Theoretical Framework
Self-Determination Theory
Solvegi Shmulsky
Reviewed by Jim Baucom, Alicia Brandon, and Ken Gobbo
January, 2008
Theories of Self-Determination
The will and freedom to act independently is implicitly valued in American conceptions
of adulthood. Western liberal arts programs, psychotherapy models, and psychology
theories define healthy adulthood in terms of independent, self-driven thought and action.
Aspects of Landmark College’s educational program center on the development of
autonomy in students, and self-determination theory has provided a theoretical
framework for this pursuit. The field of psychology holds two strands self-determination
theory, a motivational perspective and a disabilities perspective. Both focus on autonomy
as a core value and present models for what it looks like, how it develops and why it is
important. This paper describes both traditions of self-determination theory and situates
each among its contemporaries.
Philosophical background
Present day self-determination traces back to the philosophical debate between free will
and determinism. Philosophical determinism is the perspective that every event has a
cause, and causes of human’s behavior range from God’s will, to culture, and, most
recently, to the forces of biology (Drob, 2003; Tancredi, 2007). Hard determinists
emphasize a view of human behavior that is devoid of free will. For example, some
neuroscientists believe that the brain’s structure and chemistry are an inexorable
determinant of behavior, and that free will is best understood as an illusion (Tancredi,
2007). Minimizing or negating the existence of free will creates the moral question,
“how much responsibility does a person bear for her actions?” and this question has
occupied philosophers for centuries (Tancredi, 2007).
Soft determinists or compatibilists synthesize the opposing views that human behavior is
both free and caused. From this perspective, human behavior originates from causes
outside our control, like external pressure or biological forces, and is mediated by free
thoughts, wishes, desires and psychological motivations (Wilks, 2003). In this view, we
have real choice, but the weights of causes influence us too. Contemporary selfdetermination theory best fits in the compatibilist category.
It is useful to understand how psychology theories and commonsense theories answer the
free will versus determinism question because the answer has implications for practice.
1
An essential component of any theory of behavior is the assumption of the nature and
limits of control humans have over their own actions. Cognitive research shows that
thinkers are biased toward understanding causes as originating either in the person or the
environment (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995), and they tend to understand causes as either
controllable or uncontrollable (Weiner, 1985). One’s bias on the question of free will
influences her understanding of the self, students, the role of the educator, and the nature
and possible outcomes of education. Practices derived from a mixed sense of free will
and determinism risk being muddled and conflicting. Self-determination theories
recognize environmental influence over behavior, but, as their name suggests, they lean
toward a free will perspective (Wehmeyer, 2004).
There are at least two separate contemporary iterations of self-determination theory in
psychology with distinct theoretical structures, research histories, and implications. Both
posit that the self can and should be where behavior originates. Deci and Ryan’s
formulation of self-determination is a motivation theory which overlaps self versus otherdeterminism with intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Wehmeyer’s model of selfdetermination is a personality theory based on disability research. It describes selfdetermination as a disposition that individuals have in varying degrees. The next section
describes the theories of Deci & Ryan and Wehmeyer.
Deci and Ryan
Motivation theories focus on the underlying drives that energize behavior. “Motivation
concerns energy, direction, persistence and equifinality – all aspects of activation and
intention” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 69). Deci and Ryan’s theory of self-determination is a
view of motivation that articulates and accounts for human psychological needs and their
relationship to different types of motivation. According to this perspective, human
beings have underlying, universal psychological needs for competence, autonomy and
relatedness, and are naturally energized or motivated to meet these needs. Meeting these
needs leads to greater self-determination, psychological health, creativity and
productivity (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 76).
The specifics of Deci and Ryan’s model are detailed but not complex. In their
formulation, four motivation continua occur parallel to one another: self and other
determination, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, internal and external regulation, and
internal and external locus of control. “Self-determined” refers to behaviors, not to
persons, and it follows that individuals differ in when, how and how often they engage in
self-determined action. Behaviors that are intrinsically motivated, internally regulated,
and perceived as internally caused are “self-determined.” Behaviors that are extrinsically
motivated, externally regulated, and understood as being caused by outside factors are
“nonself-determined.” Deci and Ryan assert that it is important to promote the “selfdetermined” side of their continua in order to enhance well-being. See below for a
diagram of the model.
Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Continuum
2
Behavior
Non-self-determined
Self-determined
Type of
Motivation
Amotivation
Type of
Regulation
Non-regulation
External
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Integrated
Regulation
Intrinsic
Regulation
Locus of
Causality
Impersonal
External
Somewhat
External
Somewhat
Internal
Internal
Internal
Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic
Motivation
“The self-determination continuum, showing the motivational, self-regulatory, and perceived locus of causality bases of
behaviors that vary in the degree to which they are self-determined” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 237).
