MOTIVATION UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

In an attempt to make education accessible to all students, especially to those who express the least desire for it, educators have embraced and employed theories of motivational learning that have transformed US classrooms from bastions of pedantry and bolted-down desks into centers of inquiry and discussion. Academic motivation is a pedagogical hot topic that has forced educators to redefine education, intelligence, and teaching. For better or worse, it has also provoked an unending debate about the relative effects of two types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic—vis-à-vis their influence on students, teachers, curricula, and, of course, the almighty state-mandated tests. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are complex psychologically, socially, and emotionally charged incentives to undertake a task or meet a goal. In the theater of pedagogy, they seem to take turns playing protagonist and antagonist or, more dramatically, hero and villain, winner and outcast. What is sometimes lost in the drama is the consideration that they are bound to each other in varying degrees; indeed, it’s often difficult to distinguish one from the other.

DEFINING MOTIVATION

Before beginning a discussion about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, it’s necessary to agree on a definition of motivation. Oxford defines it as (1) “the action or an act of motivating something or someone; (2) the conscious or unconscious stimulus, incentive, motive, etc, for action towards a goal, esp. as resulting from psychological or social factors.” In terms of education, motivation might be defined as the act of inspiring a student to study or the act of bribing a student to memorize information. In its noun form, it might be defined as a feeling or thought strong enough to make one do something requiring effort. Educational writer Alfie Kohn remarks that when educators talk about motivation, “they [really] mean compliance” (Brandt 1), a system of ruses intended to seduce or threaten students to do something they don’t want to do. Barnett and Mosquera take an opposing, more idealistic view of motivation as the “active, open, and responsive communication between people who have chosen a mutual goal” (288). Finally, a group of third- and fourth-grade ESL students defines motivation as “a sort of engine that gets you going and keeps you going.”

A THEORY OF THE MOTIVATIONAL INQUIRY

Although motivation as a philosophical question has been publicly mulled over since the days of Socrates and Plato, it was not until the twentieth century that psychologists and educators scooped it up to bolster theories of need, learning, education, and pedagogy. The motivational movement came of age during the 1930s; thus, one can surmise that its popularity had little to do with motivation per se and everything to do with keeping kids in school. The Depression Era job market couldn’t have borne a new wave of teenage job seekers, so it became important to keep students in the public school system as long as possible, at least through high school.

The thirties also saw Jean Piaget’s entrance on the stage of psychological inquiry with La naissance de l’intelligence chez l'enfant, which introduced the concept that children move through predictable stages of cognition by exploration and experimentation. On the heels of Piaget, Maria Montessori’s The Secrets of Childhood (1936) argued that adults are obligated to guide children into their “true selves,” Skinner’s The Behavior of Organisms (1938) posited that all learning is reward driven, and Dewey’s Liberalism and Social Action (1935) demanded that traditional and progressive educators re-evaluate pedagogy in terms of the whole person. Hoy writes, “Dewey emphasized that while [the] ideal [of the connection between democracy and education had] been significantly realized, it [should] be constantly reassessed in light of political, economic, and social change”( 57). As these new ideas made their debuts in arenas of psychological and pedagogical investigation, educators scurried to discover more effective teaching practices.

Post-World War II welcomed a new age of technology, so students had to be encouraged to stay in school in order to learn new skills that would ease them into technology-related jobs. Russia’s triumph in launching Sputnik in 1957 sent US officials in a mad dash for second prize in the space race, and the repercussions were felt immediately in classrooms across the United States. Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch 1955) became the bible of educational reformers, who suddenly had a cause, a motivation, to whip American students into scholars capable of surpassing their Russian counterparts. The stakes were raised during the late seventies and early eighties with the naissance of information technology; now students had to be convinced to stay in school and continue on to college in order to learn the skills of the new Information Age.

Economic progress brought about social changes. Since families were no longer struggling to rise to higher economic strata, they had no reason to push their children to do better than they had done. Formal education ceased to be a luxury or privilege; it became a right. People who had never known deprivation assumed that an overabundance of food and goods were the norm; thus, they had no reason to strive for anything. And, as television became an intrusive, permanent houseguest in homes across the United States, books closed, spontaneous games came to a halt, and school became the place you went when you weren’t watching television. At the same time, the new immigrants were non-Europeans whose cultures, religions, and languages didn’t allow for a smooth assimilation into North American culture; indeed, immigrants now came to US shores, not to become Americans, but to find work that would enable them to support their families in their home countries.

