High Ability Students’ Voice on Learning Motivation

Motivation in SDT

Learners who are driven by internal processes such as interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction regulate their behaviors through intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, an intrinsically motivated student engages in learning activities to fulfill his or her interests and curiosity (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Learning is regulated effectively by intrinsic motivation because behavioral engagement is considered a reward in and of itself. Thus, because motivation comes from within the individual, external contingencies are unnecessary to regulate behavior. Intrinsic motivation to learn is a natural tendency that facilitates high levels of cognitive, emotional, and social development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Students who are intrinsically motivated focus more on the process of learning than learning outcomes; however, intrinsic motivation is linked to high levels of achievement (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005). Intrinsic motivation is more likely to be fostered or enhanced over time in school environments that are viewed as focusing on task mastery, individual improvement, and personal effort (Corpus, McClintic-Gilbert, & Hayenga, 2009). Intrinsic motivation represents the highest form of self-determination in SDT and results in consistent and volitional learning behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

In their Fullerton Longitudinal Study, Gottfried, Gottfried and colleagues have investigated the intrinsic motivation of gifted students over time since 1979 (see A. E. Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004, for a review). This seminal work has produced robust evidence for the adaptive nature of intrinsic motivation in gifted learners’ academic achievement after controlling for a host of potential confounding variables including IQ. For example, Gottfried and Gottfried found positive relationships between intrinsic motivation at an early age in gifted learners and increased achievement in mathematics, science, reading, and social studies during adolescence. More recently, Cho and Lin (2011) reported positive relationships between intrinsic motivation and performance on creative problem solving in mathematics and science in gifted Korean students. Intrinsic motivation also appears to enhance achievement-related emotions in gifted students as well (Phillips & Lindsay, 2006).

Not all learning activities are enjoyable and fun. SDT researchers delineate four types of extrinsic motivation that reside between intrinsic motivation and amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Integrated regulation is the highest form of extrinsic motivation in SDT because the learner internalizes the external rewards of behavioral engagement into her or his self-concept (Deci & Ryan, 2000). For example, a high ability student may not find learning science interesting, but enjoys getting praise from teachers and parents for her academic achievement. She sees herself as a “good student” and remains highly engaged in science to fulfill her academic self-concept. Identified regulation is also considered a self-determined form of extrinsic motivation and occurs when an individual internalizes the importance of an external contingency (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, a high ability student works hard to obtain good grades for the primary reason of getting into the university he covets. Empirical evidence suggests that integrated regulation and identified regulation predict learning engagement (Jang, 2008). Similarly, Kusurkar, Croiset, Kruitwagen, and ten Cate (2011) revealed positive relationships between college students’ identified regulation and their willingness to make sacrifices to study and report persistence in overcoming study barriers.

Introjected regulation and external regulation are the final two forms of extrinsic motivation theorized in SDT. In both cases, external rewards or contingencies are not fully internalized; hence, levels of self-determination are lower in these two forms of regulation (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). Introjected regulation is focused on obtaining external sources of approval through behavioral engagement or avoiding outside sources of disapproval (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). For example, a high ability student whose primary motivator for academic achievement is to reduce parental pressure is an example of introjected regulation. Although introjected regulation may produce short-term learning engagement, motivation is not fully internalized which often leads to inconsistent long-term engagement (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). External regulation occurs when the underlying motive for behavior is solely based on the external contingency (i.e., reward or punishment). For example, a high ability student completes her homework to avoid punishment from her parents. Removal of the punishment, or threat of punishment, would likely cease homework behavior during external regulation.

Finally, amotivation represents the lowest form of self-determination where neither internal processes nor external contingencies inspire behavioral engagement. For example, an amotivated student resists learning engagement, even when presented with external rewards or threatened with punishment. It is theorized that amotivated students do not internalize the importance and value of learning in a particular context or believe they lack the ability to be successful in that context (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006).

Researchers investigating the motivation of high ability students have rarely differentiated motivation along the SDT continuum. Previous studies have focused on personality traits associated with motivation (e.g., Schick & Phillipson, 2009), intrinsic motivation (e.g., A. W. Gottfried, Gottfried, Cook, & Morris, 2005), or made the general distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Gagne, 2010; Phillips & Lindsay, 2006). Extrinsic motivation in most of these gifted studies is aligned with external regulation in SDT. Work examining integrated regulation and identified regulation of gifted students is non-existent. There are similarities between integrated regulation and identified regulation in SDT and attainment value and utility value in expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Researchers in the field of gifted education have highlighted the importance of developing attainment value and utility value in gifted learners (Peters, 2012; Rodgers, 2008; Siegle & McCoach, 2005).

Investigations using SDT could add to current theoretical and practical understanding about the motivation of high ability learners. For example, a better grasp of how different types of extrinsic motivation facilitate diverse learning engagement outcomes could be gained.

