Talk:Self-determination theory/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"STD" mentioned in intro??? What.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"SDT and STD" This is the first time STD is mentioned in the article, it should at least be hyperlinked! For the record I cannot even find what this is, any way I search for it just turns up results for what this acronym is widely known as, Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Did someone make an error in writing that maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon822 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a vandal's edit from last June, now fixed. Thanks for spotting it! Just plain Bill (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you caught that error. The only definition that I know of for STD is "Sexually Transmitted Disease. It seems to be more correct now.--H.Aguirrre (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Could the article benefit perhaps from an extra section to provide a stronger balance of some sort? SDT is, after all, a theory, and therefore has been produced to explain the research (or vice versa?). In my opinion such a theoretical position should be balanced with others that stand as alternatives or that contradict, as well as referenced to research and other theories that support it. It may also be that SDT is so much a statement of fact at the current point that it is a theory only so far as to allow for future contradiction or refinement? I have only just come across SDT so would personally benefit from a greater contextualisation of it. LookingGlass (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found it hard to find critiques that explicitly mention SDT. Not sure whether that is because it's uncontroversial or too marginal or out the mainstream (I suspect, to some extent, the latter.). There's mainly been criticisms by Reiss and by Cameron et al, you could check those. I'm not qualified to judge on the merit of those criticisms. What is interesting however that there's seemingly not been much follow-up on those in the last decade or so: not sure wether that's because self-determination 'supporters' ignore the critics or because the scientific process has given the critics a good whooping. I have an inkling most attention isn't going to theories regarding innate needs nowadays or even explicitly motivation, but to cognition and goal engagement/disengagement.

--Frank Quist (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article needs to be more organized. The article has a lot of information that can be useful, but it doesn't seem to connect with each other. It seems to be jumpy and all over the place. The article is missing sources, but the overall organization probably needs some work.--H.Aguirrre (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am a student at Brigham Young University Idaho, and an assignment for my Adult Development class is to make a comment on a Wiki page in hopes of bettering articles and information alike. I took notice upon reading about this article how it lacks conciseness in the lead. It seemed rather jumbled, describing information on different topics almost in detail. There are other sections that also disorganized the lead. I feel if the lead is more organized and the article was structured to fit the lead, the article as a whole would attain a more fluid tone and decrease confusion for readers. Swoozie.ch (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In the Self Determination Theory summary paragraph, there is a sentence that seems out of place: "To this day, it may be difficult for a parent, coach, mentor, and teacher to motivate and help others complete specific tasks and goals." The statement comes out of nowhere and doesn't really connect well with the rest of the paragraph. In addition to that, I don't see any sources citing that this information is valid. I think it should either be removed or placed in a different part of the article where it can be expanded upon and sources can be added.NoahStubbs (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mini-theories that comprise SDT

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article hardly mentions the five mini-theories that comprise SDT and does not elaborate on them, and needs to be restructured.

In his 2012 article, Reeve lists the five mini-theories as basic needs theory, organismic integration theory, goal contents theory, cognitive evaluation theory, and causality orientations theory; the addition of goal contents theory seems to have been first proposed by Vansteenkiste, Niemec, and Soenens in 2010.

Anyone up for the challenge and care to split the work with me?

Barefootwriter (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) barefootwriter

I am a student at Brigham Young University-Idaho and we are studying the use of Wikipedia and as a student that benefits from research it would have been nice to read more elaborative descriptions of the mini theories. Knowing and understanding the mini theories can help students get a better understanding of SDT.--PsychmajorChick3 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References: Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer US.

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, v. 16A—The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 105-165). London: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

I am also a student at Brigham Young University- Idaho. I can help with improving this section of the page. Hannahsandall (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)