Obstacles to Understanding Motivation

Out of this came an increasingly urgent need to motivate students not just to stay in school, but to enjoy their stay. Making school “fun” for children became the theme of new pedagogical thinking. However, educators weren’t able to overcome some motivational obstacles. First, in order to be motivated to achieve goals deemed acceptable by society, one must share the beliefs and understand the mores of that society. Convincing students to strive toward academic excellence is an uncertain battle if book learning is tantamount to their idea of sacrilege, if writing Standard English involves denying their culture, if mastery of critical thinking makes them traitors to their traditions. Fishman states, “Schools only really succeed in teaching those things for which there is ample out-of-school support” (1). In regard to language, Fishman says, immigrant students “have often been given a cruel Hobson's choice: either to be ‘American’ and give up their languages, or to maintain their languages and be un-American’” (Interview, also cf. Crawford 240). Second, to apply the Maslovian Hierarchy of Needs, we can assume that hungry students are motivated to eat; abused children are motivated to defend themselves, homeless students are motivated to find shelter. If students’ basic human needs are eluding them, no motivational strategy will get them to do last night’s homework or force them to stay awake during phonemic awareness. Although some researchers challenge Maslow’s Hierarchy as unscientific or outdated (cf. Kiel 1), they haven’t yet accused hunger or abuse or homelessness of being non-factors in academic achievement and success. Not only is academic motivation inseparable from culture (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg 313), it is inseparable from the most basic human needs.

Finally, motivation is not a constant. Linnebrink and Pintrich note that “students are motivated in multiple ways, but their motivation can vary depending on the situation or context in the classroom or school” (31). This is true whether the motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic. Although it’s unlikely that educational theorists will ever construct a definitive model of motivation, their research has forced educators to rethink what some consider “a deterministic, mechanistic, and behavioristic orientation toward human motivation” (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg 313).

TYPES OF MOTIVATION

Educational psychologists and researchers agree that there are different types of motivation “based on the different reasons or goals that give rise to an action” (Ryan and Deci 53). And while it’s not always easy to determine the inspiration for every action, researchers reference two major types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is often regarded as the ideal, and extrinsic is often regarded as the weaker, less appealing sibling. Nonetheless, the connection between the two is undeniable.

Intrinsic Motivation

As its name implies, intrinsic motivation is internal motivation. Intrinsically motivated people learn for the sake of learning; they are driven to act, to achieve, to excel, to participate because it seems natural. Artists, writers, musicians, dancers are intrinsically motivated to create; polyglots are intrinsically motivated to learn languages; avid readers are intrinsically motivated to read. Researchers such as Renniger (45) describe intrinsic motivation in Csikszentmihalyian terms as a state in which one is completely immersed in an activity and experiences a “flow” of awareness that transcends rewards, time, and place. This is the state of preschool childhood when children are driven by their inherent curiosity to explore, question, experiment. No one tells them to do these things; they do them because they have a drive to do them. Indeed, Cordova notes, “There are, it appears, no preschool children with ‘motivational deficits’” (715).

Amabile has developed an intrinsic motivation hypothesis of creativity (90), which states, “Intrinsic motivation is a crucial determinant of creativity across different domains for different types of subject populations” (115). Obvious as this seems, it is a relatively new and creative idea that certainly supports the concept of the student-centered classroom and denies the theory supported by behaviorists and the likes of Francis Bacon and John Locke that one is born a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and all learning is the result of outside stimuli—thinking that dominated classroom instruction well into the twentieth century.

Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic motivation is a method for getting people to do what you want them to do by offering rewards or punishments such as gold stars, stickers, candy, praise, good grades and bad grades. Extrinsic motivation supposedly prompts people to work for goals that come with perks—a “good citizen” award in kindergarten, class monitor in grade school, the “right” friends in high school, a car at graduation, dinner with the “right” people as well as power and money during adulthood. Extrinsically motivated people never work for the sake of working; without the accoutrements, they would have no reason for doing so.

