus Controlling Exams Grolnick & Ryan (1987) Controlling versus non-controlling focus less conceptual learning, more rote rote learning advantages quickly lost less interest in subject matter less willingness to do more Kage (1991) Junior high school history classrooms in Japan. Informational vs. Controlling format lead to more autonomous motivation and better final exam performance in the course.

Motivation and Learning of Students in Contexts

Promoting a Passive versus Active Orientation

Toward Learning Neuroscience Text

Take Exam Teach Others

Interest 4.43 7.13**

Rote Learning 16.24 18.21

Conceptual Learning

10.76

18.84**

Tests can have a positive motivating effect, but

when used as controlling strategies to motivate

they undermine interest and engagement.

Participants were 323 Bedouin students in 7th-9th grades (N = 170) and 10th-11th grades (N =

153), 58% girls and 42% boys.

48% of the fathers and 93% of the mother were unemployed.

Mothers Fathers Formal Education

50.2% 17.3% Didn’t attend school

25.4% 18.3% Elementary school

13% 30.7% Partial high school

6.2% 13.3% High school

5.2% %20.4 Higher Education

Bedouin Study

Autonomous

Motivation

Amotivated T-reported

Engagement

Change in

Grades

Exploratory

Motivation

Gender .24 * * -.04 .12* .00 .11*

Age -.14 * * - .06 -. 03 -.05 .00

Subject - .14 * * .11* .06 -.13 * * -.20 * *

Autonomy Support .43 * * . 00 .22 * * .08 . 29 * *

Autonomy Suppression .00 .38 * * -. 08 -.17 * - .14*

The Effects of Teachers’ Approach on

Bedouin Students’ Academic Functioning

What is intrinsic motivation? • IM is doing something because of the inherent

satisfactions the activity yields

• Children’s play is a prototype of intrinsic

motivation

• IM continues across the lifespan as an

important impetus to learning and revitalization

Autonomy Support, Autonomous Motivation, and

Retention/Dropout

• Teacher autonomy support, Quebec public

schools (Vallerand, Fortier, Guay, 1997)

More intrinsic motivation and more internalization

More perceived competence

Greater retention in school

• Teacher autonomy support in rural districts (Hardre & Reeve, 2003)

More perceived competence

More intrinsic motivation and more internalization

Greater school retention

Rural Chinese Children’s School Motivation Related to

Autonomous and Controlled Motivation