Comments on Integration, Theory Conflicts, and Practical Implementations: Some Contrarian Ideas for Consideration

The ideal of theoretical integration in motivational approaches to education is worthy, but in this commentary, I raise some (semi)contrarian concerns about both the meaning of theoretical integration and how that occurs. Integration is more than an aggregation or combination of measures but rather involves synthesis into a framework with theoretic and meta-theoretic integrity. Across disciplines and fields of inquiry, the development of science largely happens within theories and at their boundaries. Integration in practice (e.g., interventions) raises different issues, mainly concerning the coordination of elements that may address different classroom issues, and therefore can stem from multiple models and theories. I also describe the common direction and progress of motivational psychology over the past several decades, albeit with some “jingle –jangle” trends muddying our conceptual waters. Yet contrary to the view that it is our multiple perspectives that confuse teachers, I argue that confusion more centrally lies in the wide gap between our generally student-centered theories and public policies and institutional norms that hinder their implementation and their integration into practice.