1

Linking motivation and engagement: motivational strategies

and motivational preferences - what students and teachers
think and believe is important.
Abstract
The research analyses the impact of a teacher’s motivation strategies on the engagement of her
students’ based on their preferred motivation type. We propose an innovative framework that
combines motivation strategies used by teachers aligned to a continuum of student engagement
(Schlechty, 2011). Using student and teacher voice to analyze perceptions about their own
motivation type and the intersection/influence of these factors, we report how these may impact
on the development and support of authentic student engagement. A qualitative research
framework is used to collect data from one class of year five and six students and their teacher.
The teacher used intrinsic motivation strategies to engage her students who exhibited a
preference for intrinsic or integrated regulated motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and were
authentically engaged in response. Students who preferred extrinsic motivation also showed
ritual and retreatist forms of engagement, while students demonstrating both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation varied from authentic, ritual, retreatist and rebellious engagement
(Schlechty, 2011). The findings reinforce the understanding that if teachers meet students’ needs
for competence, relatedness and autonomy then students will become more self determined and
thereby authentically engaged in their learning.

Keywords: student motivation; student engagement; pedagogy; diverse learners;

 2

Linking motivation and engagement: motivational strategies

and motivational preferences - what students and teachers
think and believe is important.
Submitted 11 June 2013

1. Introduction
This study was designed to understand how students’ and teacher’s perceptions about their own

motivation type may influence and impact student engagement by analyzing which type of

motivation – intrinsic or extrinsic – is more aligned and related to authentic student engagement.

Student engagement is now recognized as a critical factor in enhancing student learning and

education achievement; in particular for children from marginalized and disenfranchised

communities (Hayes, Mills, Christie, & Lingard, 2006).

Teachers often use both a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation techniques or strategies

without consideration of student motivation preference and any concomitant impact on student

engagement. Using student and teacher voice to analyze the students’ and teacher’s perceptions

about their own motivation type and the intersection/influence of these factors, we report how

these may impact on the development and support of authentic student engagement.

This study used a survey to collect initial data from both students and their teacher; focus group

interviews of students and an in-depth semi structured interview of their teacher to get detailed

and in-depth information about the relationship between student motivation and engagement and

how different types of motivation may impact on and affects students’ engagement. This study

sought to answer:

1. What are the student’s perceptions of their preferred motivation type?

2. What is the teacher’s perception of her preferred motivation type of teaching for the

students?
 3

3. What is the impact of students’ and teacher’s perceptions of their own motivation

preference on students’ engagement levels.

Using the self determination theory (SDT) framework (Ryan and Deci, 2000) to understand both

teacher and student preference, proposes an innovative model that compares and contrasts the

SDT framework to the engagement continuum of Schlechty (2001, 2011) to better understand the

link between motivation preferences, teacher pedagogy and student engagement. While these

two frameworks are not equivalent, we argue that they are parallel and complimentary, so that a

student who is a-motivated may also be rebellious and student who is intrinsically motivated may

also be authentically engaged. On the other hand, the four types of extrinsic motivation; external

regulation, introjection, identification and integration can be exhibited in the ritual, passive

compliance and retreatism forms of engagement. This research assesses the efficacy and viability

of this framework in relation to a study of year five and six students aged between 11and 13 in a

diverse and multi-cultural setting in an urban primary (elementary) school.

2. Motivation, engagement and teacher pedagogy

2.1.Role of motivation

Motivation is “an internal state that instigates, directs and maintains behavior (McInerney &

McInerney, 2006, p.207). Pintrich and Schunk elaborated on the definition of motivation stating

that “motivation is the process where goal directed activity is instigated and sustained” (2000,

p.5). In the classroom setting, student motivation refers to the degree to which students put effort

and focus into their work to achieve their learning. Student motivation is largely based on a

student’s willingness to connect to the learning and their rationale for doing so (Brophy, 2004).

Motivation is important as it helps students and teachers in achieving desired learning outcomes,
 4

as motivated students are active learners and their attention is focused on the learning and

teaching task. Such students are also persistent in their efforts to learn and are more likely to

strive for a higher level of academic performance (McInerney & McInerney, 2006).

Extrinsic motivation such as a reward or praise refers to doing a task or activity because it leads

to a separate and independent outcome outside of the learning objective itself (Ryan & Deci,

2000) as compared to intrinsic motivation where a learner does not look for any personal or other

benefit. Extrinsic motivation engages learners in an activity as a means to an end and students

may therefore only complete a task for the reward, praise or some other benefit (Pintrich &

Schunk, 2002).

Students not only have different quantity but also different quality or orientations of motivation

that can vary from time to time depending on many factors beyond the control of the teacher and

school. Students’ learning goals vary not only in the level of motivation but also in the

orientation of that motivation. The orientation of motivation concerns the underlying attitudes

and goals that give rise to student action (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have been extensively researched and their different

understandings have greatly influenced developmental and pedagogical practices (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Intrinsically motivated students enjoy or get pleasure from their activities (Brophy, 2004),

these students participate in activities because they are inherently interesting or enjoyable, which

is more likely to result in high quality learning and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic

motivation therefore is engagement in a learning task as “intrinsically motivated behaviors are

those initiated and sustained by the spontaneous sense of satisfaction students experience while

engaged in an activity” (Reeve, Deci & Ryan, 2004, p.35).

 5

Intrinsically motivated students have higher achievement levels, lower levels of anxiety and

higher perceptions of competence and engagement in learning compared to students who are not

intrinsically motivated (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002; Wigfield & Waguer, 2005). Moreover there is

a positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and academic achievement (Corpus,

McClintic-Gilbert & Hayenga, 2009; Lepper, Corpus & Iyenger, 2005; Kohn, 1999) indicating

that intrinsic motivation is beneficial for the optimal development of students (Ryan, Chirkov,

Little, Sheldon, Timoshina & Deci, 1999).

The impact of intrinsic motivation in the teaching and learning environment is found to be so

positive that it should be the preferred teaching strategy. Kohn for example argues that, “if our

goal [as educators] is quality, or a lasting commitment to a value or behavior, no artificial

incentive can match the power of intrinsic motivation” (1999, p.68).

