The topic of motivation in learning has been of interest to me for over twenty years. As a student in college, some classes were more motivating than others. Some teachers and professors were more engaging than others. I remember one class in particular that was difficult to attend because I was so unmotivated about both the topic and the teacher. During my graduate study, I became interested in experiential learning. It seemed like a better way to learn. When working on real-world projects, I felt so much more engaged and intrinsically interested in going above and beyond what was asked.

Fast-forward to today and I now work at the University of Illinois, running experiential learning programs in our Gies College of Business. As I hear from students and read their survey responses about these project-based courses, I am once again intrigued by the topic of motivation. These students are excited because they feel they are doing something that matters. They feel they are applying their knowledge. And one of the most common words used is "real". They are excited to be doing something that is "real". They are motivated beyond simply obtaining a grade or checking off a task. 

Against that backdrop, I have focused my work for this paper on the topic of motivation in learning. I was interested in learning about theories on motivation, especially those related to intrinsic motivation. I hoped to identify some of the key elements that increase motivation. And I make an attempt to relate interpretive research to the topic of motivation and describe how interpretive methods may be uniquely valuable in understanding what drives and motivates individuals in a learning setting.   

By nature, the topic of motivation lends itself to interpretive perspectives. While many empirical studies have been conducted to measure, define, describe, and increase motivation, debates continue about these definitions and newer studies seem to refute the conclusions made from earlier studies. Motivation is central to who we are as humans. It can be deeply personal and highly subjective. It also seems to change shape and influence based on the context and setting. For example, I am highly motivated towards certain actions at certain times and less motivated towards other actions at other times. It is difficult to conclude that I, and others, are motivated or are not motivated, as if it were a static part of our nature. What’s more, studying motivations and their associated behaviors through the lab tests conducted on rats, mice and dogs may not satisfy questions about what motivates my own, or others, motives and behaviors.

These and other elements related to the topic of motivation make it an interesting case study to look at from an interpretivist lens. Central to the topic are key interpretivist elements, such as presuppositions (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2009); content and intention (Schwandt, 2003); seeing social reality as subjective, not objective (Bhattacherjee, 2012), and functions of meaning-making such as interest, agency and context (Education at Illinois, Cope & Kalantzis, 2020).

The following sections of this work will highlight various theories related to motivation and, important to the interpretivist view, their context and differences. This paper will highlight motivation as a general topic and will also touch on motivation within the context of education and learning. In addition, some examples will be given as to how some of these theories may be applied in a learning or classroom setting.

In Deci and Ryan’s book, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (1985), they outline several motivation theories. These are summarized below. (Notes: all sources in this section are “as cited in Deci and Ryan, 1985”).

Drive theory: Promoted by Freud (1914, 1915, as cited in Deci & Ryan, 1985) and later Hull (1943, as cited in Deci & Ryan, 1985), this theory asserted that behavior results from physiological drives, such as aggression, hunger, thirst, or avoidance of pain. These theories were based on observations of humans and empirical evidence from studies conducted with animals. The behavioral theory of motivation emphasizes stimulus and response over independent will.

Intrinsic motivation theory: This theory asserts that there are greater elements at play beyond physiological drives, such as play and exploration and the idea of competence (White, 1959, as cited in Deci & Ryan, 1985). White asserted that organisms are innately motivated. The idea that energy (motivation) is intrinsic to our nature has come to be referred to as intrinsic motivation.

Self-determination theory: In addition to the concept of intrinsic motivation, elements such as volition, autonomy, and choice have been studied. Self-direction and imagining the future play a role in motivation. Choice is a key driver or energizer of action, over simply a reaction to a stimulus. Heider (1958, as cited in Deci & Ryan, 1985) played an important role in identifying the “perceived locus of causality” to differentiate between outcomes that can be influenced by one’s intent versus outcomes that are not intentional.

Basic needs: Although not highlighted by Ryan and Deci, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (2013/1943) will also be included in this list of motivation theories. Maslow, while not ignoring the “so-called physiological drives” (p.2), outlined a hierarchy of needs that starts with physiological needs and then moves to “higher” needs, in this order: physiological needs; safety needs; love needs; esteem needs; and self-actualization needs (Maslow, 2103/1943).

Three of the theories above will be highlighted below, with greater depth: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; intrinsic motivation; and self-determination. While not exhaustive, this list covers a wide range of motivational theories and practices that are highly prevalent today.