Some researchers have determined that extrinsic motivators chip away at intrinsic motivation. Deci was among the first to insist that extrinsic awards “undermine intrinsic motivation” (Rewards Controversy 1). Many researchers agree that extrinsic rewards redirect a student’s attention away from intrinsic satisfaction, because they “induce external pressure that leads a person to change the perceived locus of causality of an intrinsically interesting activity to the external reward” (Esser et al. 406). This strips a person’s sense of autonomy and weakens the feeling of competence necessary for intrinsic motivation to continue its vital flow (cf. Ryan and Deci 58). Another problem with extrinsic motivators, says Deci, is that they render tasks performance-oriented; that is, rewards are contingent on successful performances (cf. Esser et al. 407), which diminishes the internal satisfaction engendered by the process of the task. It’s hard to be lost in the flow of creativity when one’s focus is on someone else’s idea of a successful performance.

MOTIVATION AND ACADEMICS

For all the soap boxing, bickering, and dissenting, research supports a multifaceted, humanitarian approach to motivationally oriented pedagogy. Of course, people are not intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to do all things all the time. And, no one will dispute, much of what students are expected to do to succeed in school doesn’t spring from a hotbed of fascination. So, teachers feel compelled to find ways to motivate their students using extrinsic motivators—seducers and punishments, if you will—that will get their students to the finish line intact, reasonably well educated, and enthusiastic about learning. On the other hand, research also shows that when the major motivation for completing a task is entirely unconnected with the task, students lose their sense of competence and autonomy. What, after all, does candy have to do with spelling?

Easy Ways to Undermine Intrinsic Motivation

Ryan and Deci (59) point out that educators, parents, and others in authority have the power to destabilize children’s intrinsic motivation by limiting their choices and opportunities via external motivators, all of which take the form of commands:

Rewards—Get 100 percent on your spelling test and you’ll get a candy bar!
Threats—Get 100 percent on your test, or else!
Deadlines—Hurry up and study for the spelling test!
Directives—Don’t study for arithmetic; study for that spelling test!
Competition Pressure—Don’t get beaten out by the other students!

Rewards
Hill agrees with Kohn that “reward schemes can actually be de-motivating” (304), especially when a project or task involves creativity. Unfortunately, grades come under the heading of rewards; and while teachers are still universally bound to issue them, it’s well known that grades are subjective judgments, especially of creativity. Even the seemingly innocuous gold star can be de-motivating because it detracts from the learning activity, which makes the activity seem like a chore. The Chinese say that dessert is the memory of a satisfying meal (Lee 322); I have a saying that a gold star is the memory of an excellent learning activity.

Threats
Threats focus student attention on the threat, not on the work at hand. According to Kohn, threats and rewards “are both ways of manipulating behavior … forms of doing things to students” (1). It’s not difficult to figure out that threats don’t change behavior. All you have to do is check out the rate of recidivism in prisons or analyze the bell curve of academic performance. The well-my-parents-and-teachers-whipped-my-butt-and-look-how-good-I-turned-out philosophy begs the question, “If threats work so well, why are so many students stuck in neutral?”

Deadlines and Directives
Deadlines and directives, we say, are the way of the western world. Children have to learn to meet deadlines and take direction, or they’ll never make it in the working world. However, students respond to deadlines and directives the same way they respond to threats and rewards; that is, they perceive them as controllers (Ryan and Deci 59). Amabile et al. concur:

With rewards, deadlines, and evaluation, there is some external goal to be attained, some goal for which the task is the means. Subjects' perceptions of self-determination under these circumstances are manipulated through presentation of the task as the means to a goal (169).

However, when students are given a choice of deadlines or directives, they’re more likely to retain their “sense of self-determination” (Amabile et al. 260) as well as their intrinsic motivation.

Competition
We are a nation that glorifies competition, a people who genuflect before manufactured deities frolicking on the stage of successful competition. It doesn’t matter which competition the icons have won—best looking, roundest breasts, most flagrant bad boy, biggest money-maker, most ghoulish murderer—they’re winners in our book. The advertising industry would fizzle into a drainage ditch if competition weren’t the mainstay of our economy. Yet, for all our adulation for the biggest, best, meanest competitors, researchers have determined that the pressures of competition undermine intrinsic motivation. Anglin and Robson cite Clinkenbeard’s study:
The use of competition as a motivator has been studied for over seventy years. Pamela Clinkenbeard authored a study entitled, "Effects of Competitive and Individualistic Success on Problem Solving and Motivation". According to Clinkenbeard some investigators have found that competition is inferior to virtually any kind of cooperative small group structure in reaching important affective goals of education. In addition, competitive goal structures in classrooms, with their emphasis on social comparison and normative evaluation, have been shown to have negative effects not only on the self-worth of, but also the achievement of most students (Clinkenbeard, 1984).