The Social Environment

Where one resides on the continuum of motivation is based on how well the learning environment supports feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which are considered basic psychological needs in SDT (Reeve, 2002, 2006). Social environments that satisfy feelings of (a) self-endorsed actions (i.e., autonomy), (b) personal capacity for achievement and success (i.e., competence), and (c) reciprocal care for and with others (i.e., relatedness) produce high levels of self-determination. In such environments, behaviors are generally self-regulated through intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, or identified regulation. However, social environments that thwart feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness produce low levels of self-determination. Behaviors in this type of environment are typically regulated through external means (e.g., rewards, punishments, control, pressure) and facilitate introjected regulation, external regulation, or amotivation.

Learning environments that focus on giving high ability students meaningful choices and freedom to pursue personal learning interests represent common characteristics of an autonomy supportive atmosphere (Reeve, 2002). On the other end of the spectrum, learning environments that emphasize controlling structures such as external rewards and pressures represent characteristics that diminish high ability students’ feelings of autonomy. Feelings of competence are promoted when learning environments differentiate tasks at the appropriate level of challenge for high ability students. When high ability students are faced with inappropriate levels of challenge on a consistent basis, whether too high or low, feelings of competence are negatively affected. Finally, learning environments that focus on cooperation, encouragement, and inclusion are more likely to produce feelings of relatedness than those that concentrate on social comparison, competition, and exclusion.

Researchers to date have provided meaningful insights about the motivation (e.g., McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Phillips & Lindsay, 2006) and social environment (e.g., Kao, 2011; Mudrak, 2011) of high ability youth. SDT provides a comprehensive framework that could add to the current understanding of high ability students’ motivation and social environmental factors that cultivate or degrade it. The use of SDT with high ability students could help bridge previous studies on motivation and the social environment and provide a clear direction for future investigations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore high ability students’ experiences with learning motivation. Specifically, the goal was to obtain high ability students’ subjective meaning of learning motivation.

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants were (N = 15) high ability students involved in a summer learning program from the Southeastern United States (see Table 2). There were 10 boys and 5 girls with a mean age of 9.13 (SD = 1.19). Twelve of the participants identified their ethnicity as Caucasian/White and 3 as African American/Black. Participants were identified as gifted by their school district prior to entrance into the summer program. Identification for giftedness was based on state law requiring students to score at least two standard deviations above the mean on a standardized measure of intellectual ability (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) or a combination of aptitude and achievement scores between 1 and 2 standard deviations above the mean in reading and/or math (e.g., Woodcock–Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Cognitive Abilities).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants.

Name	Gender	Grade	Age	Ethnicity	Household income	GC
Kathryn	Female	4	8	Black	20,000-29,999	SC
Tristan	Male	4	9	White	70,000-79,999	SC
James	Male	4	9	White	30,000-39,999	SC
Frank	Male	4	9	White	60,000-69,999	SC
Ralph	Male	3	8	White	30,000-39,999	PO
Daniel	Male	3	8	Black	30,000-39,999	PO
Teresa	Female	4	9	White	50,000-59,999	SC
Ann	Female	3	8	White	50,000-59,999	SC
Eric	Male	4	9	White	100,000-149,000	SC
Brent	Male	3	8	White	50,000-59,999	PO
Timothy	Male	5	10	White	90,000-99,999	SC
Arthur	Male	5	10	White	90,000-99,999	SC
Gerald	Male	7	11	White	100,000-149,000	GCMS
Jasmine	Female	7	12	Black	20,000-29,999	GCMS
Karen	Female	4	9	White	60,000-69,999	SC

Note. English was the first language of all participants. GC = type of gifted program; SC = self-contained gifted program; PO = pullout gifted program; GCMS = gifted classes in middle school setting.

The summer learning program was an all-day week-long program for identified gifted students in grades 3 to 8. Students self-select to participate in the summer programming that is offered through the local university. Students engaged in an independent study project focused on historical aspects of the state and state, and their work was facilitated by teachers who were enrolled in their capstone course for gifted education certification. While students work on their independent study project, they are offered opportunities to socialize with one another during snack and lunch breaks. The independent study project is driven by student’s choice of topic and final product. Teachers guided students through the research process and helped prepare their independent study project using primary resources that included field trips to local historical sites and archives.