Intrinsic motivation refers to the energy to do something that is inherently enjoyable or
fulfilling. When a person is intrinsically motivated, time passes quickly and the person
feels energized and engaged. This is similar to the “flow” state that can occur while
doing activities that have the optimal balance of interest and challenge (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990). While it would be ideal to have intrinsic motivation for every task, the reality is
that work and school make demands that are not inherently enjoyable sometimes. Deci
and Ryan’s theory explains how one could experience a sense of self-determination while
doing tasks that the environment requires.
In Deci and Ryan’s model, there are several types of regulation that fall under extrinsic
motivation. On one end of the continuum, lies external regulation. In this case, the
individual’s behavior is in place solely because of demands outside the self. The self
neither reflects on nor endorses the action. An example would be painting a picture for
an art course because your grade is at stake, but experiencing neither fulfillment nor
value in the process. The grade is the motivator and the painting is instrumental. At the
other end of the extrinsic motivation continuum lie two forms of internal regulation,
named identified regulation and integrated regulation. This is the important place where
extrinsic motivation shifts toward an interior, self-determined place.
In identified regulation and integrated regulation, the actor has internalized the goals or
rules of the environment to such a degree that they become part of her sense of her self.
The person engages in and freely endorses a behavior that supported by extrinsic
motivators. For example, a student may spend hours to finish a painting for her portfolio.
She is doing the work because the teacher and the deadline require a product; however,
she has internalized the value of the work and has committed to it freely. In this case, she
is not intrinsically motivated, because she would not paint the picture for pure enjoyment,
but she values the task and brings her full self into its execution. Not engaging in the
action would feel like a violation of self as well as a divergence from outside expectation.
This model suggests that one goal for Landmark is to move students toward identified
and integrated regulation as they do work that is emotionally, cognitively and physically
challenging.
3
Research Supporting Deci & Ryan’s Model
Education research supports a connection between academic performance and autonomy
or self-determination. In correlation designs, investigators compare students’ scores on
measures of autonomy with scores on other variables of interest. High scores in
autonomous motivation are associated with indicators of academic success, such as,
overall achievement, perception of competence, positive emotionality, creativity and
retention (Reeve, 2002, p. 184). The weakness of correlation designs is that they cannot
identify causes and effects, and possible explanations for the relationships above are that
academic success causes autonomy, autonomy causes academic success or a third
variable causes both. To address the question of cause, researchers use experimental
methods and at least a dozen controlled studies have found that students achieve more
with teachers who support student autonomy than with teachers who are controlling
(Reeve, 2002, p. 184). Autonomy is a central idea in Deci and Ryan’s model, and
research that links autonomy to desired outcomes can be seen as supporting selfdetermination.
Self-determination research has been conducted outside education in areas as diverse as
physical fitness, smoking cessation, and post-operative rehabilitation to name a few.
Forty percent of the first 120 “self-determination” articles on the Ebsco database
Academic Search Premier in November, 2007 were on physical fitness or a related health
topic. While these results do not support a self-determination perspective in education,
they do testify to the wide popularity and usefulness of the concept.
Alternative Theories and Research
Deci and Ryan’s formulation of self-determination is one motivation theory among
several in educational psychology. Other perspectives and models include: Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs, Pintrich’s theory of Self-Regulation, and Weiner’s attribution
theory. Maslow’s theory categorizes human needs and ranks them from the most basic to
the most advanced. An enduring concept from Maslow’s hierarchy is the principle that
human beings are driven to meet their more basic needs, for food, sleep, safety, and other
physical requirements, before they are able to turn toward the higher order needs for
achievement, social networks, and creativity. While Maslow’s work may seem “quaint,”
it does capture how a student with insomnia or a noisy, late-night roommate will have
difficulty engaging meaningfully in academics.
Another well-regarded perspective on motivation is Paul Pintrich’s model of SelfRegulated Learning, which suggests that individual differences in self-regulation can
explain why students with similar skills vary in academic performance. Self-regulation
happens in stages, first the learner previews and thinks ahead, then she monitors her
motivation and strategy-use while controlling her behavior, finally, she reflects on and
judges her performance. The stages of self-regulation look much like executive
functions, and Pintrich’s research shows that better self-regulators perform better in
school (Schunk, 2005). While this theory may be more mechanistic and less spiritually
4
appealing than Deci and Ryan’s, it does concentrate on a critical aspect of learning and
work production, especially for students with attention disorders.