Vansteenkiste and Deci agree. Their study of the effects of competition on losers concludes:
… it seems that trying to win competitions and competitively contingent rewards is becoming more and more prevalent in modern culture, yet it appears that a focus on winning may indeed be counter-productive at least with respect to intrinsic motivation for the target activities. If, instead of emphasizing winning above all else, participants in activities and observers of the activities focused more on good performance than on winning, the results for the participants’ motivation is likely to be far more positive (26).

How to Facilitate Motivation

On the flipside, teachers have the power to encourage students without resorting to approaches that have a history of undermining intrinsic motivation. B.J. Wise (3) has constructed a “formula for motivation”:

Challenging, prestigious tasks + good instruction + success + recognition =
Motivation to try more difficult tasks

The formula, which proved overwhelmingly successful when implemented at an elementary school under Wise’s principalship, is based on the idea that if we understand what makes students misbehave—that is, amotivated or unmotivated—we will learn how to turn that behavior around.

Researchers have studied many factors that facilitate motivation, such as self-efficacy, task goals, shifting nexuses of causality, autonomy, learning styles, and contextualization. And, although we may never realize all the intricacies of what drives students to learn, each area of research contributes to a more comprehensive knowledge of the dynamics of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

Self-Efficacy
Linnebrink and Pintrich point to students’ self-efficacy—their beliefs about their ability to learn or complete a task—as a major factor in student motivation (24). In short, if I don’t think myself capable of memorizing your spelling list or reading your book, all the gold stars in the academic constellation won’t convince me to try; I will remain inert in my safe amotivational corner of the universe. And, in some cases, students might be justified in this self-assessment (cf. Bandura 1977). I’m not going to take a calculus class or choose mathematics for my major if I can’t conquer the mysteries of long division. What students do need are opportunities to succeed (Linnebrink 25). These are available through scaffolding—guided reading, cloze paragraphs, taxonomies—and through portfolios, projects, class discussions, and other academic endeavors that rely on and value students’ background knowledge.

Task Goals
The Renaissance School in Indianapolis makes sure its students experience self-efficacy and competence by requiring all high-school students to undertake an apprenticeship in their chosen area of strength (Bolanas 3). In addition to increasing self-efficacy, apprenticeships are positively related to task goals—doing a task for the sake of the task—rather than performance goals, which are not unlike introjected regulations studied by Ryan and Deci. Increasing or nurturing students’ self-efficacy builds their confidence, which, in turn, increases their intrinsic motivation to experience flow, and perhaps to shine. Bempechat writes, “Factors such as confidence and expectations for performance are in many cases better predictors of school achievement than IQ or standardized achievement tests” (4).

Shifting Nexuses of Causality
The fact is, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish intrinsic motivation from extrinsic motivation, because the “nexus of causality” (cf. Ryan and Deci 56) and “locus of causality” (Esser et al. 406) don’t remain constant:
A person might originally get exposed to an activity because of an external regulation (e.g., a reward). And (if the reward is not perceived as too controlling) such exposure might allow the person to experience the activity’s intrinsically interesting properties, resulting in an orientation shift. Or a person who has identified with the value of an activity might lose that sense of value under a controlling mentor and move ‘backward’ into an external regulatory mode (Ryan and Deci 63).

Ryan and Deci describe four forms of external motivation that exert varying degrees of control over students (61):

External Regulation — Reading for the gold star because the gold star is pretty
Introjected Regulation — Reading for the gold star so all my friends see that I have a gold star
Regulation through Identification— Reading for the gold star because teachers tell me it will help me become a better reader and writer
Integrated Regulation— Reading for the gold star because I have learned to value it as instrumental to my goal of becoming an educated individual

Although these forms are not developmental, or even necessary stepping stones, one nexus of causality can easily lead to another. That is, “While I like this gold star, I just love the story I had to read to get the star; maybe I’ll sneak a look at another story.” On the other hand, extrinsic forms of motivation, especially external and introjected regulations, can also inflict amotivation: “I’m so over gold stars, I’m not reading this stuff.” Or, as in the cases of identification and integration, they can foster behavior that is intrinsically motivated: “The book was so fascinating, I got lost in it.”

