[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation

Sun Aug 25 15:48:14 PDT 2019

David,
Ive twice read this quote that you have mentioned:
“Given that many of the educational activities prescribed in schools are
not designed to be intrinsically interesting, a central question concerns
how to motivate students to value and self-regulate such activities, and
without external pressure, to carry them out on their own.”

And both times I can’t help but ask: if educational activities are not
inherently interesting then why are insisting that children cultivate an
intrinsic motivation to pursue them?

Seems like this is the opposite of what Dewey was suggesting education
should be. (And I’m also reminded of the article Alienated Learning).

It seems like a Foucaultuan analysis would be a very good SCT way to
approach this intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy and how it has been taken up
(and perhaps this is really about the uptake of the dichotomy, perhaps it
could be used in other ways? Perhaps it is what Marx was after in the very
idea of alienated labor?).
The way that this dichotomy has been taken up seems like it is a part of
the transformation of the management of individuals that Foucault describes
in Discipline and Punish and in which punishment goes from the grand
displays of the state (eg Damiens being drawn and quartered) and is
transformed into the quiet “remedial” training of the prison and other
management techniques producing docile bodies. Intrinsic motivation seems
to be part of a project to produce “docile bodies” that can learn not just
to engage in but to want to engage in alienated labor.

Too far?