Every student however is not and possibly cannot always be intrinsically motivated towards

particular learning tasks. Teachers widely use extrinsic motivation in order to encourage and

stimulate their students to successfully complete academic tasks (Krause, Bochner & Duchesne,

2006).

Research has shown that intrinsic motivation is only successful in specific situations for

particular students and is helpful in situations when intrinsic motivation is not working

effectively (Marsh, 2000). However extrinsic motivation should always be used to enhance

intrinsic motivation rather than undermine it (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000; Vialle, Lysaght &

Verenikina, 2005). Student motivation preferences should not be seen as a false binary and is not

exclusively intrinsic or extrinsic in orientation. A balanced pedagogical approach is

recommended in the classroom that combines a mix of motivational orientations to meet the
 6

needs of diverse learners (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Harackiewicz & Hidi, 2000; Hidi,

2000; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000).

Some educators reject the use of extrinsic incentives in school and view these as inducements or

bribes that teachers use to negatively engage their students in desired learning activities (Brophy,

2004). The efficacy of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations depends however on a number of other

variables: student background; physical conditions of the classroom; the teaching and learning

context; and even the time of day (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Educators may also use a mix of

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at a particular time for a certain activity as the same learning

activity may be seen as intrinsically or extrinsically motivating by different students.

Ryan and Deci’s (2000) seminal research in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation proposed a self-

determination theory (STD) of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation premised on the basic needs of

student autonomy, relatedness and competency, detailing how these needs support intrinsic

motivation. As the focus of our research was on the different types or orientations of extrinsic

motivation and intrinsic motivation in students, the issues of autonomy, competence and

relatedness or belongingness in SDT are not considered as relevant to this research.

Ryan and Deci (2000) propose that some types of extrinsic motivations are weaker or less

effective than others in supporting students entering into “active and agentic states” (p.55)

conducive to productive learning. Ryan and Deci describe different forms of extrinsic motivation

as a continuum starting from a-motivation (not motivated); external regulation (where a task is

attempted to satisfy an external demand); introjected regulation (a task is done for ego

enhancement); identification (where the task is valued for itself) and integrated regulation which

is the most autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation and exists when external regulations are

fully assimilated in a learner’s self-evaluations and beliefs of their own personal needs. While
 7

integrated motivation shares qualities with intrinsic motivation it is still classified as extrinsic

because the goals that are trying to be achieved are for reasons extrinsic to the self, rather than or

intrinsic motivation, the inherent enjoyment or interest in the task which is at the end of this

continuum.

Understanding the different types of extrinsic motivation is very important for teachers as the

types of extrinsic motivation used indicates just how much a student is self determined during a

learning task and demonstrates the quality, not just the quantity of effort put into a task (Reeve et

al., 2004).

2.2.Role of engagement

The concept of student engagement can be traced to the late 1980’s and was seen as a “set of

demographic and social risk factors attributed to individual students” Willms, Friesen, & Milton,

2009 p.7). Research into engagement draws on diverse fields of study including cognitive and

behavioural psychology, motivation, self-regulation, flow (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi,

Schneider & Shernoff, 2003), persistence and commitment (Willms, Friesen, & Milton, 2009;

Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris 2004; Kortering & Christenson, 2009).

Russell, Ainley and Frydenberg (2004) differentiate motivation from engagement and state

“motivation is about energy and direction, the reasons for behavior, why we do what we do.

Engagement describes energy in action, the connection between person and activity” ( p.1).

While motivation is the force or the reason for a student performing a certain task, engagement

however is viewed as that force in motion (Shernoff et al, 2003). Students can be motivated but

still may not be actively or authentically engaged in their learning.

 8

While student engagement cannot be directly observed (Schlechty, 2002, 2011) and is “difficult

to define operationally” (Newmann, 1986, p.242), there is agreement that engagement includes

the quality of effort and active participation in authentic learning activities (Kuh (2009).

A single, universal definition of student engagement does not exist, but the literature suggests

three interrelated school-level components: social engagement; academic engagement and

intellectual engagement (Research and Evaluation Department ,2011). Student engagement is

now recognized to be a more complex multidimensional, dynamic and multifaceted construct

(Schlechty, 2011; Yazzie-Mintz, 2009) with important implications for the lives and learning of

all students (Fredricks et al., 2004) but in particular those from culturally, linguistically and

economically disadvantaged communities (Zyngier, 2008. Fredricks et al. (2004) proposed three

dimensions of learner engagement: cognitive engagement, which is defined as the learner’s

mental investment in learning, effortful strategy use, and deep thinking and commitment to

academic work; emotional engagement, which refers to a learner’s affective reactions to others,

and connections with the school community; and behavioural engagement, which is shown as

active participation in both the school and academic activities as demonstrated through attention,

persistence and asking and answering questions. Although Fredricks et al. (2004) organized

engagement into these categories; they suggest that a “fusion” of these categories is essential to

get a deeper and more satisfying understanding of student engagement (Annetta, Minogue,

Holmes & Cheng, 2009).

Newmann (1992) defined student engagement as the “student’s psychological investment in and

effort directed towards learning, understanding or mastery of the knowledge” (p.12). Therefore,

engagement here means being fully immersed in a learning activity and accomplishing it to the

very best of a student’s abilities.

 9

Schlechty (2002, 2011) however proposes a novel and more useful understanding of student

engagement as a continuum similar to the SDT continuum of Ryan and Deci. Schlechty expands

engagement into five different steps on the continuum: Authentic, where a student completes a

the task that has clear meaning and value; Strategic Compliance, where the task has no internal

value but has extrinsic outcomes; Passive or Ritual compliance, where a task is done to avoid

any negative consequences; Retreatism, where a student is disengaged from the task but does not

disrupt others and does not try to substitute other activities for the assigned task; and Rebellion,

where the student refuses to do a task and may disrupt others and or substitute the learning task

with other activities. Schlechty (2001, 2011) explains that authentic engagement is active, and

requires the student to be committed to the task as well as finding inherent value in it. Authentic

engagement is where the student sees the activity as personally meaningful; the student’s level of

interest is sufficiently high that she persists in the face of difficulty; the student finds the task

sufficiently challenging that she believes she will accomplish something of worth by doing it;

and the student’s emphasis is on optimum performance and on “getting it right.” Students who

are authentically engaged learn at high levels and have a profound grasp of what they learn,

retain what they learn and can transfer what they learn to new contexts.