Intrinsic motivation:

In their book, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (1985), Deci and Ryan explain the history of research about motivation, especially intrinsic motivation. This is an abbreviated summary of some of the key findings and researchers they cite (all sources below as cited in Ryan & Deci, 1985):

• Interest plays an important role in directing attention (James, 1890)
• The idea that an activity can run “by its own drive” (Woodworth, 1918)
• Perhaps the first mention of the term, ‘intrinsic motivation’, by Harlow (1950)
• Satisfaction from practicing and expanding one’s capabilities – referred to as competence. Talked about “effectance motivation” (White, 1959)
• Izard (1977) highlighted the importance of interest in motivation. “Interest-excitement” can activate human behaviors. Izard felt that interest was the foundational motivator
• Csikszentmihalyi (1975) believed that enjoyment was the key to motivation. Enjoyment accompanies “flow”, “that peculiar, dynamic, wholistic sensation of total involvement with the activity itself” (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Flow happens when one is “optimally challenged” in relation to one’s capacity, i.e. when the challenge is not too easy – which leads to boredom – and not too hard – which leads to anxiety.

In the video below, Behrouz Moemeni (TEDx Talks, 2018) talks about research on intrinsic motivation and his own research findings on the topic. Moemeni states, (7:59 - 8:12) "Intrinsic motivation is the desire to engage in an activity due to the fact that the activity itself is enjoyable. There is no need for external rewards or punishment." According to Moemeni (TEDx Talks, 2018), forty years of research shows that people who are intrinsically motivated perform better, are more resilient, experience less burnout, and enjoy greater job and life satisfaction. 

Media 1: Intrinsic motivation. (TEDx Talks, 2018) 

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation:

​A review of the literature reveals debates about extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. One study (Lepper et al., 1973) with nursery children (ages 40-60 months) found that when these young kids were given rewards (and expected them) for participating in a drawing activity, their interest in the activity waned over time. However, kids who received unexpected rewards for participation maintained their interest. The literature reviewed emphasizes the negative impact of extrinsic motivators (such as rewards) on intrinsic motivation. A more recent study (Gillard et al., 2015) was conducted on the topic of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation through a master's level educational psychology course. The students in this study were classroom teachers who had previously received classroom training. The researchers in the study sought to study the impact of implementing concepts of autonomy, mastery and purpose, concepts derived from Daniel Pink's book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. In this experimental study, Gillard et al. (2015) redesigned the course with these elements in mind. Through mid-term and end-of-semester surveys, the researchers found that even though the newly designed course made attendance optional, student attendance was at or above expected levels. Students were more willing to do more work on their own, motivated by mastery. Assignments were more in-depth and papers were longer than normal. The researchers conclude that by removing extrinsic factors, students relied on intrinsic motivators, which led to a positive learning experience.

Self-Determination Theory:

According to Moemeni (TEDx Talks, 2018), Deci and Ryan are the pioneers of self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan (1985) state that for motivation to be truly intrinsic, people must “feel free from pressures, such as rewards or contingencies” (p.29). People must have autonomy when they act and intrinsic motivation is less likely to happen “where controls or reinforcements are the experience cause of action” (Deci and Ryan, 1985, p.29). As noted in the image below (Figure 3), in addition to the key element of autonomy, self-determination theory includes the elements of competence (which includes mastery and control) and relatedness (which includes the need to feel belonging and connection).

Media 2: Self-determination theory. https://opentextbc.ca/peersupport/chapter/self-determination-theory/

Deci and Ryan (1985) explain the difference between control and self-determination. Control relates to the outcome one receives based on their behavior whereas self-determination focuses on the “freedom in initiating one’s behavior” (Ryan & Deci, 1985, p.31). Control puts a focus on outcomes while self-determination puts the focus on choice, the freedom to be in control.

According to Ryan and Deci (1985):

When people are intrinsically motivated, they experience interest and enjoyment, they feel competent and self-determining, they perceive the locus of causality for their behavior to be internal, and in some instances they experience flow. The antithesis of interest and flow is pressure and tension. Insofar as people are pressuring themselves, feeling anxious, and working with great urgency, we can be sure that there is at least some extrinsic motivation involved. Their self-esteem may be on the line, they may have deadlines, or some material reward may be involved (p.34).

Ryan & Deci (1985) offer a definition of self-determination: “self-determination is the capacity to choose and to have those choices, rather than reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures, be the determinants of one's actions. But self-determination is more than a capacity; it is also a need” (p.38).

