This document discusses differences between student and teacher perceptions of effective student motivation techniques. It finds that students are more likely to attribute their own motivation to intrinsic desires to learn or goals they adopt, while teachers believe students are more motivated by teachers' actions. The document examines factors that may contribute to these differing perceptions, such as adolescents experiencing changes in self-esteem and social influences during high school that impact their motivation differently than adults. It concludes teachers should understand these developmental differences to effectively motivate students.

1. The Clearing House, 85: 102–108, 2012
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0009-8655 print; 1939-912x online
DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2011.653016
Student Motivation and the
Alignment of Teacher Beliefs
JEFF WIESMAN
Abstract: Given that many high school students come to
school unmotivated to learn, the purpose of this article
is to examine various motivational constructs and to de-
termine if educators are incorporating the most effective
motivational strategies. In fact, adolescents vary from
adults physically, cognitively, emotionally, and physi-
ologically and, therefore, they generally differ in their
perceptions on the effectiveness of a variety of moti-
vational practices. Students are more likely to attribute
their own motivation to their intrinsic desire to learn or
as a result of the goals they adopt. Teachers, on the other
hand, believe students are more likely to be motivated as
a result of the teachers’ actions. Teachers do not always
recognize which motivational constructs are the most
effective, demonstrating the value of pre-service and
in-service programs that stress student motivation. If
educators wish to maximize student academic achieve-
ment, they must understand how to motivate students
successfully.
Keywords: motivation, academic performance, educa-
tional psychology, high school, teacher education
Politicians, educators, parents, and other stakehold-
ers are frequently disgruntled with the academic
performance of America’s high school students. Reports
such as the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study reveal that children in many Asian and European
nations are outperforming American students (Gonza-
les et al., 2004). To make matters worse, teachers are
working with students who often come to school un-
motivated and without an interest to learn (Hidi and
Harackiewicz 2000). Consequently, if schools want to
see improved academic performance educators must
search for ways to increase student engagement and mo-
tivation in the educational arena.
Jeff Wiesman is at Wheaton Warrenville South High School, Mathematics, Wheaton,
IL.
Evidence from the literature also suggests the impor-
tance of examining student motivation for children en-
rolled in high school. Studies have shown that both
the academic interest and motivation of adolescents de-
cline as they progress through junior and senior high
school (Williams and Stockdale 2004). In addition, the
value children place on many academic activities and
their beliefs about the usefulness of school decline as
they get older. By the time many students reach high
school, they put forth minimum effort, they are bored
with the educational process, and they begin to view
many academic tasks with less significance (Wigfield,
Eccles, and Rodriquez 1998). Indeed, observers of a
typical high school classroom will often find students
who are unconcerned and unmotivated to complete
academic tasks. To counteract this tendency, educa-
tors must learn how to motivate apathetic students and
become skilled at incorporating effective methodolo-
gies and activities that will engage students and spark
interest.
Little research, however, has examined the alignment
of student and teacher beliefs regarding which moti-
vational constructs are the most effective. Moreover,
additional research is needed because teenagers are
physically, emotionally, and physiologically different
than adults and, as a result, perceptions of effective
motivational techniques may differ. Some research
suggests that students and teachers have dissimilar
views on the effectiveness of various motivational
practices (Wigfield, Eccles, and Rodriquez 1998), and
without alignment, teachers may not be maximizing
their capacity to motivate students. This article, there-
fore, addresses various motivational constructs and the
reasons why students and teachers may have different
views regarding which motivational techniques are the
most effective in the classroom.
102

2. Student Motivation and the Alignment of Teacher Beliefs 103
FIGURE 1. Student motivation and the alignment of teacher beliefs. (Color figure available online.)
What Is Most Likely to Motivate Students?
Educators must understand that adolescents experi-
ence profound changes in high school and, therefore,
teachers’ behaviors and motivation will differ from
students’. In other words, what constitutes an effective
motivational technique for an adult may not work for
a student, and what motivates teachers may or may
not motivate students. As evident in figure 1, there are
differences, which are statistically significant, between
student and teacher perceptions of what motivates sub-
urban high school students the most (Wiesman 2007).
The majority of the students believed they were most
motivated in school when they set goals or if they were
intrinsically driven to achieve in the classroom. Approx-
imately 44 percent of the students believed the most
important motivational construct was the goal orienta-
tion theory, while 27 percent of the student participants
thought they were most likely to be motivated because
of their inherent desire to learn and do well in school.
Teachers differed from students in that they were
more likely to attribute student motivation to the
teachers’ characteristics. Approximately 30 percent
of the teachers rated their own characteristics as the
most likely reason why students were motivated.
That is, teachers believed students were most likely
to be motivated when the teacher showed concern or
enthusiasm, used humor, and took a personal interest
in the students. Teachers thought goal-achievement
theory and intrinsic motivation were the second and
third most likely reason why students were motivated to
achieve in the classroom. Finally, few teachers thought
self-efficacy, social goals, and extrinsic rewards were
the most effective motivational techniques.
Student and teacher perceptions generally differ, and
when analyzing specific student motivators within the
various motivational constructs, additional differences
emerged (Wiesman 2007). Students rated the following
five questions as the most likely reasons why they put
forth effort in school (6 represented “strongly agree”
and 1 represented “strongly disagree”).
1. I am motivated so I can have a good future. (M =
5.67, SD = .76)
2. I am motivated when I see my work improving. (M
= 5.45, SD = .79)
3. I am motivated when I am good at something. (M =
5.38, SD = .81)
4. I am motivated when I receive good grades. (M =
5.36, SD = .86)
5. I am motivated when I like the teacher. (M = 5.15,
SD = .89)
Because students generally agreed that the goal-
achievement theory was the most likely reason why they
were motivated to achieve in school, it is not surprising
that three of the top five questions were goal oriented.
However, many educators may not realize that the

3. 104 The Clearing House 85(3) 2012
students rated only one teacher-driven action as a highly
effective motivational device; namely, when the teacher
is able to develop a positive rapport with students. As
shown in the following list, teachers rated the top mo-
tivators quite differently from the students (Wiesman
2007). Teachers attributed student motivation to more
of their own characteristics and actions:
1. Students are motivated when they like the teacher.
(M = 5.25, SD = .70)
2. Students are motivated when the teacher takes a per-
sonal interest in the students. (M = 5.18, SD = .73)
3. Students are motivated when the teacher shows en-
thusiasm. (M = 5.14, SD = .73)
4. Students are motivated when the class instruction in-
cludes variation in how the material is presented. (M
= 5.09, SD = .80)
5. Students are motivated when the class instruction in-
cludes active, hands-on chances to apply a lesson. (M
= 4.94, SD = .80)
Factors Affecting Students’ Perceptions on
Motivation
There are many reasons why certain motivational
techniques are effective with adults but not with high
school students. Young people in American culture are
regularly challenged by new experiences and expecta-
tions during a time in life where physical, cognitive,
emotional, physiological, and social changes are pro-
found (Wolfson and Carskadon 1998). Additionally,
for the first time, adolescents are beginning to struggle
with deeper thoughts and generate greater feelings of
emotions (Strauch 2003). Obviously, adults also face
new experiences and are challenged with various expec-
tations, but they usually have developed the necessary
cognitive and emotional faculties to more effectively
deal with these types of events. The following sections
establish differences that could explain why student and
teacher beliefs are incongruent.
Self-esteem
When confronted with new expectations and respon-
sibilities, teenagers can experience increased confusion
and conflict, which can affect self-esteem (Powell 2004).
