Did you see the news on Steve Moseley and the Enquiring Minds project.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7909648.stm

and the Minimally Invasive Education project
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/MIE.html

You've misunderstood me.

First, the concept of flow is useful, just difficult to pin down and determine how one can have a goal of reaching flow if it is so difficult to operationalize.

Second, your statement, “I think we both share (as do most educators worldwide) a desire for students to be what you would term as 'intrinsically' motivated and be able to set goals for themselves.” is one with which I do not agree.

Your presumption that it is possible to be intrinsically motivated is incorrect. This is a false categorization. There is no such thing as intrinsic motivation.

While the book might be expensive, it is considered quite the authoritative text on motivation, which is a field much deeper than the intuition we so often rely on.

This may seem strong, Doug, but you have disposable income for gadgets, like netbooks and RAM. Buy this book and devour it, it will change your thinking more than any Internet resource or new gadget.

I only say that because we have an existing relationship, so if it sounds harsh, take it with the friendly tone with which I intend it.

Chris

Thanks for the book recommendation, but at almost £50 it's a little steep! I'll see if it's in the university library.

The words we use are, of course, imperfect when we try to grasp at something we call reality. If the concept of 'Flow' and the 'Autotelic Self' doesn't work for you, then that's fine. I think we both share (as do most educators worldwide) a desire for students to be what you would term as 'intrinsically' motivated and be able to set goals for themselves.

'Flow' is, by it's very nature, a difficult concept to pin down. But that doesn't mean it's not of use. Just because something can be measured doesn't make it measuring. In fact, I find the converse is usually true…

I think the motivational framework here is a bit off. I agree that flow is an interesting concept, although it is certainly hard to determine when one is there. Often, I find myself deciding I had reached flow once I've been brought out of it, usually abruptly.

Back to motivation, I disagree with your having used exotelic and autotelic. This is a repackaging of the whole intrinsic and extrinsic motivation idea.

The idea that someone learns for the pleasure of learning does not rule out the need for motivation. While I am not a behaviorist, there is something to be said for looking for the stimulus-response relationship here. I would argue that in fact, if the learning is a motivating activity, then the learning is in and of itself the stimulus. That's not intrinsic or autotelic, there is still a stimulus.

There are many theories of motivation out there that, many of which run absolutely counter to the false categorization of intrinsic/extrinsic or autotelic/exotelic.

Now, goal setting and mastery are a needed component, and I appreciate your including them. There are motivational theories that will tie together nicely what you know of Flow and what you mention here.

I dare you, nay, implore you, get this book

http://bit.ly/14Icmf

It's the text I used in my motivation course in my PhD program, and it is absolutely fantastic.

As always, just my two cents.

Chris