Application in the classroom:

A McGraw Hill (2023) article identifies ways education technologies can enhance competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Math technology can be used to measure and track student learning and growth. When students complete a lesson, their score changes. "Providing students with a tangible reflection of the correlation between their efforts and their growth is a powerful tool for fostering competence" (McGraw Hill, 2023). Science learning technology allows students to gain autonomy by allowing them to change inputs in a simulation and see the results of their choices. They can use a dropper to add oxygen, glucose, or carbon dioxide and see the impact when they add those elements. Finally, online discussion boards increase relatedness as students respond to teacher prompts and to each others' posts. 

Hierarchy of Needs:

Any conversation about motivation should include at least include Maslow (2013/1943) and his hierarchy of needs (pictured below in Fig 1). Maslow described human motivation and needs and believed that basic needs must be met first in order to meet higher needs. Once lower needs are “satisfied”, “new (and still ‘higher’) needs emerge” (2013/1943, p.4). If lower needs, such as hunger, are not met, higher needs are obscured. For the chronic and extreme person, other aspects of life, such as “freedom, love community feeling, respect, philosophy” are unimportant because they do not fill the stomach (2013/1943, p.3). Maslow outlined five kinds of needs:

• Physiological needs: i.e. hunger, thirst
• Safety needs: i.e. physical harm or threat, pain, stability
• Love needs: i.e. love, affection, belongingness
• Esteem needs: i.e. respect and esteem of others, high evaluation of oneself
• Self-actualization: i.e. “doing what [one] is fitted for”, “What a man can be, he must be” (p.7), desire to achieve one’s potential and become what one is capable of becoming

Media 3: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571

Application in the classroom:

McLeod (2024) provides suggestions on how to practically implement Maslow's pyramid of needs in a classroom setting. These ideas follow Maslow’s pyramid, starting at the bottom and moving up:

• [Basic needs] Teachers make sure that students’ physical needs are met (food, water, movement)
• [Basic needs] Teachers ensure there is safety in the room (clear expectations, trust, consistency)
• [Psychological needs] Then teachers can promote belongingness through teamwork and group projects
• [Psychological needs] The teachers then recognize students and their achievements and value by recognizing their progress and effort and providing leadership or helper opportunities
• [Self-fulfillment needs] Finally, teachers help students explore their interests, be creative, and set goals (Mcleod, 2024).

According to Bhattacherjee (2012), interpretive research has been around since the early 19th century and has roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics. Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2009) highlight that the need for an interpretive method has arisen as qualitative research has received more pressure to focus on larger data sets rather than on single points of data. They also highlight that while quantitative research relies on numerical data to explain phenomena, it has not been required of quantitative researchers to explain the assumptions behind their ideas and approach. But making these presuppositions transparent has been increasingly desired and interpretive methods can help provide this kind of context. Yanow and Schwartz-Shea (2009) explain that while traditional research uses ‘reliability and rigor’ as the standards of quality research, these do not apply or are not relevant in interpretive research. Instead, interpretive research should meet the criteria of being ‘systematic and trustworthy’.

Bhattacherjee (2012) would agree that interpretivists use a different paradigm from quantitative and qualitative research. For example, interpretivists take issue with the approach of coding qualitative data because it is “a futile effort to seek consensus or objectivity in a social phenomenon which is essentially subjective” (p.103). In their analysis of “naturalistic” research, Lincoln and Guba (1985) provide a set of criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of the research. These criteria include dependability, credibility, confirmability, and transferability.

Schwandt (2003) provides a general explanation of the interpretivist perspective: the difference between human or social action and the action or movement of physical objects is that human action “in inherently meaningful” (p.191). Schwandt (2003) continues by explaining that meaning can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on content and intention. For example, when someone raises their hand, an observer discerns the intention of the hand raised based on how he or she interprets the situation, the context, or other information. Cope and Kalantzis (Education at Illinois, 2020) emphasize the need to consider meanings as possibilities, not as objects. These meanings are often likelihoods but sometimes improbabilities.

Bhattacherjee (2012) explains that interpretive research (such as action research and ethnography) is inductive in nature, with the goal of building theory, as opposed to positivist or deductive methods which seek to test theories or hypotheses. The interpretive approach asserts that “social reality is not singular or objective, but is rather shaped by human experiences and social contexts (ontology), and is, therefore, best studied within its socio-historic context by reconciling the subjective interpretations of its various participants (epistemology)” (Bhattacherjee, 2012, p.103).

