Skip to main content

Part II Commentary: Motivation and Engagement: Conceptual, Operational, and Empirical Clarity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement

Abstract

A noted scholar in the field of engagement, Andrew Martin, provided commentary on the chapters in Part II. Martin summarized the theories and definitions offered by authors in this part and shared his perspective on motivation and engagement. He argued for the inclusion of disengagement in addition to engagement in future research and discourse in this area. Martin concluded by proposing a framework and analytic model to integrate authors’ ideas and to test tenets of various conceptualizations of engagement and motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainley, M. (2012). Students’ Interest and engagement in classroom activities. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 283–302). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderman, E. M., & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 173–191). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasra (Ed.), Six theories of child development (pp. 187–249). London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman-Young, S., Spanjers, D. M., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 1099–1119). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: theoretical foundations and applications. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237–257). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. D., & Granic, I. (Eds.). (2000). Emotion, development, and self-organization: Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental ­construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2011). The motivation and engagement scale (11th ed.). Sydney: Lifelong Achievement Group (www.lifelongachievement.com).

  • Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2011). Switching on and switching off in mathematics: An ecological study of future intent and disengagement amongst middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 10.1037/a0025988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropouts among students with mild disabilities: A case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. E., & Waugh, R. M. (2007). A dynamical systems perspective regarding students’ learning processes: Shame reactions and emergent self-organizations. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 125–145). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voelkl, K. E. (2012). School identification. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 193–218). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Martin Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martin, A.J. (2012). Part II Commentary: Motivation and Engagement: Conceptual, Operational, and Empirical Clarity. In: Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Wylie, C. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics