In this final inquiry post, I decided to look further into external factors that affect how children are motivated- specifically with relation to gender and socioeconomic status. One study that targets both these aspects is data collected by the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (from 1998-2010). The goal of this research was to understand the trajectories which lead to success or failure in the education system (Guay & Talbot, 2010). The longitudinal monitoring was comprised of 2,120 children who were followed annually from 5 months to 8 years, and then bi-annually until the age of 12. It has been found that the characteristics of students who do well in reading, writing, and mathematics is highly related to family, social, pedagogical, and individual factors. Thus, motivated students will have greater success in their schooling, compared with students who have the same level of cognitive skills, but lack motivation (Spinath et al., 2006).

An interesting approach to motivation that has not been discussed yet throughout my inquiry journey is the concept of “energy and direction” (Deci & Ryan,1985). According to this theory, motivation is comprised of the two dimensions- “energy,” which provides for a means of maintaining the behavior until a goal is attained, vs. “direction,” that gives meaning to the goal to be attained (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, if a student completes their reading of a text passage, the “direction” is to finish the reading. This compares to the “energy” which is attributed to either pleasure or promised reward (i.e. having extra playing time at centers). When referring to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the energy source becomes intrinsic when the student experiences pleasure and self-satisfaction upon completion of an activity. This contrasts with extrinsic motivation which occurs when the learning experience results in obtaining some type of reward, or avoiding a consequence (Deci & Ryan, 2002). In a study conducted by Lepper, Corpus and Iynegar (2005), it was discovered that if a student engages in school work with intrinsic motivation, the student will receive higher grades. However, if a student engages in school work as a result of extrinsic motivators, the lower his or her marks will be.

In order to measure the amount of intrinsic motivation and self-concept in Grade 1 and 2 students in the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, students were given a questionnaire at ages 7 and 8 to determine their likes/enjoyment of specific subjects. Thus, when comparing reading, writing, and mathematics, it was found that students had a high level of motivation for the former, but decreased in mathematics motivation between Grade 1 and 2. In terms of gender, it was discovered that boys had a higher level of motivation and felt more competent in mathematics compared to girls. In contrast, girls were more competent and had a greater sense of pleasure in reading and writing than boys (Guay & Talbot, 2010). Interestingly, however, girls and boys have the same level of success in mathematics, despite girls lower level of intrinsic motivation. Guay and Talbot (2010) state that this finding seemingly confirms the stereotype that math is for boys, and reading and writing is for girls. I am curious to know why these findings are consistent across the board in other studies? It would be an interesting endeavor to research further into this dichotomy. In addition, findings suggest that those students who come from a background of higher socioeconomic status have more intrinsic motivation for subjects, and feel more competent in reading and writing. However, contrary to this discovery, the study has determined that there is not a strong association present with socioeconomic status and gender in terms of intrinsic motivation and self-concept within the Grade 1 and 2 students in Quebec.