The point is, there is a connection, a nexus, between each of the motivational forms. Therefore, intrinsic motivation can be either damaged or further inspired by its connection to extrinsic forms of motivation, and extrinsic forms of motivation can be either rendered absurd or inspired by their connection to intrinsic motivation. Armed with this knowledge, educators can develop curricula and lesson plans that facilitate intrinsic motivation and give students a sense of autonomy in their academic lives.

Autonomy
Students must feel that they have some measure of autonomy, or they shut down, and there is nothing a teacher can do to light a motivational fire under them. One of the problems with extrinsic motivators is that they rob students of their sense of autonomy—the assurance that they’re capable of functioning without outside controlling forces. Alderman cites deCharms’ description of autonomy as “two ends of a continuum … pawn and origin:

To feel like an origin is to feel like one has the freedom and competence to make choices. To feel like a pawn is to feel controlled by external forces in the environment. deCharms pointed out that we cannot be origins in all situations; students have required courses and teachers have prescribed curriculums. Motivationally, the most important aspect is the extent to which one feels like an origin or pawn (181).

While no one, not even a teacher, can always be the origin, everyone has a need to make choices and take initiatives (Alderman 181). If I try to control your academic behavior by cramming a candy bar into your mouth every time you take a spelling test, you’ll soon balk at both the candy and the spelling test. Researchers agree, there’s a connection between students’ lack of autonomy and amotivation; specifically, students who lack self-efficacy and also feel their teachers are trying to control them tend to become amotivated in the classroom.

Clearly, no teacher can force students to be motivated, but there is much teachers can do to create an environment that fosters autonomy by giving choices to students, taking turns with them in the roles of origin and pawn, and welcoming their diverse ways of absorbing information and viewing the world.

Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles

Gardiner has been instrumental in changing the way educators have expanded their thinking about learning and intelligence. No longer are we locked into a narrow view of intelligence as a one-dimensional phenomenon involving the ability to decipher and memorize text; no longer do we expect our students to pirouette on the academic stage with exactly the same speed and dynamic. Intelligence has many forms, and people have many ways in which they express intelligence and absorb knowledge. By eschewing old-fashioned models of intelligence, learning, and motivation, all students have the opportunity to dance under the bright lights. Gardiner specifies eight forms of intelligence, each of which is consistent with a different learning style.

Linguistic intelligence: Lots of reading and writing
Mathematical Intelligence: Bring on the reasoning problems
Spatial: Responds to reading, puzzles, drawing
Kinesthetic: Loves theater, crafts, hands-on activities
Musical: Welcomes rhythm, sounds, memorization
Interpersonal: Lots of group work, great communicators
Intrapersonal: Strong in self-awareness, goal setting, reflection
Naturalist: Open the doors to the outdoors

Teachers can tailor their curriculum and lessons to address their students’ intelligences and nurture their intrinsic motivation as they allow them to make choices and develop a sense of autonomy. The Internet abounds with resources for teachers interested in motivating their students via multiple intelligences and learning styles.

Contextualization, Personalization, and Choices

Cordova examined the roles of contextualization, personalization, and provision of choices as enhancers of intrinsic motivation in students. There was a time when it was normal pedagogical practice to introduce new material out of context; and to a certain extent, some teachers still do this, especially in teaching reading through the back door of phonemic awareness (cf. Krashen). According to Cordova, this is one reason children seem to cut their ties with intrinsic motivation once their enter school. Most educators agree that material should always be presented in context and in a way that is suited to each student’s learning style and intelligence and that provides them with choices in regard to how they wish to absorb that material. Recent research supports differentiated instruction, which involves “the realization that all learners vary in their readiness, interests, and learning profiles” (Hess 1).
Again, we can look to Gardiner’s taxonomy of multiple intelligences to discover ways to nourish the natural intrinsic motivation inherent in all students. Cordova writes, “Presenting learning activities … in meaningful contexts of some inherent appeal to children should have significant beneficial effects on children’s intrinsic motivation and learning” (2).