Greg

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:21 AM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Thanks, David.
>
>
>
> I will look at Reeve’s et al. as you suggest, but I’m not too encouraged
> by Ryan and Deci (2000), that I cited earlier.
>
> They do reference sociocultural constructs like internalization and
> notions of identity:
>
>
>
> Given that many of the educational activities prescribed in schools are
> not designed to be intrinsically interesting, a central question concerns
> how to motivate students to value and self-regulate such activities, and
> without external pressure, to carry them out on their own. This problem is
> described within SDT in terms of fostering the *internalization and
> integration *of values and behavioral regulations (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
> Internalization is the process of taking in a value or regulation, and
> integration is the process by which individuals more fully transform the
> regulation into their own so that it will emanate from their sense of self.
> (p. 60)
>
>
>
> But their underlying explanatory framework provides no room for any
> constructs that extend beyond the individual, so the basis for what comes
> to be identified as motivational is simply generalization of what has been
> observed to be motivational in practice:
>
>
>
> *Cognitive Evaluation Theory *(CET) was presented by Deci and Ryan (1985)
> to specify the factors in social contexts that produce variability in
> intrinsic motivation. CET, which is considered a subtheory of
> self-determination theory, argues that interpersonal events and structures
> (e.g., rewards, communications, feedback) that conduce toward *feelings
> of competence *during action can enhance intrinsic motivation for that
> action because they allow satisfaction of the basic psychological need for
> competence. Accordingly,
>
> for example, optimal challenges, effectance promoting feedback, and
> freedom from demeaning evaluations are all predicted to facilitate
> intrinsic motivation. CET further specifies that feelings of competence
> will *not *enhance intrinsic motivation unless they are accompanied by *a
> sense of autonomy *or, in attributional terms, by an *internal perceived
> locus of causality *(IPLOC; de- Charms, 1968). Thus, people must not only
> experience perceived competence (or self-efficacy), they must also
> experience their behavior to be self-determined if intrinsic motivation is
> to be maintained or enhanced. (p. 58)
>
>
>
> Yes, as socioculturalists we can build a story of how and why
> self-efficacy and autonomy come to be part of a developmental trajectory of
> becoming (for some students), but Ryan and Deci can’t. For them, this is
> just empirical generalization, and their claim to having a predictive
> theory is just posturing. The weakness comes from their basic definition I
> quoted earlier that talks of some things being “inherently interesting or
> enjoyable” and hence intrinsically motivating. But “inherent” and
> “intrinsic” are mere synonyms, there is no content to this definition
> beyond what empirically has proven to be “inherently interesting or
> enjoyable.”
>
>
>
> David
>
> PS. Appreciate the many replies so far, and am working my way through them.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *David Atencio
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:03 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>;
> Coppens, Andrew <Andrew.Coppens@unh.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
>
>
> David, I encourage you to read more work from the self determination lab
> at Rochester. You can access much of their work by registering as a
> member.  In particular, I recommend you take a look at Deci and Ryan’s
> chapter in Dennis McInerney and Shawn Van Etten’s edited book “Big Theories
> Revisited”
>
> Reeve, J. M., Deci, E. L, & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination
> theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences
> on student motivation.
>
>
>
> I understand their Organisimic Integration Theory to be quite consistent
> with Vygotsky’s general law of cultural development.  This is their unique
> account of how extrinsic motivation can develop into self-determination
> through the same inter psychological – intra psychological transformational
> process Vygotsky spoke about.
>
>
>
> David J. Atencio, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor,
>
> Family & Child Studies Program
>
> Department of Individual, Family, & Community Education
>
> College of Education MFC 05-3040
>
> 1University of New Mexico
>
> Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
>
> (505) 277-3757
>
>
> https://coe.unm.edu/departments-programs/ifce/family-child-studies/faculty.html
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoe.unm.edu%2Fdepartments-programs%2Fifce%2Ffamily-child-studies%2Ffaculty.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C98e0b7c1fa5b4a4d654808d729760e85%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C637023459341814622&sdata=Me8kU9fzwVUCDO%2F4rSgmtEl5TBWLsftYouRNv9%2BrwA8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of rips <
> arips@optonline.net>
> *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 6:29 AM
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>,
> "Coppens, Andrew" <Andrew.Coppens@unh.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
>
>
> That's correct about the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy mostly being
> approached as an individual manner. Deci and Ryan do research intrinsic
> motivation in groups for example fitness motivation with technology.
>
> Hi David,
>
> I agree; from a sociocultural account there are many problems with the
> intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy.
>
> One problem has to do with the “origin” of motivation. Self-Determination
> Theory (SDT) claims intrinsic motivation is innate. From a theoretical
> perspective, in Psychology, this innate needs and drives perspective has
> been replaced by cognitive perspectives such as goal theories (e.g.,
> Eccles, Dweck). Here, the origin of motivation changes to cognitions but
> the individualistic perspective remains.
>
> The next problem with the dichotomy is that it contrasts – indeed opposes
> – the individual and the social and argues that intrinsic motivation is an
> individual phenomenon. There are many critiques of this aspect, and the
> field of educational psychology has a number of examples where motivation
> is conceived as much more social. Although social cognitive theories are
> now more popular in psychological research, the internal location of
> self-regulatory mechanisms that contrast with external “forces” is also
> central to many of those theories. The need to theorize an
> “internalization” mechanism in SDT reflects this individual/social division.
>
> Cultural-historical critiques address both of these problems in
> *historicizing* motivation as a social and cultural phenomenon. Mariane
> Hedegaard, Marilyn Fleer, Richard Walker, Dan Hickey, and others have
> written on this. Not referring to these authors necessarily,
> “sociocultural” perspectives on motivation more generally tend to focus on
> the social and secondarily the historical shifts in theorizing motivation
> that a CH perspective would offer.
>
> Empirically, I and colleagues have critiqued the intrinsic/extrinsic
> dichotomy for its inability to account for striking motivational
> differences in young children’s helpfulness across cultural communities. At
> ages as young as 2, we’ve found that toddlers from a US Mexican-heritage
> background voluntarily help around the house more often and with more
> sophistication than do middle-class European American toddlers – a
> difference that seems to increase with age. A theory of motivation focused
> on innate and universal drives isn’t helpful in accounting for these
> differences. Ruth Paradise (2005) has a phrase I like – “inherent”
> motivation, as in motivation that is inherent to taking part in shared
> cultural activity – that captures the essence of a CH perspective on
> motivation. US Mexican-heritage toddlers’ deep inclusion in family and
> community activities, I believe, sets the developmental foundation for this
> *inherent* motivation to help voluntarily. I’m attaching her paper (it’s
> in Spanish).
>
> Finally, in the early 1970s an interesting explanation by Mark Lepper of
> the undermining quality of extrinsic incentives (which Deci was among the
> first to write about in American psychology) on young children’s motivation
> was that such rewards “over-justified” their actions – they were being
> incentivized to do things they already wanted to do. CHAT perspectives on
> object/motive offer, I think, more explanatory power: the apparent
> reduction in motivation may have also been a shift in the object/motive
> that organized the young children’s actions. The children in Deci’s early
> studies may have been motivated, inherently, in a variety of different
> activities with different motives.
>
> (I’m happy to share more references if any of this is helpful.)
>
> / Andrew
>
>
> ---
> Andrew D. Coppens
> UNH Education Dept., 302 Morrill Hall
> 603-862-3736, @andrewcoppens
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fandrewcoppens&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C98e0b7c1fa5b4a4d654808d729760e85%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C637023459341824619&sdata=aLPyXLzUo3W9tXBi1P4kjoTw5jNZ5yYNCYMKJMQGetc%3D&reserved=0>
> Schedule a meeting: calendly.com/acoppens
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Facoppens&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C98e0b7c1fa5b4a4d654808d729760e85%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C637023459341824619&sdata=F0CBvohPa7dAlLoYsIHph23UfBzzzZlUm8XxPDTYnHk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David H Kirshner <
> dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 11:03 PM
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation
>
> I’m reading a behaviorally oriented account of intrinsic and extrinsic
> motivation by authoritative authors Ryan and Deci (2000):
>
> “The most basic distinction is between *intrinsic motivation*, which
> refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or
> enjoyable, and *extrinsic motivation*, which refers to doing something
> because it leads to a separable outcome [one undertaken for instrumental
> reasons]” (p. 55).
>
> This seems to me an impoverished account for a variety of reasons, most
> pressingly because it attempts to naturalize what is pleasurable or
> intrinsically motivating as inherent to the organism, without respect to
> individuals as people, engaged in socioculturally constituted life
> histories.
>
> Does the construct of intrinsic / extrinsic motivation surface anywhere in
> sociocultural theory?
>
> Alternatively, can anyone point me toward a sociocultural critique of the
> intrinsic / extrinsic construct?
>
> David
>
> Ryan R. M., & Deci E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
> Classic definitions and new directions. *Contemporary Educational
> Psychology, 25*, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
>
>
>
>
> --
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190825/35285223/attachment.html 