Types of extrinsically motivated regulation within the SDT continuum

In developing SDT, the authors were keen to define the optimal psychological and sociocultural factors which could promote internalisation of the motivational mechanisms leading to self-regulated behaviours such as persistence, effort, resilience and other similar behaviours that are indicative of engagement (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In consequence, it was proposed that different forms of engagement, including the intensity and sustained nature of engagement, were indicative of and could be used to predict the specific form of motivation leading to self-determined motivation. As stated, unlike other sociocultural motivation theories, the quality and type of motivation is asserted within SDT as being more important than the quantity of motivation, through a continuum of motivation from positive intrinsic motivation, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and extrinsic motivation, through to negative amotivation. The continuum from external regulation to integrated regulation was originally developed within organismic integration theory (OIT: Ryan and Connell, 1989). While cognitive evaluation theory (CET: Deci, 1975) focused on the effects of identified mediating sociocultural variables upon intrinsic motivation, OIT is based upon the theoretical viewpoint that perceptions informing motivation and engagement arise from the assimilation of past experiences and views based upon expectations.

Different forms of extrinsic motivation embrace a wide range of external behavioural and cognitive regulations (Reeve, 2012; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2009). Extrinsic, or non- intrinsic, motivation is “… the performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome, and, thus, contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity for the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 71). Extrinsic motivation has been presented as indicative of the degree of relative autonomy that an individual perceives him or herself as having (Ryan and Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997). Specific to SDT, there are four forms of external regulation situated on a continuum between fully self-determined (intrinsic motivation) at one end and amotivation, which is a

50

complete lack of motivation, intention or engagement, and at the other (Ryan and Deci, 2009, p. 177), summarised as “external (partaking in an activity because of external pressures or incentives, such as rewards, threats or punishment), introjected (doing an activity because of internal pressures such as guilt or shame), identified (pursuing an activity because one finds it important and useful) and integrated1 (undertaking an activity because it is congruent with one’s set of core goals and values)” (Tessier et al., 2010, p. 243) (see Figure 2.3 below). The quality and type of motivation may be inferred from the engagement-indicative behaviours that are manifested: that is, by knowing which behaviours are associated with which type of motivation, researchers and teachers should be able to use this to infer unseen motivational processes. It is such that, further to similar conclusions drawn by, for example, Ryan and Grolnick (1986), Tsai et al. (2008), Pelletier et al. (2002), and Roth et al. (2007), Ryan and Deci (2009) have suggested that “… intrinsic motivation is not just a person variable but also a response to what the social environment affords” (p. 175).

It is still possible for extrinsically motivated behaviours to be autonomous (Ryan and Deci, 2009, p. 176) as values and needs regarding competence and achievement become internalised (Ryan et al., 1985). That is, that within many areas of achievement motivation and engagement, such as school-based learning, activities will not always be regarded as intrinsically motivating by students, in terms of being enjoyable or interesting, for example (Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2009). The degree to which extrinsically motivated regulated learning is internalised acts as the basis for autonomous self-regulated learning behaviours

(Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001). As a means of addressing variance in motivation for learning activities and their associated competence-based outcomes, SDT states that intrinsic motivation should not be regarded as the only form of self-determined motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 71).

The least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is external regulation, which is based upon the individual’s desire to gain a reward offered by the teacher or to avoid punishment. Learning is experienced as controlled, and is the least internalised form of cognitive regulation in relation to motivation to learn. Behaviours indicative of both

amotivation and external regulation include responses such as an unwillingness to participate in learning activities, and non-compliance with instructions from the teacher or the student’s peers. Affective responses include boredom, anger, anxiety, and guilt. As one seeks

behaviours that are more predictive of the positive end of the self-determined continuum, one would expect to see increased incidences of positive affect and engagement behaviours such as persistence, effort and resilience in the face of learning challenge (Ryan and Deci, 2000,

51

2009). Next in the continuum is introjected regulation, which is partially internalised but involves an individual’s regulation of motivation on the basis of anxiety and the avoidance of affective responses such as guilt and shame. This has been labelled as ego-involvement (Nicholls, 1984; Ryan, 1982), and involves the seeking of responses from the teacher that result in the student’s sense of pride and ego-enhancement.

Identified regulation of learning is based upon the recognition of the utility value of the learning activity, and is internalised as motivated approaches to either performance or mastery goals, or, indeed, a combination of the two. This form of extrinsically motivated regulation has been described as “… a relatively autonomous form of regulation, because people feel volition and self-endorsement when acting in accord with identified behaviors or values” (Ryan and Deci, 2009, p. 176).

Integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. This involves the combination of identity with the value of the learning activity, in terms of contribution to progress and enhanced competence, and the behaviours that will be needed to undertake and complete the task successfully. This form of regulation shares common

features of intrinsic motivation, “… for people experience both as freely chosen, volitional, and engaging” (Ryan and Deci, 2009, pp. 176 – 177). This most positive form of extrinsic motivation is predictive of needs to participate and invest effort in a learning activity relies upon the student’s view that to do so is based upon the utility value of the task. These

identified utility task values include the likelihood of achievement and making progress, and the mastery and understanding of concepts.

The difference between integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation is that the latter is based upon behaviours relating to interest and enjoyment: that is, “… people do these behaviours because they are engaging and fascinating – whereas with integrated extrinsic motivation people do the behaviors because they are valued, or viewed as personally important and relevant to attaining self-selected goals” (Ryan and Deci, 2009, p. 177). Indeed, Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) argued that students that are seemingly interested and fully engaged may not be cognitively engaged with the learning activities in question. Similarly, Bergin (1999) suggests that interest enhancement does not necessarily lead to learning enhancement. That is, that students can conversely be cognitively engaged without necessarily being interested in the task at hand: that is, extrinsic motivation such as identified and introjected regulation (Ryan and Deci, 2009). Therefore, within the SDT extrinsic

continuum, engagement is based upon the recognition of the utility value of the learning activity, and is internalised as motivated approaches to either performance or mastery goals,

52

or, indeed, a combination of the two. Further to the point by Bergin (1999), that interest enhancement does not necessarily lead to learning enhancement (p. 96) is acknowledged. Indeed, within SDT, interest is not regarded as a key motivator in all cases of the motivation to engage with learning activities. The central point made, through the SDT extrinsic

motivation continuum, is that engagement with learning is more likely to lead to learning enhancement, including achievement. As previously discussed (for example, sections 2.2 and 2.6.1) interest is presented with SDT as more indicative of intrinsic motivation.

It may be that the student takes on and internalises values, goals and behaviours which combine and manifest as self-regulated learning behaviours on the basis of the extent to which the relationship with the teacher is regarded as positive or negative. Where the student regards the teacher-student relationship as negative, this internalisation will form the basis of extrinsically regulated learning behaviours, and may be more strongly influenced by peers (Reeve, 2002). The balance between intrinsically motivating and extrinsically

motivating learning activities has been shown to have implications for students’ self-

determined engagement with learning (Ryan and Deci, 2009). However, the findings reported by Ryan and Deci (2009) have been based mainly upon survey responses alone, and have left a potential gap in terms of defining and understanding the potential links between teachers’ relational behaviours and supportive methods that enhance students’ motivation to learn and to persistent in their engagement within learning activities (Deci et al., 1991; Patrick et al., 2005; Tessier et al., 2010; Urdan and Turner, 2007).