Furrer and Skinner (2003) concur with Schlechty (2002, 2011) and explain that:

Engagement refers to active, goal directed, flexible, constructive, persistent, focused

interactions with the social and physical environments. In contrast, patterns of

disaffection, in which individuals are alienated, apathetic, rebellious, frightened, or

burned out, turn people away from opportunities for learning. Engagement in school is an

important academic outcome in its own right. (Furrer & Skinner , 2003, p.149)
 10

Motivattion alone iss not enoughh for academ

mic achievem
ment (Blum
menfeld, Kem
mpler & Kraajcik ,

2006). In
I order to fu
fully assess sstudent mottivation we also have too examine thhe student’ss

engagem
ment in theirr learning as motivationn is only thee pre-requisite for cognnitive engageement

(Huftonn, Elliott & llllushin, 20002). The conntinuum of motivation

m aand engagem
ment can thherefore be

seen as “two sides of

o the same coin” and w
while not iddentical mayy be represennted graphiccally as

follows::

Figure 1 Linking Mottivation and Engagement

E b
based on Ryaan & Deci, 20000 and Schlecchty, 2002, 20011.

To see tthe relationsship betweenn motivation and engaggement we rrefer to Decci and Ryan’’s (2000)

SDT forr motivationn and to Schhlechty’s (20002, 2011) typology

t forr engagemeent. While thhese two

framewoorks are nott equivalent, they are hoowever paraallel, so thatt a student w
who is a-motivated
 11

may also be rebellious and student who is intrinsically motivated is also authentically engaged.

Whereas, the four types of extrinsic motivation; external regulation, introjection, identification

and integration are exhibited in the ritual, passive compliance and retreatism forms of

engagement as shown above.

2.3.Role of teachers

Meta- research by Hattie (2009) confirms that teachers can contribute up to 25% towards student

academic achievement in the learning and teaching context, therefore what the teacher actually

does and the pedagogical tools she uses are critical in all classes but even more so for students

from cultural, linguistic, economic and disenfranchised (CLED) communities (Lingard, et al.,

2001) where this research takes place. Teachers play an important role in framing students’

views and experiences about school and learning, while students’ perceptions of the relationships

with their teachers are linked with their opinion about and enjoyment of school (Russell, Mackay

& Jane, 2003). The more students like their teacher, the more they present as engaged and

interested in their school (Russell et al., 2003). Student engagement is, in part, dependent on the

supportive environment of the classroom and an important element of that environment is the

motivation style of the teacher (Reeve, 2006).

Teachers who spend time and effort in developing positive relationships and trust with their

students can contribute much to boosting students’ levels of engagement (Bryson & Hand,

2007), while students are more likely to be engaged in a classroom where they feel welcomed

and have good relations with their teacher and peers (Christenson, Sinclair, Lahr & Godber,

2001), this is particularly important in elementary education where students spend most of their

time with one teacher. Students’ relatedness to their teacher and peers (Hattie, 2009) greatly

contributes to their emotional engagement and students who are acknowledged, appreciated and
 12

supported by a teacher with high expectations report being more engaged, interested and happy

in their classroom compared to those who are not appreciated and supported by their teacher

(Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Klem & Connell, 2004).

The main task for teachers in this context then is to design activities for that will facilitate high

quality and intellectually challenging work students (Zyngier, 2008; Schlechty, 2002) that will

authentically engage all students (Lingard, Ladwig, Mills, Bahr, Chant, Warry, & Luke, 2001).

Longitudinal research in Australia (Lingard, et al., 2001) found that when learning is teacher

centered and teacher controlled, students are less intrinsically motivated, less curious, have fear

of challenge and have a less mastery orientation. However, students with supportive teachers

who promote their autonomy are highly intrinsically motivated and self-determined (Pelletier,

Se'guin-Le'vesque & Legault, 2002; Sansone & Harackewicz, 2000). This paper then assesses

the efficacy and viability of the above framework that links motivation and engagement with

teacher pedagogy.

3. Methodology

As we are addressing students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their own preferred motivation type

and engagement and the influence each plays on each other, our research is built on a relativist

ontology where there maybe multiple realities that “emphasises the diversity of interpretations

that can be applied to it” (Willig, 2001, p. 13. A social constructivist epistemology in which

“meanings are constructed by people through their interaction” (Crotty, 1998, p.42), provides the

interpretive framework within which we can explore the students’ and their teacher’s different

perceptions about motivation and engagement.

 13

We looked for multiple meanings in the student and teacher interview data resulting from the

interaction of students and teachers within their own understandings of doing school(ing). While

their knowledge is constructed and based on their interaction with other people and participants,

they however may give different meaning even to the same phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).

Additionally, we also analyze the opinions and views of how students wished to be motivated

and the teacher’s views about how she motivated her students to enhance their learning outcomes

as “people’s perceptions are what they consider real to them and is what directs their actions,

thoughts and feelings” (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001, p.396).

As this research involves younger students, a qualitative approach was used for its well matched

characteristics approach (Greig, Taylor & Mackay, 2007) which is especially suitable when the

research participants are children highlighing and centering the participants’ voices through a

narrative analysis to report on the findings (Gay et al., 2006). By using multiple interactive

methods (Creswell, 2003) including student and teacher surveys; student focus groups; and a

teacher interview we produced detailed and well triangulated data. As the student focus groups

and teacher interview asked the participants in more detail the same questions as in the surveys

these served to act as confirmation of their previous survey responses. Ethical permission was

obtained from the University, the education system and the school, the teacher and the pupils and

their parents to participate in this research.

As our aim was to get in depth information from students and their teacher about students’ and

teachers’ perceptions of their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and any link to students

engagement, we chose one “bounded case” (Creswell, 2007, p.74)—a school class—as an

instrumental case study to explain that issue (Merriam, 2002).