Data Analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Once there was a full written transcript, we used a process of inductive analysis and constant comparison to develop themes (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The first step consisted of reading and rereading the interview transcripts. During this process, we wrote interpretive notes on the document. Next, an open coding procedure was utilized to generate meaning categories throughout the transcripts. Both of these procedures were initially performed independently. We then met and went through the coded transcripts and discussed the meaning of categories. In many cases, categories with the same meaning were labeled with different names. For example, a transcript passage was labeled as “intrinsic motivation” by one of us and “enjoyment” by the other; however, after a short discussion it was agreed that the meaning was the same and “enjoyment” was the appropriate category name. Disagreements were debated until consensus or compromise was reached. For example, “ego” and “performance goal orientation” were two examples of categories that were only coded by one of us. After discussion, we agreed that we were talking about unique categories that were both important enough to be included. Similarities across categories were then investigated to reduce and refine categories into more general subthemes. Subthemes represented more encompassing and abstract connections across categories. Finally, we clustered subthemes into higher order themes, which are considered superordinate concepts in IPA (Smith & Osborn, 2008). Multiple rounds of reduction, refinement, and discussion were conducted until the final higher order themes were generated. For example, we initially discussed creating a third theme focused on social influences of motivation and debated the potential overlap with the parental focus of the Rewards and Pressures of Good Grades higher order theme. It took three separate discussions over a period of 2 weeks for us to decide that the social influences theme did not stand on its own and was therefore discarded. Table 3 provides a visual representation of our final categories, subthemes, and higher order themes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Description of Thematic Development.

Higher order themes	Subthemes	Categories
The fun factor of learning	Personalized learning	Interesting content; Boring content; Success; Enjoyment; Positive emotions; Self-esteem; Personal judgment; Personal goals; Self-pacing; Meaningful content; Knowing interests and disinterests; Active learning; Social opportunities; Passive learning.
	Empowering choices	Learning responsibility; Autonomy; Active learning; Passive learning; Effort; Creativity; Authority; Challenge; Fear of failure; Career aspirations; Social connections.
Rewards and pressures of good grades	Extrinsic reward systems	Grade bribes; Token incentives; Punishment; Positive/negative emotions; Privileges; Threats.
	Parental grade expectations	Family comparisons; Internal/external guilt; Pressure; Social comparisons; Praise; Getting fussed at; Effort; Making parents proud; Perceived parental anger; Parental support; Performance goal orientation; Control; Punishment; Disappointment; Gifted label; Ego.

Note. In some cases, categories were relevant to more than one subtheme. For example, “Active Learning” was described as a learning preference by students (i.e., Personalized Learning) and students also discussed how learning choices often facilitated more active types of learning activities, which they liked.

Results

Two higher order themes emerged from data analysis procedures: (a) The Fun Factor of Learning and (b) The Rewards and Pressure of Good Grades. All of the students involved in this study reported the importance of making learning fun and provided advice for teachers and parents. Students also revealed the high grade expectations, and at times pressure, associated with “being gifted” and detailed reward systems that parents and teachers commonly used to inspire the attainment of good grades. Below, we have used pseudonyms for all participants.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore high ability students’ experiences with learning motivation through an SDT lens. These high ability students discussed a range of positive and negative learning motivational experiences. Interpretation of themes revealed that intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation were the most salient forms of learning motivation to these participants. Furthermore, social interactions with teachers, parents, peers, and the learning atmosphere were closely associated with these four types of motivation.

The Fun Factor of Learning theme revealed that many of the high ability students in this study viewed learning experiences that tapped their intrinsic motivation and identified regulation as optimal. Specifically, the high ability students wanted learning experiences to be tailoring to their personal interests (i.e., intrinsic motivation) or learning goals (i.e., identified regulation). Motivation was at its peak when students were able to investigate school-related topics that matched their interests outside of school. For example, Timothy noted how learning about music in school was highly motivating, because it was something he loved to do outside of school (e.g., playing music on his own; attending music camp). There were numerous references to the motivating nature of school-based learning experiences that tapped into real world interests. The internal rewards these students experienced when pursuing their learning interests was a clear example of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which has consistently been associated with achievement in high ability learners (A. E. Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; McCoach & Siegle, 2003).

Identified regulation was also highlighted in the Fun Factor of Learning theme. Despite the relatively youthful nature of this sample, many of these high ability students had clear long-term learning goals. These ranged from entering professional fields such as engineering and basic science to gaining entrance into preferred colleges. Thus, learning experiences that were deemed relevant to achieving long-term personal goals were reported to be motivating. In other words, when students internalized the importance of certain learning experiences perceived to help reach their goals, deeper levels of motivation were reported. From an SDT perspective, goals framed within autonomous forms of motivation (i.e., intrinsic, integrated, identified) are associated with a host of positive outcomes including adaptive functioning in school (Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, Michou, & Soenens, 2013). Niemiec and Ryan (2009) suggested that identified regulation is especially important for the development of learners’ self-regulation skills for uninteresting educational content. Therefore, gaining a better understanding of identified regulation use in high ability learners could add the accumulating research on self-regulation in high ability populations (Neber & Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Yoon, 2009).