Attribution theory is a cognitive-motivation perspective that shows the relationship
between causal thinking patterns and emotional and behavioral states like motivation and
persistence or learned helplessness, depression and low self-esteem. When negative
events happen, like failing a test or getting into an argument, it is normal to think about
why it happened. Research has shown that the kinds of things one tells oneself after a
negative event can enhance or limit future motivation (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995).
There is a long and wide history demonstrating the correlation between attribution style
and well-being variables like, academic achievement, depression, longevity, immunity,
and crime recidivism (Schulman et al, 1995; Fresco et al, 2007; Brummet et al, 2006;
Brennan & Charnetski, 2000; Maruna, 2004). Attribution theory is important to
Landmark because it gives a theoretical account for the relationship between failure and
motivation deficits, and it suggests ways to minimize the negative effects of failure.
Understanding theories of motivation is useful for anyone whose work involves human
change. Education, whether in a classroom, counseling office or on the job, demands
change, and motivation is the energy that charges persistence and hard work. The field of
educational psychology offers multiple views of motivation, and each is both useful and
limited. It is our job to consider different perspectives and identify where and how each
can help. The next section departs from motivation theory, which emphasizes the “why”
of human behavior, to look at self-determination as a personality theory.
Wehmeyer
Wehmeyer’s theory construes self-determination as observable personality characteristics
that individuals possess to varying degrees (Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug & Stancliffe,
2003). In this tradition, self-determination is “a combination of skills, knowledge, and
beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous
behavior. An understanding of one's strengths and limitations together with a belief in
oneself as capable and effective are essential to self-determination” (Field, Martin,
Miller, Ward & Wehmeyer, 1998, p.115). While this definition may seem like an
obvious statement of Western adulthood, its tenets make sense considering its research
history. This strand of self-determination theory was developed as both a philosophical
underpinning and education practice for students and adults with intellectual disabilities.
The original targets of the theory were individuals viewed as under-equipped to act as
independent agents in society whose backgrounds were marked by others doing and
deciding for them. Wehmeyer’s self-determination theory attempts to shift the ground of
disability education by making autonomy for individuals with disabilities a practical
possibility as well as a moral imperative.
In Wehmeyer’s formulation, actions are self-determined when they are: autonomous,
self-regulated, psychologically empowered, and self-realizing (2003). To make the
definition of self-determination more concrete, Wehmeyer formulated a list of skills that
5
make up self-determined behavior called “component elements of self-determined
behavior.” These elements include choice-making skills, problem-solving skills, and
goal-setting and attainment skills. See below for the complete list of component
elements. In addition to describing self-determined behavior, the theory identifies four
factors that influence the emergence of self-determination which are individual capacities
including IQ and development, individual perceptions and beliefs, opportunities in the
environment, and supports and accommodations in the environment (Shogren et al,
2007). Wehmeyer’s model emphasizes the role of the environment in nurturing selfdetermination, and this presents an interesting paradox, which is that the emergence of
self-determination is, at least partially, environmentally or culturally determined.
Component Elements of Self-Determined Behavior
Choice-making skills
Decision-making skills
Problem-solving skills
Goal-setting and attainment skills
Independence, risk-taking and safety skills
Self-observation, evaluation and reinforcement skills
Self-instruction skills
Self-advocacy and leadership skills
Internal locus of control
Positive attributions of efficacy and outcome expectancy
Self-awareness
Self-knowledge
(Wehmeyer et al, 2003, p. 179)
Research Supporting Wehmeyer’s Model
A 2007 meta-analysis of self-determination research synthesized the findings from 31
published studies in order to present current knowledge about self-determination
(Chambers, Wehmeyer, Saito, Lida, Lee & Singh). To be included in the analysis, each
study had to include a global measure of self-determination to investigate high school
students with disabilities, including intellectual disability, emotional/behavioral disorders,
autism, and learning disabilities. Fourteen descriptive studies found that selfdetermination is associated with higher quality of life for individuals with disabilities;
that IQ predicts self-determination, and that less-restrictive environments are associated
with higher levels self-determination (Chambers et al, 2007). While these provide
support for the importance of self-determination, they do not establish the causal
relationship among variables. It is possible, for instance, that more cognitively capable,
self-determined people are able to live in less restrictive environments and not that the
environments caused self-determination to emerge. Fewer studies, 10 in all, used
experimental methods sufficient to draw conclusions about cause and effect. In all 10
studies, participants who received programming meant to foster self-determination earned
higher scores in some aspect of self-determination. These results indicate that the
6
environment does influence the development of self-determination, and this is important
because it means that Landmark College’s attempts to enhance self-determination could
work (Chambers, et al, 2007).
Wehmeyer’s self-determination personality theory is useful because it unpacks several
observable characteristics that make up self-determination. Having these characteristics
in mind can help educators recognize self-determination when they see it and think about
ways to nurture its development. A downside to Wehmeyer’s model is its history and
connection to intellectual and other severe disabilities. Individuals with learning
disabilities and ADHD are less impaired than many of the participants in this selfdetermination literature. While refusing to assign relative levels of marginalization for
oppressed groups may be abstractly ethical, we should still attend to the practical
consideration of our students’ identity development. It is possible that associating LD
and ADHD with intellectual disability or mental retardation, even in an indirect manner,
could be threatening or counterproductive to an individual who is incorporating her
learning difference into her self-concept. Similarly, aligning with a theory that has a
strong disability background could alter Landmark College’s identity both inside and
outside.
Alternative Research and Theory
Wehmeyer and Deci and Ryan’s theories are both called “self-determination” and they
share the underlying value of autonomy, but they are located in different niches of
academia and they do not refer to one another. Deci and Ryan’s theory comes from a
motivation perspective, it is written to apply to all people, and it focuses on the internal
states of motivation. Wehmeyer’s theory comes from a disability-education perspective,
it advocates for changing the way those with disabilities are educated, and it emphasizes
the role of the environment in facilitating self-determination. These two perspectives
agree that it is important for environments to nurture autonomy, but they each point to
different practical recommendations. From Deci and Ryan’s perspective, the
environment should encourage self-determination by meeting human needs for
competence, autonomy and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). From Wehmeyer’s
perspective, the environment should facilitate self-determination by offering students
opportunity to make choices, by providing students with accommodations based on their
profiles, and by giving students support as they become more self-determined (2003).
Other versions of self-determination theory come from a special education perspective.
Abery and Stancliffe’s “Ecological Theory of Self-Determination” emphasizes the
context within which self-determination manifests (Abery & Stancliffe, 2003). This is an
important perspective for educational systems since the environment is more controllable
than the internal characteristics of students. Mithaug’s “Self-Determination as a Function
of Self-Regulation” overlaps self-regulation theory and self-determined learning theory
(Mithaug, 2003). And, Wehemeyer’s “Causal Agency Theory” attempts to escape the
confusion and multiple meanings around self-determination by creating new theoretical
terms (Wehmeyer, 2004). While it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider these
7
theories, their presence alone shows that much academic work has been directed toward
understanding self-determination.
Development and Self-Determination
Concepts in adult development theory and self-determination look similar, so it makes
sense to look at how they fit with one another. According to development theory,
individuals should and do become more autonomous with age, but the process unfolds
slowly and cannot be “taught.” Self-authorship is a developmental concept that is related
to self-determination. It means, “the capacity to author, or invent, one’s own beliefs,
values, sense of self and relationships with others” (Baxter Magolda, 2002, p. 3). Baxter
Magolda has found that self-authorship may emerge by the end of college, but often not
until later in adulthood if at all (2002). In Chickering and Reisser’s Seven Vectors of
Psychosocial Development, autonomy of thought, feeling and action gets sturdier in
college, but is not typically in place at the start of college. In King and Kitchener’s
intellectual development model, internal authority develops slowly during college and is
not fully developed even by senior year (2004). Development focuses on autonomy like
self-determination theory does, but it takes a longer view on its emergence.
One way to synthesize these two theoretical traditions is by using development as the
framework for understanding normal college transformations and their variability, and
using self-determination as the source for practical strategies to support autonomy.
Development theory can explain individual differences in the readiness of students to be
self-determined; it suggests temporary ceilings on autonomy; and it can explain why selfdetermination practices seem to work for some students and abandon others.
Developmental knowledge leads to patience and reasonable expectations for the
emergence of independent and autonomous behavior. Self-determination theory pinpoints
a key facet of adult development; it suggests practical methods to support development;
and it reinforces the humanity and integrity of individuals with disabilities.
Relevance
The importance of autonomy for a healthy adulthood is a theme that runs through the
college student development and self-determination literatures. The question, “When
does a self-determination approach support development and when does it abandon
students?” has been spoken again and again on campus. Faculty, advisors and
administrators at Landmark can experience internal and external confusion over how
much independence to ask of students. Encountering self-determination theories makes
visible the challenge inherent in knowing how to share with students the responsibility
for their education. One solution is focus on the unique personalities, development, and
learning styles of individuals while also seeking the centering and coherence a theory can
provide. The reality of variation and adaptation is balanced with the impulse for unity.
The role of the framework is to create understanding about where students are and to
8
project reasonable places for forward movement, and the role of experiential knowledge
and observation is to calibrate expectations based on the individual.