 14

Determining the participants and site for this study was one of the primary methodological

decisions in selecting a classroom that contained a socially, economically, ethnically and

educationally diverse range of students. South East Park Primaryi a suburban co-education state

primary (elementary) school in Melbourne was selected for the study. While originally catering

for working class white Australians, the school today is culturally diverse with 36 different

nationalities speaking 40 different languages. The class was an ethnically and culturally diverse

composite grade of years five and grade six students ranging in age from 11 to 13 with a total of

24 students in the class, 11 girls and 13 boys together with their teacher Ms Catherine.

The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) survey (Midgley et al., 2000) was

administered to all students and their teacher to identify the students’ and teacher’s perception

about their own motivation type. The PALS questionnaire has been developed and refined by a

group of researchers (Midgley et al., 2000) using goal orientation theory to examine the relation

between learning environment and student motivation. It is a five point Likert type scale that

suits our research because of being designed for state primary school students. We modified the

survey to remove the passive voice of some survey items to improve understanding of young

students and modified the language to match Australian English. After these modifications we

checked the survey with teachers (other than the research participant) to ensure the language was

appropriate for the specific age group of students.

Each item was scored from 1-5, anchored from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Teacher

survey responses were then checked for congruence with comments from the teacher interview

and student focus group in relation to the type of motivation she was using in her pedagogy. The

teacher survey therefore was a reliable bench mark to compare and triangulate teacher responses.

The survey responses were analyzed quantitatively by assessing the responses that the students
 15

selected from the given options. While assessing the survey we ignored the middle neutral

response “somewhat true” and determined the assumed preferred motivation type of the students

on the basis of outer two response anchors in the survey.

All students from the class were invited to participate so that none feel left out or disadvantaged.

Purposive sampling (Kemper, Stringfield & Teddlie, 2003) was used to select participants to

specifically respond to the research questions. In purposive sampling subjects are selected on

some “pre-determined criteria” ((Kemper, Stringfield & Teddlie, 2003, p.58) in this case the

responses to the PALS survey.

According to their survey responses we purposively selected ten student cases of interest—5

boys and 5 girls—who demonstrated different types of motivation (intrinsic, extrinsic and

mixed) to participate in a semi-structured focus group. Students were asked questions about their

motivation; engagement and use of various intrinsic and extrinsic methods used by their teacher

(see Appendix for questions). These responses were used to examine the relationship between

motivation and engagement. An in depth semi structured interview was conducted with their

teacher to further explore her understanding and use of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

teaching strategies and their link to enhancing student engagement.

All the interview data was audio taped and transcribed followed by preliminary exploratory

analysis. The data coding was done by labelling text to form broad themes for detailed data

analysis (Creswell, 2008). The broad themes are discussed in the light of taxonomy of human

motivation proposed by the SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and Schlechty’s engagement framework

(2002, 2011).

Data analyses in the study was ongoing and recursive. Transcripts were read, coded and

categorized. Themes and patterns were identified and then checked against the data. These
 16

themes are also related to other research studies as discussed in the literature review above.

Throughout the study, various measures were taken to assure credibility and dependability. The

validity and accuracy of data findings was achieved by triangulation through the teachers’ survey

and teacher interview which explained her views and the students’ survey and focus groups that

confirmed/supported or denied the teacher’s pedagogical practice as motivating and engaging.

Additionally, the teacher’s responses were also checked against the clozed survey items and

interview while students’ responses were checked against their survey and focus group data. The

data findings are reported next through a detailed summary of the findings of the research in a

form of narrative discussion (Creswell, 2008).

4. Data findings and discussion

From the teacher’s and students’ survey responses it was evident that the teacher’s preference

was to use intrinsic motivation to support her students’ learning. She emphasized that it was

important for her students to understand the learning content; make learning fun for them; give

choices to her students; used different assessment and assignment criteria to match with different

students’ needs; planned group activities for her students; and encouraged them to ask questions

in class. When teachers support their students’ learning using intrinsic motivation students

become more competent and self determined as learners (Reeve, 2004). Except for three

students, all the other 21 students in her class reported in their PALS surveys that their teacher

was using intrinsic motivation thereby confirming the teacher’s survey responses.

Students’ survey responses show that according to the SDT framework (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the

majority of the students in the class were intrinsically motivated or integrated regulated , the self

determined form of extrinsic motivation and which is very close to intrinsic motivation. Some
 17

students were found to be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. Their focus group

interviews showed that these same students were more inclined towards intrinsic motivation or

integrated regulation. According to their survey responses only two students were extrinsically

motivated. As the student data shows that the teacher was intrinsically motivating her students, it

can be assumed that is why the majority of the students in her class were also showing intrinsic

motivation or integrated regulation as their learning preferences. According to Reeve (2006) this

is the most successful strategy used to impact on student motivation and engagement in their

learning.

Two students who were extrinsically motivated in their surveys were both grade five students

and had spent only six months with Ms Catherine at the time of the research. This may explain

why they had not been intrinsically motivated to the extent as the other students—with time they

may also become more open to intrinsic motivation—as Ms Catherine was clearly using these

strategies to motivate her students. Those students having both types of motivations based on

their survey responses showed elements of introjected regulation, integrated regulation and

intrinsic motivation in their responses. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are now viewed as

compatible and coexisting together and not mutually exclusive (Alderman, 2004).

The student focus group interviews compared and contrasted survey responses, in order to better

understand the students’ perceptions of their preferred motivation type; how their teacher

motivated them; and how this affected their engagement in learning. Students were also observed

in the classroom in order to confirm the teaching and learning strategies used by Ms Catherine.

The four student focus groups indicated that the majority of the students seemed to be

committed to and engaged in their learning reflecting the behavioral and cognitive engagement

demonstrated in their survey responses. This finding is consistent with Willms (2003), who
 18

concluded that there are many students who are engaged in their studies, regularly attend their

classes and many schools are very effective in promoting student engagement. However, it was

observed in Ms Catherine’s classroom that the different levels or types of engagement proposed

by Schlechty (2002, 2011) could also vary from student to student and sometimes in the

behaviors of the same student during the day.