Cope and Kalantzis (Education at Illinois, 2020, 1:00 – 1:24) define the narrative approach as: “a sequence of events arising and crossing in time and place, connected by association, involving agency, and expressing conditionalities, such as anxious-making possibilities, encounters with requirements, and retrospective assertion of eventuality.” This quote and further explanations are provided in the video below.

Media 4: On methods: to parse the world and to change the world. (Education at Illinois, 2020)

Schwandt (2003) shared that based on the research in this field, interpretivists: use empathy to try to see the world as others do; rely on reflexivity to analyze how they have reached their interpretations; pay attention to context; and understand that humans use language based on certain cultural norms, systems and rules. This may be one reason why, in their instructional videos about Making Sense (2018) and Adding Sense (2020), Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis (Education at Illinois, 2020) highlight the value of stories, especially historical ones, as an interpretivist method. Stories help capture context and possibility.

According to Schwandt (2003), “interpretivists argue that it is possible to understand the subjective meaning of action (grasping the actor’s beliefs, desires, and so on) yet do so in an objective manner” (p.193). One approach to this objective manner is the schema developed and explained by Cope and Kalantzis (Education at Illinois, 2020). Their schema includes the forms of meaning – text, image, space, object, body, sound, and speech, as well as five functions of meaning – reference, agency, structure, context, and interest. This schema is presented in the two images below.

Media 5: The functions of meaning. https://newlearningonline.com/transpositional-grammar/infographics

Media 6: Forms of meaning connected with functions of meaning. https://newlearningonline.com/transpositional-grammar/infographics

According to Bhattacherjee (2012), interpretive data is collected through interviews, observation, and documentation. Interpretive research designs include case research, action research, ethnography, and phenomenology. Interpretive research relies on conducting research and collecting data in its natural social context and setting where researchers are not external objective observers but active participants in the research process and data collection. Interpretive research is expressive in nature, in order to capture the meanings of the participants, tends to take an extended amount of time to conduct in an immersive environment, and is iterative and hermeneutic (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

Discussion on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation:

Media 7: Image of young person receiving an award. https://www.cos.net.au/c/cospedia/how-to-reward-and-motivate-students

According to Sidorkin (2008), research on intrinsic motivation has led to three general claims:

• “Extrinsic rewards reduce intrinsic motivation” (as cited in Alfie Kohn, 1993)
• Extrinsic rewards change short‐term behavior, but they do not lead to lasting change. As soon as the rewards are withdrawn, the desired behavior also stops.
• Rewards negatively affect performance. People who are rewarded do less well on intellectual

Sidorkin makes arguments against these claims. In his article, Sidorkin (2008) questions the existence of motivation and our understanding of it. He challenges the assumptions mentioned above, stating that if children had an abundance of intrinsic motivation, schools would not need any extrinsic motivators, kids would just want to learn on their own. He claims that kids are not intrinsically motivated about everything and thus extrinsic motivation is not only needed but also, it is not the enemy of intrinsic motivation, as some seem to claim. He states:

Compulsory education system has been expanding under the utterly unrealistic assumptions that all children can be made interested in learning. When it does not happen, we blame teachers, parents, families, policymakers, tests, and everyone else (p.8).

Sidorkin’s critiques highlight key elements of interpretivist thought: how humans make meaning can be interpreted in multiple ways (Schwandt, 2003). Motivation and methods for motivating in an educational setting is a poignant example of this idea. Educators often apply a standard method for the entire class (stickers, points, extra credit). This approach implies that a one-size-fits-all approach will work for all students. This approach ignores an interpretivist approach, which would acknowledge that motivation and what drives motivation is subjective and individual to each learner depending on their own context and intentions. According to Bhattacherjee, (2012), an interpretivist view highlights that our reality is shaped by our experience and context. Sidorkin (2008) claims that that intrinsic motivation cannot be manufactured and, in line with interpretivist thought, interests, likes and dislikes vary from person to person. One method used in some schools is known as PBIS, (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports). According to We Are Teachers (2023), PBSI is "a way to support kids’ behavior as well as their social-emotional and mental health." Staff from We Are Teachers (2023) asked teachers what they thought about the PBIS framework. They received responses from over 400 teachers. The article is a good example of an interpretivist approach to understanding teachers' opinions about PBIS. The authors highlight that teachers' opinions ranged from loving it, “If it’s done correctly (and I wholeheartedly believe that our school’s system is), it is amazing,” to not liking it at all, "Oh Johnny, you only cussed out your teacher 3 times instead of 5! Congratulations, here’s your bag of Takis!" (We Are Teachers, 2023). This interpretive approach provides a wide range of opinions on the topic and provides a richer understanding of this framework, as it relates to extrinsic motivators in a school setting. This is a prime example where an interpretive approach may help uncover information that may not surface in quantitative or traditional qualitative studies. These findings shed light on the effectiveness of this particular program, which is focused more on extrinsic motivators to encourage positive behavior. 

Counter-critique on intrinsic motivation: the belief that extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic motivation may not be true. There is a more nuanced reality.

Cameron et al. (2001) highlight that over 100 studies have been conducted over a 30 year period on the topic of the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. A meta-analysis of the literature conducted by Deci et al. (1999, as cited in Cameron et al., 2001) showed the negative effects of offering rewards. This meta-analysis reinforced a prevailing thought that extrinsic motivators (such as rewards) have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation.

Cameron et al., (2001) conducted a re-analysis of the meta-analyses (by Deci et al. and others) that have been conducted on the topic of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Looking that same studies as prior researchers but taking into consideration elements of interpretivist thinking, such as context and interest (Education at Illinois, Cope & Kalantzis, 2020), Cameron et al. (2001) arrived at conclusions that in some cases contradicted those of Deci and his colleagues. For example, they found that:

• Rewards can cultivate motivation for low-interest activities. “…rewards can be used to enhance time and performance on tasks that initially hold little enjoyment… reward procedures are one way to cultivate interest in an activity” (p.21)
• For high-interest tasks, verbal rewards are effective. Verbal rewards, such as verbal praise and positive feedback, increase task interest and free choice for high-interest tasks.
• Stating a reward ahead of time but not linking it to the task seems to have no significant impact on free choice or task interest.
• When rewards are linked to reaching certain criteria on a task, interest in the task increases.
• When rewards are linked for exceeding the performance level of others, free choice and interest increase significantly.

The general consensus that extrinsic rewards decrease interest and free choice (measures of intrinsic motivation) is too general and not completely true. Extrinsic rewards can play a positive and a negative role in cultivating intrinsic motivation. These situation-dependent findings highlight the value of the interpretivist approach to research.

Critique of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: interpretivism at work

In their book about employee motivation in Saudi Arabia, Fallatah and Syed (2018) provide a critical analysis of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and provide an alternative viewpoint on human needs and the priority order of those needs. Fallatah and Syed conducted a qualitative analysis using a survey completed by 294 employees of two universities in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of the survey was to understand these employees’ drivers of motivation related to their work.

The book (Fallatah & Syed, 2018) makes a few key points:

• While many believe that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is widely applicable across countries and cultures, this may not be the case.
• Some countries that are highly individualistic may prefer a focus on self which is why self-actualization is at the top of Maslow’s pyramid. But in collectivist societies, acceptance and community may be more important than a focus on oneself. Maslow’s theory was developed in the United States and may be limited in its applicability to different cultures.
• Maslow claimed that once a lower need is satisfied, a person has a greater need for the higher needs in the pyramid and a decreased need for the lower needs. However, studies have shown this is not necessarily the case.
• The study highlighted in this book, along with other research, showed that employees in Saudi Arabia prioritized security (and stability) as their highest need and autonomy as their second highest need. Self-actualization came in third place.

Below is a chart comparing India (orange), Saudi Arabia (blue) and the United States (purple) on two dimensions of the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions framework. The chart shows an important difference between these countries along these two dimensions.

Media 8: Chart created on the website, The Culture Factor Group. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/.

Fallatah and Syed’ study (2018) highlight the value of an interpretivist approach to research. Widely accepted notions of motivation (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) may seem to provide universal explanations of motivation. Yet a more nuanced analysis, based on research, shows these notions may not be so universal. Schwandt (2003) highlights the need for the interpretivist researcher to use empathy and to understand that humans use language based on certain cultural norms, systems and rules. In their book, Fallatah and Syed (2018) provide extensive context about the Saudi culture, norms and context and they are explicit in stating the reasons for providing this context: to help the reader understand why Maslow’s theory may or may not apply in the Saudi setting.