CONCLUSION

With all the problems of our educational system, there is no denying that pedagogical and psychological research has led to productive changes in teaching methodologies and strategies. Curricula have become more diverse and universal, and students from all social and economic strata are welcomed and nurtured in more humanitarian, safer academic environments. Researchers are still investigating models of cognitive learning and how they interplay with intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

At the same time, schools are microcosms of society; and we live in a society where plagiarism is rampant, cheating to get ahead is acceptable, and how you look or how much money you have can determine whether you’ll live out your dreams in the gallery, the orchestra, or at center stage. All children are born with a natural, thriving motivation to live with every fiber of their being. They don’t need rewards or threats or coaxing to realize their inherent drive to learn. Educators and researchers are compelled to investigate two questions: Why do children tend to lose that internal drive? What can educators do to see that their academic journey is safe, rewarding, challenging, and enlightening? By questioning our traditional approaches to teaching—from gold-starring to grading to adorning the finish line with bright lights and fanfare—we have taken the first steps in answering these essential questions.

WORKS CITED

Alderman, Kay M. Motivation for Achievement: Possibilities for Teaching and Learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

Amabile, Teresa , Mary Ann Collins, Regina, Conti, Elise Phillips, Marthat Picariello,
John Ruscio, Dean Whitney. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 1996.

Anglin, Mike K. and Ken F, Robson. “Academic Competitions and ASC Region V 1997
Academic Competition Survey Data.” California Polytechnic State University
(April 7 – 10):73-88. URL: http://asceditor.unl.edu/archives/1999/anglin99.htm

Barnett, Becky and Alice Mosquera. Designing Motivation for All Learners. Cadiz KY:
Performance Learning Systems, Inc. 2003.

Bemechat, Janine. “Reading About Risk.” Leadership Compass. 1.1 (Fall 2003): 4-5.

Brandt, Ron. “Punished by Rewards? A Conversation with Alfie Kohn. Educational
Leadership. 53.1 (September 1995): 1-6.

Cordova, Diana I. “Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning: Beneficial Effects
of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice.” Journal of Educational
Psychology. 88.4 (1996): 715-718.

Crawford, James. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. 4th
edition. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.1999.

Esser, James K., Dawn D. Hitt, and Richard G. Marriott. “Effects of Delayed Rewards
and Task Interest on Instrinsic Motivation. Social Psychology. 13 (1992): 405-
416.

Hess, Mary Ann. “Teaching in Mixed-Ability Classrooms.” URL: http://www.weac.org/
(5 March 2004).

Hill, Jonathan M. “Enhancing Student Motivation.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Website: http//www.wpi.edu Reprinted in Designing Motivation for All Learners.
Performance Learning Systems, 2003, 303-307.

Hoy, Terry. The Political Philosophy of John Dewey: Toward a Constructive Renewal.
Westford, CN: Praeger Publishers, 1998.

Interview with Joshua Fishman. California Department of Education. (27 September
2001). URL: http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/fishman.html

Kiel, Joan M. “Reshaping Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Reflect Today’s Educational
and Managerial Philosophies.” Journal of Instructional Psychology. 26.3 (1999):
167.

Krashen, Stephen D. “Phonemic Awareness Training for Prelinguistic Children: Do We Need Prenatal PA?” Reading Improvement 35.4 (Winter 1998): 167-71. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service BED198035099)

Lee, Jim. Jim Lee’s Chinese Cookbook. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Linnenbrink, Elizabeth A. and Paul R. Pintrich. “Motivation as an Enabler for Academic
Success.” School Psychology Review 31.3 (2002): 31-50.

Renniger, Ann and Suzanne Hidi. The Role Of Interest in Learning and Development
Hidi Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 23
(2000): 54-67.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 5th edition. 2 volumes.Oxford & New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.

“Student Motivation to Learn.” Student Motivation. Accessed 7 March 2004. URL:
http://kKidsource.com /kidsource

“The Rewards Controversy.” Self –Determination Theory. URL:
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html 2/28/04

Vansteenkiste, Maarten and Edward L. Deci. “Competitively Contingent Rewards and
Intrinsic Motivation: Can Losers Remain Motivated?” Motivation and Emotion
27.4 (December 2003): 273-299.

Wise, B.J. “Meaningful Work Motivates.” Leadership Compass. 1.1 (2003): 2-8.

Wlodkowski, Raymond and Margerg B. Ginsberg. “A Framework for Culturally
Responsive Teaching.” Educational Leadership (September. 1995), 17-22.
Reprinted in Designing Motivation for All Learners, Performance Learning
Systems, 2003 313-318.