Regardless of students’ motivation and engagement type almost all the students in the class

mentioned the good relations that they had with their teacher. Similarly, the majority of the

students in the focus groups revealed that they were on good terms with their class mates and

they liked group work. The following comments from students reflect the willingness of their

teacher to try various motivational strategies in order to engage the learners:

We do the work because she [Ms Catherine] makes it exciting for us. (Tony)

If we’re not feeling happy about the work, she [Ms Catherine] tells jokes about the work

and she tells us how it’s really exciting and really good for us and she does things

differently. Like instead of doing worksheets we do booklets or projects. (Eric)

It was also observed that students willingly did group activities not only with their friends but

also with other classmates. This positive relatedness to their teacher and peers (Martin, Marsh,

McInerney, Green & Dowson, 2007) greatly contributes to students’ emotional engagement

(Fredrick, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). The students commented about group work in terms of

aiding their learning process which is a significant indicator of authentic student engagement

(Haberman, 1991; Schlechty, 2001, 2011):

If I have trouble, I might not know it and other people [may] know it. (Eric)

You get to listen to other people’s ideas, and what they think about. (Laurel)

You get a lot of help from your group. (David)

 19

The majority of students reported that they were not bothered about grades and marks; wanted to

have even more learning focused activities; valued their homework and class work because it

helps them to learn more; and participated in all learning tasks—even the challenging and boring

ones. These are all attributes of authentic engagement demonstrating commitment to their

learning tasks and finding inherent value in the work (Newmann, 1996; Schlechty, 2002, 2011)

being prepared by Ms Catherine. Based on the PALS survey, students who showed intrinsic

motivation and integrated regulation also demonstrated authentic engagement (Schlechty, 2002,

2011) in their focus group responses which is significant because authentically engaged students

learn more than students having ritual, passive compliance, retreatist or rebellious forms of

engagement (Schlechty, 2001).:

Students who indicated that they may be authentically engaged reported that they did not want

any reward or praise and even wanted to do more learning activities:

I like to try all [class room activities] and what the teacher brings us, different stuff every

single day ... I think all of them [are important] because they are important to your life.

[Lily]

[I like] everything, all of them—whatever activities we do. [Tony]

Typical comments of these students in relation to their work reflect both their authentic

engagement and intrinsic motivation:

You can learn new stuff. (Laurel)

Children should have a good education. (Carol)

I just want to try my best in school because I want to get somewhere in my life, so I want

to learn what I can in school. (Tony)

 20

Other students explained that their class and home work were important for them because it

might help them solve problems in their future lives thereby recognizing the relevance and utility

of the work prepared by Ms. Catherine:

The work might come to you later, so you might … learn from the homework to your

[current] work, how to do your work in the classroom. (Harry)

We also found that students who showed ritual and retreatist forms of engagement (Schlechty,

2002, 2011) in their focus group interviews also were found to prefer extrinsic motivation in

their PALS responses. These students commented that they wanted to have good marks and

grades; looked for reward or praise on any good work; left difficult and uninteresting learning

tasks incomplete; wanted to have more fun and game activities; and their class or home work

was only important for their future careers. Comments from these students reflect a ritualistic

and or retreatist engagement pattern:

I just want more time on sports and more games. (David)

I don’t think that homework is important because we do enough of it in class and I don’t

like work. I don’t like doing work because it’s boring and it makes you think. I don’t like

it [class work] because it’s boring. (Carol)

Students exhibiting both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in their survey responses also revealed

different types of engagement in their focus group responses ranging from authentic, ritual,

retreatist and rebellious engagement forms. They raised the importance of their class and home

work only in relation for their future lives; wanting good grades and high scores on their

academic tasks; leaving out or not completing difficult and uninteresting learning activities; and

wanting rewards and praise from their teacher for good performance.
 21

When asked about the importance of getting good marks and grades students gave somewhat

surprising responses for children so young. Intrinsically motivated students, one extrinsically

motivated student and some students showing both types of motivations demonstrated by their

comments that they were exhibiting ritual engagement as it was only important to get good

marks or to complete the work in order to secure their future.

It’s important because you can get a job. (Laurel)

[I do the work] to get a good job and get a lot of money. (Carol)

Whereas, integrated regulated students, one extrinsically motivated student and some students

having both motivation types exhibited authentic engagement as what motivated them to achieve

their best was not good grades or high marks but personal satisfaction about their efforts:

I don’t think [getting good grades] is that important because if I don’t get good marks,

I’ll just try again and keep on trying until I’m proud of myself. (Tony)

If I get one wrong I will keep trying and trying and I will get it right. (Lily)

While it might be possible that due to national testing1 students were conscious and more

focused on their marks, these findings highlight that there can be different forms of engagement

in the responses of the same student. It is not possible for students to have the same level of

engagement in every activity every day—however the teachers’ task is to design work in such a

way as to promote as much authentic engagement for students as often as possible (Schlechty,

2001; 2011).

1
National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy commenced in Australian schools in 2008 for year 3, 5, 7
and 9 students. Every year students are assessed on the same days using national tests for assessing their literacy
(reading, writing, spelling, grammar & punctuation) and numeracy. http://www.naplan.edu.au/ Many schools are
now complaining of “teaching to the test” as a result of the “naming and shaming” and publication of “league
tables” comparing school results on a national MySchool website http://www.myschool.edu.au/
 22

All the students in the focus groups mentioned that their teacher gave clear instructions for each

learning task; gave choice in selecting the learning activities; made learning interesting for them;

and provided a supportive learning environment for them in class. How a teacher creates the

classroom environment has an important influence on enhancing or diminishing students’

motivation and engagement (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Enthusiastic teachers play an important role

in motivating and engaging their students in their learning (Blumenfeld et al., 2006). Ms

Catherine’s appeared to be very enthusiastic about her teaching and from her perspective; student

engagement involved the learner taking interest in their work. The apparent cheerful and willing

involvement of students in their learning is congruent with previous research (Brophy, 2004;

Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Ms Catherine was clearly aware of the important role motivation and engagement plays in the

teaching and learning environment. Her comments underscore her focus on trying to intrinsically

motivate:

I never do any memorizing work. My whole form of teaching is for students to understand

what they’re doing. And the way for students to show you that they understand is to talk

to you about it and to ask questions. Or you ask questions and they ask you questions

about it. So that’s what I focus all my lessons on. (Ms Catherine)

She clearly tried to create an authoritative class room environment where her students’

performances were not judged or compared against each other. The teacher mentioned that she

had very good relationships with her students which she built on care, support and trust. Ms

Catherine explained that she planned her instructional activities to meet the individual needs and

interests of every student. She also gave choices to her students in the selection of learning

activities and the freedom to choose how to complete certain tasks.