In addition, self-image is influenced as adolescents ex-
perience physiological, biological, and cognitive trans-
formations (Powell 2004). In fact, self-esteem is at its
lowest point during the teenage years and adolescents,
especially girls who experience radical drops in estro-
gen, more commonly struggle with periods of depres-
sion and sadness (Buchanan, Eccles, and Becker 1992).
Low self-esteem will affect motivation, school perfor-
mance, and students’ ability to focus on their studies
and complete school tasks (Powell 2004).
Social Influences
The socialization process of an adolescent is certainly
unique to any other period in the life span. During
the teenage years, adolescents want and need social
approval and, therefore, are highly motivated to de-
velop close, reciprocal friendships (Strauch 2003). Ado-
lescents frequently have greater socialization pressures
because they make every effort to determine the so-
cial norms and gain acceptance by their peers (Burns
and Darling 2002). As a result, children either form
or reshape their identities as they associate with differ-
ent peer groups during this socialization process (Black
2002).
When considering an individual’s goal orientation,
teenagers also significantly vary from adults. Adults are
more likely to develop mastery goals that are internally
driven, whereas teenagers tend to create goals that con-
form to the standards of their peers (Burley, Turner, and
Vitulli 1999). As individuals age, Burley noted that they
are less concerned about external evaluations and more
concerned with the internal benefits derived from goal
setting. Finally, adults commonly perceive peer pres-
sure to be a significant motivating factor, when peer
influence actually has a greater effect on adolescent be-
havior (Black 2002). According to Burns and Darling
(2002), “adolescents are most often influenced not by
what their peers actually do and say, but how they think
their peers will react to a potential action” (4).
Brain Development
There are also significant differences between an ado-
lescent and adult brain (Strauch 2003). An area of the
brain that undergoes transformation during the teenage
years is the prefrontal cortex, which scientists call the
frontal lobes. In fact, between the ages of 4 and 20,
studies identify a decrease in cortical gray matter and an
increase in white matter in that region (Strauch 2003).
This alteration of the frontal lobes affects one’s ability
to process emotions, problem solve, plan ahead, and
learn from experiences. Teenagers, therefore, will have
a greater difficulty resisting impulses, regulating emo-
tions, and making good decisions (Sowell et al. 1999).
Included in the changes that occur in the prefrontal
cortex and the limbic brain region during the teenage
years is the amount of dopamine in the brain (Spear
2000). Dopamine, which is a powerful neurotrans-
mitter, is at increased levels in adolescents, affecting
novelty-seeking and emotional regulation. It also plays
a role when teenagers assess the motivational value
of external stimuli or respond to a stressful situation
(Strauch 2003). As a result, teenagers can experience ex-
treme emotional highs and lows with incredibly exciting
highs and very distressing lows. Spear (2000) summa-
rized: “Given the differences between adolescents and
adults in functioning in these brain regions, it would

4. Student Motivation and the Alignment of Teacher Beliefs 105
be astonishing indeed if adolescents did not differ from
adults in various aspects of their motivated behavior”
(113).
During brain development, an adolescent’s behavior
may change because sleep patterns are affected (Strauch
2003). In a study of 3,120 high school students at
four public high schools in Rhode Island, Wolfson and
Carskadon (1998) determined that the typical student
age 13 to 19 gets an average of about 7 hours of sleep per
night. Teenagers, however, should get 9.2 hours of sleep
per night according to Wolfson and Carskadon. One
reason why adolescents are not getting enough sleep is
that melatonin, a chemical that causes drowsiness, does
not flow until later into the night as children grow into
their teenage years (Strauch 2003). As a result, adoles-
cents generally stay up late and, therefore, usually do not
get enough sleep. While sleep times do not strongly cor-
relate with grades, poor sleep habits negatively affect be-
havior, mood, and motivation in school (Wolfson and
Carskadon 1998). Finally, school achievement and mo-
tivation can decline because teenagers have less energy,
reduced amounts of concentration, and increased lev-
els of fatigue than those in other age groups (Buchanan,
Eccles, and Becker 1992).