Based on the literature reviewed, these are key elements that lead to and enhance intrinsic motivation:

• Learner is an “active processor” rather than a “passive recipient” of external forces (Deci & Ryan, 1985)
• Belonging (Maslow, 1943)
• Esteem (Maslow, 1943)
• Creativity, freedom to pursue personal interests (Mcleod, 2024)
• Autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985)
• Ability and need to make choices (Deci & Ryan, 1985)
• Interest (*James, 1890)
• Interest and excitement (*Izard, 1977)
• Enjoying an activity for its sake and not for some related reward (Ryan & Deci, 1985)
• Optimal challenges (*Csikszentmihalyi, 1975)
• Ability to be a causal agent, a desire to produce changes in our environment, a desire to be in control of one’s fate (*DeCharms, 1968)
• A need for people to have control over the environment or their outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 1985)
• Self-determination, and self-determined competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985)
• Intrinsic motivation associated with greater creativity, flexibility, and spontaneity (*Amabile, 1983; *McGraw & McCullers, 1979; *Koestner, Ryan Bernieri & Holt, 1984)

*These references are provided as cited in Ryan & Deci (1985)

When explaining the problem with using rewards (or punishments) to motivate kids to stay in bed, Alfie Kohn (1993) simply states, “we don’t yet know what’s really going on” (p.60). If we don’t understand the underlying reasons why the child keeps getting out of bed, it is hard to provide a solution. It is difficult to motivate the child. This statement is at the heart of the interpretivist approach: trying to figure out “what’s really going on”, which requires understanding context, norms, intent, and the subjective realities of the situation.

Interpretive approaches to understanding motivation will continue to be useful in the future. As technology plays an increasingly important role in society and in learning, understanding what motivates individuals will be key. For example, in social media, algorithms are built to encourage certain behaviors and actions of the user. An observer may conclude that these actions were taken because the user was motivated to do so. However, an interpretive researcher may dive deeper to fully understand what are the underlying motives of the user and whether the actions were taken intentionally or unintentionally, motivated extrinsically or intrinsically. Technology has the power to reduce autonomy, competence and intrinsic motivation through its habit-forming and even addictive algorithms and design. Interpretive research can help all of us understand in greater depth what drives individuals and can perhaps even protect and enhance these essential concepts of autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

Due to interpretive approaches to motivation, a more nuanced understanding of motivation has come to light over the past several decades. As researchers continue to complement traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches with interpretive ones, teachers, practitioners, and learners will benefit from a more comprehensive and insightful body of insights and theory.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (2nd edition). Textbooks Collection. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3

Cameron, J. Banko, K. M., Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 1(24), 1-44.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2018). Making sense: Reference, agency, and structure in a grammar of multimodal meaning. Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M, (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (1st ed.). Springer.

Education at Illinois (2020, May 26). On methods: to parse the world and to change the world [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYe9_kTToPI

Fallatah, R. H. M., Syed, J. (2018). Employee motivation in Saudi Arabia: An investigation into the higher education sector. Palgrave Macmillan: Springer

Gillard, S., Gillard. S, Pratt, D. (2015). A pedagogical study of intrinsic motivation in the classroom through autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(1), 1-6.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (2020). Adding sense: Context and interest in a grammar of multimodal meaning. Cambridge University Press.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Lepper, M., Greene, D., Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the over-justification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137.

Maslow, A. H. (2013). A theory of human motivation. Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1943).

McGraw Hill (2023, Feb 27). How to motivate your students to learn with self-determination theory. Medium. https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/how-to-motivate-your-students-to-learn-with-self-determination-theory-98508ed2bcbb

Mcleod, S. (2024). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 292-331). Sage Publications.

Sidorkin, A. (2008). What do we want them to want to do? Faculty Publications, 6. https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/facultypublications/6

TEDx Talks (2018, December 9). Intrinsic motivation: Revolutionize education, work and life | Behrouz Moemeni | TEDxWLUBrantford [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjC7cM8a5zU

We Are Teachers (2023, Sept 21). We asked teachers how they feel about working in PBIS schools, and the feelings are big. https://www.weareteachers.com/pbis-schools-teachers/ 

Yanow, D. & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2009). Interpretive research: Characteristics and criteria. Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie, XV, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.3917/rips.035.0029

As cited in Ryan & Deci (1985):

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. Academic Press.

Harlow, H. F. (1950). Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 43, 289-294.

Izard, C. (1977). Human emotions. Plenum Press.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Holt.

White, R. W. (1959) Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Woodworth, R. S. (1918) Dynamic psychology. Columbia University Press.