 23

She also reported that it was very important to understand her students’ cultural background as

this helps her to plan activities and use the appropriate motivational strategies to engage her

students as suggested by Zyngier (2007).

According to the students’ and teacher’s responses the class room environment was very

supportive, welcoming and student-centered where students were willing to ask questions and

participate actively in learning activities. Ms Catherine also involved her students in important

issues around planning their work, making the learning relevant and inherently valuable to the

students. She commented that her students were actively involved in real class experiences:

We do brainstorming before we do any planning, [we do] team planning. And the

students write down what they would like to do for activities and I incorporate that into

our planning. So my planning is based on the students’ responses. (Ms Catherine)

Ms Catherine also used humour in her classroom to engage her students and tried to make the

learning content understandable to all students.

I am a bit of a comedian... I try to make things joking...But at the same time they

[students] know when they’ve got to be serious. (Ms Catherine)

Ms Catherine was well aware that every student was different and the role of the teacher was not

to motivate and engage every student in a similar way. Sometimes she found it useful and or

necessary to use extrinsic motivation in situations where intrinsic motivation was not working.

The other ways we could [create student motivation] is have house points, we have

rewarding techniques where we have certificates, we have stickers, we have dot points

where they create dots and then at the end of it once they’ve reached their goal they get
 24

to choose a reward. So we have different ways of rewarding or consolidating good

performance.

However Ms Catherine was also aware of the dangers of overusing extrinsic motivators that

could lead to student becoming ritually engaged or passively compliant in their attitudes stating

that:

I don’t give out the points for any little thing. [Students] know they have to achieve it and

what they do really has to mean something to them.

Again Ms Catherine is cognizant that what works for one student may not be effective with

another. Learning and teaching differentiation (Tomlinson, & Imbeau, 2012) is a key factor in

Ms Catherine’s strategies:

How one student is congratulated would be different to another student because of their

abilities and that’s how I work with my students. I work with my students on their

abilities ... And every child in my class will be commended on something that they have

shown. I use of all that [intrinsic and extrinsic motivators]. I … just assess the moment

and then I use the praise as suits that moment. Say for example giving points might work

with some but it’s not suitable for others. Stickers may work for some but not for the

others. Sometimes I send the students to the office, to the Principal, to show him their

work. But that may work with some children but not with others. So the choice of reward

or the choice of motivation or reinforcement depends on what you’re doing and on that

particular child.
 25

5. Concluding Remarks

This small scale qualitative case study of a grade five-six class and their class teacher is not

intended to be representative, its findings cannot be generalized but can only be used to see these

specific students’ perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and their engagement and

their teacher’s perceptions and her role in enhancing or diminishing student motivation and

engagement in this particular study.

Although we interviewed and surveyed the students to understand their motivation type and

engagement, we did not examine the impact of cultural, linguistic and economic diversity on

student grades, or future career aspirations nor how motivation and engagement contributes to or

influence the students’ performance on the state standardized tests. These would be of

significance for further study.

We suggest there are a number of strategies that teachers can use to enhance their pedagogies to

make their classrooms more engaging and motivating places to learn for students. According to

Kohn (1999), Schlechty (2011) and Zyngier (2011), the main goal of teachers is to make sure

that learning content is meaningful for students and is connected to their lives and backgrounds,

as this plays an important role in enhancing student motivation in learning. As Ms Catherine

demonstrated in her classroom, providing challenging learning tasks of high intellectual quality

and enhancing students’ skills by providing immediate feedback and teaching complex concepts

that build upon students’ previous knowledge can be very significant in authentically engaging

students in learning (Shernoff et al., 2003).

This study demonstrates that intrinsic motivation can be promoted in students by giving them

agency; autonomy and personal control; increasing curiosity; emphasizing learning goals; and

providing a challenging learning environment (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000) while a feeling of
 26

control greatly affects students’ engagement in learning (Ames, 1992). Teachers can promote a

student’s authentic engagement by recognizing and acknowledging student effort; giving them

choices and a variety of tasks; and having reasonable high expectations and giving autonomy.

Clear and high expectations from teachers and authentic instructional work should be given to

students to engage them in their learning (Marks, 2000). The task for teachers is to develop

engaging work for students as the form and level of engagement is contingent on the quality of

academic work that the teacher plans. Therefore, as this case study shows, teachers can influence

students’ learning, motivation and engagement levels by carefully developing appropriate work

for students (Schlechty, 2001; 2011).

In order to authentically engage students as often as possible in their learning, teachers have to

establish positive teacher and student relationships; involve students in the decision making

process; and deal with individual differences in learning environments (Russell et al., 2003). This

is especially significant for students from diverse and marginalized background as “a sense of

relatedness to teachers may be even a more important source of motivation” (Furrer & Skinner,

2003, p.160) in these instances.

Appropriate use of technology, inquiry, group work and authenticity helps students to understand

the learning content and consequently enhances their engagement level (Blumenfeld et al., 2006;

Haberman, 1991). Research is currently being undertaken in Australia (Zyngier, 2008, 2011) on

the kinds of pedagogies necessary to improve outcomes for all students, but in particular those

labeled as at-risk of early school leaving, disadvantaged or from low socio-economic

backgrounds. Pedagogical reciprocity, where teachers and students learn together with and from

each combined with an engaging or CORE pedagogy (Zyngier, 2011) ensures that what teachers

and students do is:

 27

Connecting to and engaging with the students’ cultural knowledge.

Owned by all students should be able to see themselves as represented in the work.

Responding to students’ lived experiences and actively and consciously critiques that

experience.

Empowering students with a belief that what they do in school makes a difference to their

lives and provides them an opportunity to voice and discover their own authentic and

authoritative life.