Motivational Constructs
Educators must consider physiological and psycho-
logical factors when determining how to best motivate
students. The following section applies the pertinent
research and offers strategies for educators who are
seeking practical ways to motivate their unmotivated
students. When teachers consider the theoretical
foundations of the various motivational techniques,
they might increase their ability to bolster academic
achievement.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Students are intrinsically motivated when they have a
natural curiosity and interest in a topic and, obviously,
intrinsically motivated students are eager to absorb in-
formation. Two major influences on students’ intrinsic
motivation is their individual interest, which is a child’s
inherent desire to learn certain concepts, and situational
interest, which are environmental factors that generate
interest. Educators can positively influence individual
interest when they teach children to get excited about
learning new concepts and help them to become life-
long learners (Kohn 2010). Teachers can increase a stu-
dent’s situational interest when they make content per-
sonally relevant, allow for student choice, incorporate
various instructional activities, and allow students to
work in cooperative groups. When teachers utilize these
types of classroom structures, students will develop an
interest in the content, thereby affecting students’ in-
trinsic motivation (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000).
Teachers can also promote situational interest by us-
ing innovative techniques to introduce new concepts or
by providing real-world applications (Linnenbrink and
Pintrich 2002). For example, students may not have an
initial curiosity in Shakespeare, but when a teacher in-
corporates a contemporary YouTube video or asks stu-
dents to act out a scene, they might develop an interest. A
mathematics teacher could spark interest by discussing
strategies to build wealth when discussing logarithms.
Indeed, intrinsic motivation highly correlates with the
use of effective instructional techniques, and as a re-
sult, educators can positively affect achievement perfor-
mance (Erwin 2003).
Education also incorporates many different types
of external motivators. For instance, teachers fre-
quently provide verbal reinforcers, such as words of
encouragement to struggling learners or task-specific
praise. Several studies indicate, however, that external
motivators can impede learning, undermine intrinsic
motivation, and create situations where students
withdraw from an activity (Kohn 1996; Williams and
Stockdale 2004). Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001),
in a meta-analysis of 128 studies researching the
effects of extrinsic rewards on free choice and self-
interest, specifically demonstrated that most types of
rewards, including tangible rewards, performance-
contingent rewards, engagement-contingent rewards,
and completion-contingent rewards, weakened intrin-
sic motivation. Only certain verbal rewards enhanced
intrinsic motivation. Consequently, instead of using
extrinsic rewards, Deci et al. believed educators should
focus on incorporating other motivational techniques
to enhance interest. Finally, Williams and Stockdale
(2004) suggested that teachers can create situations
in their classes where students become dependent on
extrinsic rewards. That is, even if students have an
interest in completing a task, they will only engage in
the activity if there is a possibility for a reward.
There is conflicting evidence, however, regarding the
effects of extrinsic motivators and how they impact in-
trinsic motivation (Cameron 2001). Cameron noted
that the Deci et al. (2001) study only looked at the
effects of extrinsic rewards when the activities are of
high initial interest. In her meta-analysis of 96 studies,
Cameron found that extrinsic rewards may or may not
have an effect on intrinsic motivation when students are
initially unmotivated to learn a topic. Moreover, she in-
dicated, “obtaining a negative effect of reward requires
an unusual combination of conditions bearing little re-
semblance to the actual use of incentives in classroom
settings” (Cameron 2001, 41). The reality is that most
classrooms combine intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
constructs, which in turn could influence a child’s ef-
fort and actions (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000). Nev-
ertheless, in view of the related literature, researchers
have found that external motivators should generally

5. 106 The Clearing House 85(3) 2012
be avoided, and as a result, educators should carefully
consider the reasons why they would utilize them (Kohn
1996).
Goal Orientation
Educators can have a profound influence on student
motivation by promoting goal-oriented behaviors.
Teachers need to help students set personally important
goals, both short-term and long-term, that are measur-
able, specific, and challenging (Elliot and Dweck 1988).
When teachers support goal achievement, research
indicates that they will positively affect student motiva-
tion and their sense of self-efficacy (Eccles and Wigfield
2002). Furthermore, studies indicate that goal adoption
positively correlates with persistence, effort, deeper lev-
els of processing, academic achievement, and to higher
levels of self-regulated learning (Covington 2000).
Students are frequently oriented to two different types
of goals, namely performance goals and mastery goals.
Children create performance goals because they enjoy
competition or they yearn for positive evaluations of
their ability. Simply put, students with performance
goals want to outperform other students (Dweck 1986).
Some studies suggest that performance goals have lit-
tle or no effect on academic engagement and achieve-
ment (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000). In fact, when
teachers create classroom environments that encour-
age performance-related goals, Wigfield, Eccles, and Ro-
driquez (1998) indicated that intrinsic motivation and
interest would decline. Additionally, Dweck’s study re-
vealed that children would not pursue a challenging task
if they did not believe that they had the requisite ability
level to attain performance goals.
Even though schools tend to stress performance-
oriented goals, research indicates that the use of mas-
tery goals has a greater effect on learning (Linnenbrink
and Pintrich 2002). When students are oriented toward
mastery goals, which are created when students have
an inherent desire to achieve something, they are more
likely to persevere in difficult times and view errors as
an opportunity to learn (Gonzalez 2002). If a particular
student is unmotivated in class, for example, I will often
ask what his or her desired future plans include. I try to
set their eyes on the prize and discuss what they need to
do now to achieve that prize. To be sure, when students
set mastery goals, they will choose to work on difficult
challenges even if they believe their ability levels are low
(Dweck 1986).
Social Goals
When considering goal orientation, researchers have
also determined that students will regularly set social
goals in hopes of gaining the respect of others and to
achieve a sense of belonging (Covington 2000). McIn-
erney and McInerney (1998) suggested that the social
component of school, which includes interactions with
parents, teachers, and peers, could affect students’ atti-
tudes toward school and their motivation to learn. Even
though there is a need for additional research on how
social goals affect academic motivation, Covington as-
serted that social goals influence the students’ ability to
achieve.
Peer relationships among adolescents can also affect
behavior, positively or negatively. Teenagers with bet-
ter peer relationships have attitudes that are more pos-
itive toward school (Strauch 2003). If they associate
with other high-achieving students, their motivation
will likely improve, and conversely, motivation could
decline if adolescents join low-achieving peer groups.
Therefore, educators need to carefully select groups
when incorporating a cooperative activity. While school
contexts are primarily designed to provide an academic
education, it is also important for educators to consider
adolescents’ social needs, because they value interper-
sonal relationships and acceptance by their peers. In
effect, when teachers meet their students’ psychologi-
cal needs for love and the esteem of others, they will
enhance academic motivation (Eccles et al. 1993).
Self-efficacy
Efficacy is another important motivational construct
that can affect learning. Yair (2000) suggested that stu-
dents with a high sense of self-efficacy generate in-
creased levels of achievement, effort, and persistence
to complete difficult tasks. Self-efficacy beliefs also pos-
itively correlate with student cognitive engagement and
the use of self-regulatory skills (Bandura 1993). In Mar-
golis and McCabe’s (2004) study of self-efficacy, they
found that students would not expend appropriate lev-
els of energy if they lack sufficient levels of self-efficacy.
Teachers are able to affect student self-efficacy
positively by creating experiences where students can
successfully develop skills and gain knowledge (Linnen-
brink and Pintrich 2002). This will occur when teachers
give students challenging assignments, sequenced from
easy to difficult, where the chance for success is still
relatively high. However, educators should be careful
not to create frustration by assigning tasks that are too
difficult. Instructors can also strengthen self-efficacy
by reinforcing effort and persistence, and by providing
students with applicable learning strategies (Margo-
lis and McCabe 2004). In addition, many students
frequently do not know how to complete academic
tasks effectively and, therefore, it is important to teach
students age-appropriate strategies.
Teacher Practices That Enhance Student Motivation
Specific teacher characteristics and instructional
techniques can also have a profound influence on stu-
dent motivation. For instance, educators can motivate
students by establishing caring classroom environ-
ments. Studies indicate that positive student–teacher

6. Student Motivation and the Alignment of Teacher Beliefs 107
relationships are crucial to motivation, and when
teachers truly care, their students will work harder
and display more appropriate behaviors (Mendes
2003). Erwin (2003) found that quality, warm, and
trusting student–teacher relationships will also have
a positive effect on academic achievement. Moreover,
when teachers show empathy, students are more likely
to develop academic goals (Wigfield, Eccles, and Ro-
driquez 1998). Indeed, teachers can influence student
motivation when they understand their students’ lives
and affirm their interests and needs.
Opportunities for student choice, decision making,
and responsibility also correlate with student motiva-
tion (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan 2001). Therefore, teach-
ers need to allow for choice by letting students decide
their seating arrangement, offer them a variety of as-
signments to choose to complete, or provide students
an assortment of options that will demonstrate their
understanding of the course content. Furthermore, ed-
ucators can influence student motivation when they in-
corporate investigative or hands-on activities because
students are provided the opportunity to construct their
own knowledge.
Implications
If educators wish to improve academic achievement
by maximizing their ability to motivate students, then
they must understand the various motivational theories
and know which constructs are the most effective.
Mentoring and in-service programs should include
discussions on how to engage students, and colleges
should include student motivation in education
curricula. As well, there are important implications
when teachers understand the practical and theoretical
foundations of student motivation. When educators
believe they can motivate students effectively, they
can improve the learning environment and increase
academic achievement (Bandura 1993). Efficacious
teachers will have high expectations for themselves and
their students, challenge students without frustrating
them, and create a classroom environment where
students are active learners.
Additionally, practice should incorporate the con-
structs that are most likely to motivate students, namely
the goal and intrinsic motivation theories. When teach-
ers assign long-term projects, they can ask students to
break the assignment into shorter segments and then en-
courage them to set short, proximal goals to complete
each component of the assignment. As an additional
example, at the beginning of each unit, teachers could
discuss the learning goals that all students must master,
providing students with an opportunity to adopt the
goals for themselves. Teachers can also post the chap-
ter objectives in the room, which can guide discussions
throughout the course of the chapter. At the district level,
Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by De-
sign model is an excellent framework that incorporates
the goal motivation theory. Educators should develop
the assessments and then create instructional activities
that will prepare students to complete them successfully.
Terrell Bell, former Secretary of Education, empha-
sized the importance of motivation by stating: “There
are three things to remember about education. The first
is motivation, the second one is motivation, and the
third one is motivation” (Covington 2000). While each
student might respond differently to the various moti-
vational practices, teachers can maximize their ability
to motivate students when utilizing certain constructs.
To be sure, if students are more likely to be motivated
because of the goals they adopt or they are inherently
interested in a subject, then educators must develop pro-
grams, lesson plans, and activities that utilize the goal
and intrinsic motivational theories.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development
and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28: 117–48.
Black, S. 2002. When students push past peer influence. The Education
Digest 68: 31–36.
Buchanan, C., J. Eccles, and J. Becker. 1992. Are adolescents the victims
of raging hormones: Evidence for activational effect of hormones
on moods and behavior at adolescence. Psychological Bulletin 111:
62–107.
Burley, R., L. Turner, and W. Vitulli. 1999. The relationship between
goal orientation and age among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology 160: 84–88.
Burns, A., and N. Darling. 2002. Peer pressure is not peer influence.
The Education Digest 68: 4–6.
Cameron, J. 2001. Negative effects of reward on intrinsic
motivation—a limited phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research 71: 29–42.
Covington, M. 2000. Goal theory, motivation, and school achieve-
ment: Anintegratedreview.Annual Review of Psychology 51: 171–200.
Deci, E., R. Koestner, and R. Ryan. 2001. Extrinsic rewards and in-
trinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of
Educational Research 71: 1–27.
Dweck, C. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist 41: 1040–48.
Eccles, J., C. Midgley, A. Wigfield, C. Buchanan, D. Reuman, C. Flana-
gan, et al. 1993. Development during adolescence: The impact of
stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools
and in families. American Psychologist 48: 90–101.
Eccles, J., and A. Wigfield. 2002. Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 109–32.
Elliot, E., and C. Dweck. 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 5–12.
Erwin, J. 2003. Giving students what they need. Educational Leadership
61: 19–23.
Gonzales, P., J. Guzman, L. Partelow, E. Pahlke, L. Jocelyn, D. Kastberg,
et al. 2004. Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and
science study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005–005). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education and National Center for Education
Statistics.
Gonzalez, A. 2002. Parental involvement: Its contribution to high
school students’ motivation. The Clearing House 75: 132–35.
Hidi, S., and J. M. Harackiewicz. 2000. Motivating the academically
unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educa-
tional Research 70: 151–79.
Kohn, A. 1996. By all available means: Cameron and Pierce’s defense
of extrinsic motivators. Review of Educational Research 66: 1–4.
Kohn, A. 2010. How to create nonreaders: Reflections on motivation,
learning, and sharing power. English Journal 100: 16–22.
Linnenbrink, E., and P. Pintrich. 2002. Motivation as an enabler for
academic success. School Psychology Review 31: 313–27.

7. 108 The Clearing House 85(3) 2012
Margolis, H., and P. McCabe. 2004. Self-efficacy: A key to improv-
ing the motivation of struggling learners. The Clearing House 77:
241–49.
McInerney, D., and V. McInerney. 1998. The goals of schooling in
culturally diverse classrooms. The Clearing House 71: 363–66.
Mendes, E. 2003. What empathy can do. Educational Leadership 61:
56–59.
Mullis, A., R. Mullis, and D. Normandin. 1992. Cross-sectional and
longitudinal comparisons of adolescent self-esteem. Adolescent 27:
51–61.
Powell, K. C. 2004. Developmental psychology of adolescent girls:
Conflicts and identity issues. Education 125: 77–87.
Sowell, E., P. Thompson, C. Holmes, T. Jernigan, and A. Toga. 1999. In
vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and
sriatal regions. Nature Neuroscience 2: 859–61.
Spear, L. 2000. Neurobehavioral changes in adolescence. Current Di-
rections in Psychological Science 9: 111–14.
Strauch, B. 2003. The primal teen: What the new discoveries about the
teenage brain tell us about our kids. New York: Random House.
Wiesman, J. 2007. A comparative analysis of teacher and student percep-
tions of motivation in high school classes. Retrieved from ProQuest
Digital Dissertations.
Wigfield, A., J. Eccles, and D. Rodriquez. 1998. The development of
children’s motivation in school contexts. In Review of research in
education, ed. P. D. Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad, 73–118. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Wigfield, A., J. Guthrie, S. Tonks, and K. Perencevich. 2004. Children’s
motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influ-
ences. The Journal of Educational Research 97: 229–42.
Wiggins, G. P., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum De-
velopment.
Williams, R., and S. Stockdale. 2004. Classroom motivation strategies
for prospective teachers. The Teacher Educator, 39: 212–230.
Wolfson, A., and M. Carskadon. 1998. Sleep schedules and daytime
functioning in adolescents. Child Development 69: 875–87.
Yair, G. 2000. Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction
affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research
Journal 26: 191–210.

8. Copyright of Clearing House is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.