Participants revealed that social factors associated with intrinsic motivation and identified regulation were (a) parents and teachers who knew and facilitated their learning interests and goals and (b) learning environments that provided choices. Many of the high ability students suggested that teachers who were most effective at motivating them at school were the ones who took the time to know their learning interests and goals. Reeve (2006) acknowledged the importance of building personal relationships with students (i.e., relatedness support) in facilitating self-determined forms of motivation in the classroom. Learning motivation was also supported when parents catered to their learning interests and goals. It was implied that parents typically had a better grasp of their learning interests and goals compared with teachers. This supports previous research in which high ability mothers perceived to know and understand their child’s academic motivation better than teachers (Garn et al., 2010).

Learning environments that provided students with choices was also recognized as a facilitator of intrinsic and identified types of experiences described in the Fun Factor of Learning theme. Providing students with structured choices provides learning autonomy, which is considered a facilitator of self-determined forms of motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2002). These high ability students reported that choices allowed them to take ownership of their learning (e.g., “get my own personality into it”), be more creative, and focus on personally relevant content. It was interesting that Arthur, a negative case, perceived that students without high ability would likely choose unchallenging learning activities. Gentry and her colleagues (e.g., Chae & Gentry, 2011) have provided robust evidence that high ability students and those in the general population prefer learning activities with appropriate challenge.

Experiences with introjected regulation were also reported by many of these high ability students in the Rewards and Pressures of Good Grades theme. Specifically, reports of parental pressures to get good grades and live up their “giftedness” as well as the internal pressure of showcasing their high ability to others were discussed. Grades (e.g., “getting A’s”) were often identified as the markers used to make judgments. In many cases, these participants suggested that external rewards were given by their parents for good grades while punishments and guilt were used for poor grades. Other researchers have underscored the parental pressures and at times unrealistic expectations for school achievement that high ability students often face (Garn et al., 2010; Mudrak, 2011). The role of introjected regulation in high ability students clearly needs more investigation. On one hand, introjected regulation could potentially exert a push to increase one’s internalization for a particular behavior (Deci et al., 1994). On the other hand, introjected regulation could contribute to problems such as perfectionism (McArdle & Duda, 2004). Introjected regulation has been considered a controlling form of motivation in SDT that limits students’ learning autonomy (Reeve, 2006). Furthermore, when parents continually exert pressure on academic outcomes and introjected regulation becomes the primarily motivator of the high ability child, the possibility of self-esteem becoming contingent on parental approval could develop (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Relying on outsides sources for self-esteem development and maintenance could degrade high ability students’ self-esteem and facilitate a host of academic and mental health problems.

Motivational systems that utilized external rewards were highlighted by almost all of the high ability students in this study. Most of the references were made about receiving rewards or punishments from parents, although a couple reports focused on teachers. Specifically, participants enjoyed getting rewards such as food, money, or toys for getting good grades from parents. Motivational systems commonly focus on the use of basic external contingencies to shape behavior. The implementation of these types of externally based reward systems have been reported by parents of high ability students in previous research (Garn et al., 2010). From an SDT perspective (Deci & Ryan, 2000), social environments focused on shaping behavior through external contingencies instead of personal internalization limit feelings of autonomy and often fail to produce long-term compliance and transfer. Likewise, using external contingencies when individuals have high levels of internalization could degrade the internal pleasure of learning and reduce overall learning determination (Covington, 2000).

This study is not without limitations. The aim of this study was to generate firsthand accounts of motivation from a select number of gifted learners: therefore, findings cannot be generalized to the broader population of gifted learners. Another limitation is that we interviewed students during the summer and were unable to observe their behaviors in the classroom. Future research would benefit from incorporating interviews and observers as a means of triangulation (Patton, 2002). A final limitation is the retrospective nature of the study. Examining how gifted students perceive motivation over time, especially as they engage in different learning contexts would advance our current understanding of motivation in gifted learners.

In conclusion, these high ability students reported diverse learning motivation experiences that ranged along the self-determination continuum. From a theoretical standpoint, the findings of this study support the continued use of SDT in high ability research. Specifically, more investigations focused on the different types of external regulations in SDT, especially identified regulation and introjected regulation could increase understanding about high ability students’ learning motivation. Specifically, future investigators should examine the link between parental academic pressure and introjected regulation in gifted students. From a practical standpoint, findings warrant future examination of how teachers and parents support or hinder autonomy, competence, and relatedness and the relationship these have with high ability students’ self-determined motivation at home and in the classroom. In accordance with SDT, providing choices (i.e., autonomy, competence) and getting to know and supporting learning interests (i.e., relatedness, competence) were the practices that these participants identified as highly motivating. Putting pressure on academic outcomes such as grades was a common practice by parents that produced introjected-based motivational experiences. The use of externally based reward systems were viewed as motivating by the high ability students, but the long-term implications of such systems need more study.