Autonomy, self-authorship or self-determination are parsed differently depending on their
theoretical traditions, and they range from qualities that unfold developmentally, to basic
needs that drive behavior, to personality dispositions. While theories can be useful even
when they do not fit together in a grand scheme, it is important to notice the questions
they raise about one another. Looking at self-determination and development theories
together leads to questions about the timetable and teachability of autonomy, particularly
for individuals with disabilities who may experience development in different ways or at
a different pace than their peers. While it is necessary to reflect on our guiding models, it
is not necessary or even preferable to buy into any single framework completely, because
each has its own uses, appeal and limitations.
References
Abery, B.H. & Stancliffe, R.J. (2003). An ecological theory of self-determination. In
Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice. (2003).
Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, Stancliffe, (Eds). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, LTD.
Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M. & Palmer, S. (2006). Participation of students with
moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effect of the selfdetermined learning model of instruction. Research and Practice for Person’s
with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 230-241.
American Psychological Association (2004). Increasing student success through
instruction for self-determination. Retrieved 11/7/07 from:
http://www.psychologymatters.org/selfdetermin.html
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2002). Helping students make their way to adulthood: Good
company for the journey. About Campus, 2-9.
Brennan, F.X., & Charnetski, C.J. (2000). Explanatory style and immunoglobulin A
(IgA). Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35(4), 251-255.
Brummet, B.H., Helms, M.J., Dahlstrom, W.G. & Siegler, I.C. (2006). Prediction of allcause mortality by the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory optimismpessimism scale scores: Study of a college sample during a 40-year follow-up
period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 81(12), 1541-1544.
Buchanan, G.M. & Seligman, M.E.P. (1995). Explanatory style. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
9
Chambers, C.R., Wehmeyer, M.L., Saito, Y., Lida, K.M., Lee, Y. & Singh, V. (2007).
Self-determination: What do we know? Where do we go? Exceptionality, 15(1),
3-15.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination research.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Drob, S.L. (2003). Fragmentation in contemporary psychology: A dialectical solution.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(4), 102-123.
Fresco, D.M., Rytwinski, N.K. & Craighead, L.R. (2007). Explanatory flexibility and
negative life events interact to predict depression symptoms. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology 26(5), 595-608. Retrieved from Academic Search
Premier 8/20/07.
King, P.M. & Kitchener, K.S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the
development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational
Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.
Maruna, S. (2004). Desistance from crime and explanatory style: A new direction in the
psychology of reform. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 184-200.
Mithaug, D.E. (2003). Evaluating credibility and worth of self-determination theory. In
Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice. (2003).
Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, Stancliffe, (Eds). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, LTD.
Pomerance, M. (1976). The United States and self determination: Perspectives on the
Wilsonian conception. The American Journal of International Law, 70(1), 1-27.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Deci, E.L.
& Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
The University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:
Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of
Personality, 74, 1557-1586.
Schulman, P., Seligman, M.E.P., Kamen, L.P., Butler, R.P., Oran, D., Priest, R.F. &
Burke, W.P. (1990). Explanatory style as a predictor of achievement in several
domains. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. In Explanatory
10
style. (1995). Buchanan & Seligman, (Eds). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Schunk, D.H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: the educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.
Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 85-94.
Shogren, K.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., Palmer, S.B., Soukup, J.H., Little, T.D., Garner, N. &
Lawrence, M. (2007). Examining individual and ecological predictors of selfdetermination of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children,
73(4), 488-509.
Shogren, K.A., Wehmeyer, M.L., Buchanan, C.L. & Lopez, S.J. (2006). The application
of positive psychology and self-determination to research in intellectual disability:
A content analysis of 30 years of literature. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 338-345.
Tancredi, L.R. (2007). The neuroscience of “free will.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law,
25, 295-308.
Wehmeyer, M.L. (2004). Beyond self-determination: Causal agency theory. Journal of
developmental and physical disabilities, 16(4), 337-359.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Abery, B.H., Mithaug, D.E. & Stancliffe, R.J. (2003). Theory in selfdetermination: Foundations for educational practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Wilks, D. (2003). A historical review of counseling theory development in relation to
definitions of free will and determinism. Journal of Counseling and Development,
81, 278-284. Retrieved 11/19/07 from Academic Search Premier.
Additional Resources
Getzel, E.A. & C. A. Thorma (2006). Voice of experience: What college students
with learning disabilities and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders tell us are
important self-determination skills for success. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 14(1): 33-41.
Konrad, M., Fowler, C.H., Walker, A.R., Test, D.W., & Wood, W.M. (2007). Effects of
self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2): 89-113.
11