In contrast to the other findings (Arnold, 2000; adich, Campbell & Prain, 2007) that middle years

students are not often engaged in their learning, we found evidence to support the claim that in

this small study at least, the majority of the students reported that they were authentically

engaged in their learning. Accordingly to Schlechty (2002) this class can be termed as a highly

engaged classroom where most students “are authentically engaged most of the time, and all

students are authentically engaged some of the time” (Schlechty, 2002 p.5).

This study supports and extends previous research (Bryson & Hand, 2007; Deci et al., 1999;

Haberman, 1991; Hufton et al., 2002; Martin, 2003; Munns & Martin, 2005; Murray, Mitchell,

Gale, Edwards & Zyngier, 2004; Patall, Cooper & Robinson, 2008; Reeve et al., 2004; Ryan,

2000; Schlechty, 2002; Schmakel, 2008; Shernoff et al., 2003; Smyth & McInereny, 2007; Steele

& Fullagar, 2009; Tadich et al., 2007; Willms, 2003; Zyngier, 2007) suggesting that good

teacher/student relationship; clear instructions; group work; involving students in planning and

decision making; giving choice, planning engaging and interesting learning activities; linking

learning with students’ cultural background; and making learning important and valuable to

students all contribute to promoting and enhancing student motivation and engagement in their

learning.
 28

The research study confirms other research (Eccles, 1992; Newmann, 1996; Reeve, 2006;

Schlechty, 2002) that student engagement is, in part, dependent on the supportive environment of

the class and one important element in the supportive quality of the class room is the

motivational preference style of the teacher. Our findings confirm the research literature that

disengaged students may do their work but without interest and commitment, whereas, engaged

students work hard and attempt to master their learning achieving the highest academic results

they are capable of obtaining within their learning context (Appleton, Christenson, Kim &

Reschly, 2006; Fredricks et al., 2004; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Newmann, 1992; Skinner &

Belmont, 1993; Schlechty, 2002).

The proposed innovative framework linking the types of motivation to the continuum of student

engagement has been shown to be very useful and confirms the research (Wigfield & Eccles,

2002; Wigfield &Waguer, 2005) that intrinsically motivated students are more competent and

engaged in their learning than students who are not intrinsically motivated. It is also congruent

with the research (Blumenfeld et al., 2006; Deci & Moller, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Deci et al.,

1999) that finds that when students’ need for competence, relatedness and autonomy are fulfilled

by their teacher— as in Ms Catherine’s case—student motivation and engagement is enhanced.

This research is novel and important because it clearly shows that intrinsic motivation is

associated with authentic student engagement and engaged students not only complete their

learning tasks, but put more effort and concentration to thoroughly understanding the learning

content (Newmann, 1992). Furthermore these students are attentive, committed and enthusiastic

in doing their learning tasks (Schlechty, 2002).

The proposed framework also demonstrates that in situations where intrinsic motivation is not

working then teachers should consider using some extrinsic motivation to boost the intrinsic
 29

motivation of their students. “If teachers [only] count on intrinsic motivation to energize all

students all of the time, they will be disappointed” (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007, p.376) .There

are situations where incentives and external supports may be necessary as Ms Catherine indeed

found.

Nevertheless, extrinsic motivation should only be used in a way that enhances intrinsic

motivation rather than undermining it (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000; Hidi, 2000; Lepper &

Henderlong, 2000), as extrinsic rewards have a positive effect in situations where intrinsic

motivation is not high (Vialle et al., 2005). Our research confirms that teachers play a vital role

in promoting or diminishing student motivation and engagement and by using appropriate

pedagogies teachers can make classrooms more engaging and motivating places for students.
 30

References
Alderman, K. M. (2004). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning
(2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.

Annetta L.A., Minogue J., Holmes S.Y. & Cheng M.T. (2009) Investigating the impact of video
games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers &
Education, 53, 74–85
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S., L , Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445.

Arnold, R. (2000). Middle years literature review. A report for the NSW Board of Studies part 2.
Sydney.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. National assessment program

literacy and numeracy. Retrieved 10th August 2011,from

Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive
engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook
of learning sciences (pp. 475-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349-362.

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming
classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement. (First National
Report) Toronto: Canadian Education Association

Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M., F, Lehr, C., A, & Godber, Y. (2001). Promoting successful
school completion: Critical conceptual and methodological guidelines. School
Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 468-484.
 31

Corpus, J. H., McClintic-Gilbert, M. S., & Hayenga, A. O. (2009). Within-year changes in

children’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Contextual predictors and
academic outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 154-166.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). California, USA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). California, USA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

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(6), 627-668.

Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for
understanding intrinsic motivation and self determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Hand book of competence and motivation. New York, USA:
The Guilford Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well being
across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.

Eccles, J. S. (1992). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-
perceptions, and activity choices. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 40, 145-208.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and application (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
 32

Greig , A., Taylor, J., & MacKay, T. (2007). Doing research with children (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Sage Publications.

Haberman, M. (1991). Pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290-
294.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (2000). Rewarding competence: The importance of goals in
the study of intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.). Intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San
Diego, USA: Academic Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. London New York: Routledge.

Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors
on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic
Press.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Hidi, S (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical
issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. and Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a
difference: Productive Pedagogies, Assessment and Performance. Sydney: Allen &
Unwin Publishers.

Hufton, N. R., Elliott, J. G., & Illushin, L. (2002). Educational motivation and engagement:
Qualitative accounts from three countries. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2),
265 — 289.

Kemper, A. E., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in
social science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research. California: Sage Publication.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-274.
 33

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praises
and other bribes. New York, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kortering, L.& Christenson, S. (2009). Engaging Students in School and Learning: The Real
Deal for School Completion. Exceptionality, 17(1).

Krause, K.-L., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2006). Educational psychology for learning and
teaching (2nd ed.). VIC. Australia: Thomson.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-12.

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184-196.

Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, C. J. (2000). Turning "play" into "work" and "work" into "play":
25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J.
Harackiewicz (Eds.). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal
motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic press.

Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., Luke, A. (2001). Queensland
School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final report, vol.1 (Vol. 1). Brisbane: Report
prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of
Queensland.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th
ed.). USA: Longman.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,

middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

Marsh, C. (2000). Hand book for beginning teachers (2nd ed.). Australia: Pearson Education.

Martin, A. J. (2003). Boys and motivation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(3), 43-65.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting along
with teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students' achievement
 34

motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 17, 109-
125.

McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: constructing learning (4th
ed.). N.S.W, Australia: Pearson Education.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative

research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, USA: Jossey
Bass.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., & Freeman, K., et al. (2000).
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales: Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.

Munns, G., & Martin, A. J. (2005). It's all about MeE: A motivation and engagement framework.
Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference.
Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mun05400.pdf

Murray, S., Mitchell, J., Gale, T., Edwards, J., & Zyngier, D. (2004). Student disengagement
from primary schooling: A review of research and practice. CASS Foundation.

Newmann, F. M. (1986). Priorities for the future: Towards a common agenda. Social Education,
50, 240-250.

Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools.

New York, USA: Teachers College Press.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation
and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2), 270-300.

Pelletier, L. G., Se'guin-Le'vesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure
from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186-196.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River , NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
 35

Reeve, J. (2004). Self determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M.
Ryan (Eds.). Handbook of self determination research. New York, USA: The University
of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy - supportive teachers do and why their
students benefit. The elementary school journal, 106(3), 225-236.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory. In D. M. McInerney &
S. Van Etten (Eds.). Big theories revisited: Research on socio-cultural influences on
motivation and learning. Greenwich, CN: Information Age.

Research and Evaluation Department (2011) Promoting Deep Learning through Student
Engagement Research Currents Vol 2 (1) Surrey Schools British Columbia Canada
http://www.sd36.bc.ca/general/research-eval/researchcurrents/Student-Engagement-
Vol2-1.pdf

Russell, J., Mackay, T., & Jane, G. (2003). Messages from MYRAD: Improving the middle years
of schooling. Australia.

Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2004). Student motivation and engagement.
Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
www.dest.gov.au/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest_moti
vation_enga gement.htm

Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents' motivation,
engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101-111.

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

Ryan, R., Chirkov, V., Little, T., Sheldon, K., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. (1999). The American
dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(12), 1509-1524.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
 36

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Looking beyond rewards: The problem and promise of
intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz (Eds.). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego,USA:
Academic Press.

Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Fransisco, USA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work an action plan for teachers, principals and
superidents (1st ed.). San Fransisco, USA: Jossey Bass.

Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San
Fransisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schmakel, P. (2008). Early adoloscents' perspectives on motivation and achievement in

academics. Urban Education, 43, 723-749.

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2007). Teachers in the middle: Reclaiming the wasteland of the
Adoloscent years of schooling. New York, USA: Peter Lang.

Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a
college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5-27.

Tadich, B., Deed, C., Campbell, C., & Prain, V. (2007). Student engagement in the middle years:
A year 8 case study. Issues In Educational Research, 17(2), 256-271.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2012). Common Sticking Points about Differentiation.
School Administrator, 69(5), 18-22.

Vialle, W., Lysaght, P., & Verenikina, I. (2005). Psychology for educators. Victoria, Australia:
Thomson/Social Science Press.
 37

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Development of achievement motivation. San Diego,
USA: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A., & Waguer, A. L. (2005). Competence, motivation and identity development during
adoloscence. In J. A. Elliot & S. C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation, New York. USA: The Guilford Press.

Willig, C. (2001) Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and

method. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and participation.

Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Woolfolk, A., & Margetts, K. (2007). Educational psychology. NSW, Australia: Pearson.
Prentice Hall.

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2009). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the
2009 high school survey of student engagement. Available at
ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/index.htm

Zyngier, D. (2007). Listening to teachers–listening to students: substantive conversations about

resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
13(4), 327-347.

Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re)conceptualising student engagement: Doing education not doing time.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1765-1776.

Zyngier, D. (2011). (Re)conceptualising risk: left numb and unengaged and lost in a no-man’s-
land or what (seems to) work for at-risk students. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15(2), 211-231.
 38

Appendix
Student Focus Group Questions
1. Describe the ways that your teacher gets you to do work?
2. What happens when you don’t do your homework/class work?
3. If you get good marks how do you want to be rewarded?
4. What type of choices do you want to make in class?
5. When you find some learning activity as uninteresting what do you do?
6. When you get reward or praise on your good work how do you feel?
7. Do you think class/home work is important? Why?
8. How important is for you to get good marks /grades?
9. Which school activities you find interesting and why?
10. Do you ever don’t do work?
11. Which classroom activities are important to you?
12. What do you like about class? Why?
13. What do you dislike about class? Why?
14. Do you actively participate in the class activities?
15. Do you have good relations with your class mates?
16. Do you have good relations with your teacher?
17. Do you like to do group work?

Teacher Interview Questions

1. What do you know about student motivation?
2. What role does motivation play in learning environment?
3. How do you motivate your students to do their work?
4. What do you do when you can’t motivate a child to do their work?
5. In which ways do you reinforce good performing students? List the incentives you use?
6. What reinforcement do you use for unmotivated students? List the incentives you use?
7. How do you judge that a particular student needs positive or negative reinforcement?
8. How do you want to motivate your students if you are given free choice by the school
management?
9. What is your opinion about using external incentives in class i.e. reward, praise or
positive feedback?
10. How you differently plan activities for the student who is internally motivated and for the
student who needs external incentives to motivate for studies?
11. In your view how much grades and scores should be emphasized in the class like
NAPLAN, state wide testing etc and in which ways?
12. How would you describe a student who is academically engaged?
13. How do you assess the academic engagement of students in class?
14. When Students are most engaged and disengaged in the class?15. Which activities do you
plan for your students to engage them in leaning?
15. How would you describe your class room learning environment?
 39

16. Which type of questions do you allow your students to ask?

17. In your class are students free to plan/chose their activities or do you guide them towards
different learning activities?
18. To which extent do you give choices to your students? When? Why?
19. How you connect class room learning with the background/home environment of
students?
20. How do you explain the importance of a learning task to students?

i
All names are pseudonyms