I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.
Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."
Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.
Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.
In response to the question “Should people motivated in different ways be taught in different groups”, I think that my answer would be no. There are many negative implications that coincide with adapting a teaching technique such as this. Like you said, what about all of the people in between high and low motivation? Also, shouldn’t we continue to motivate the high motivators to enjoy fun? This sounds weird, but reinforcing their overachievement could lead to them feeling how the behave is correct, when in reality a behavior like this will not be sufficient in the “real world” post school. I think the best way to deal with different learning styles would be to incorporate multiple different teaching styles in the classroom. I think that be having students work together in some areas and independently in others, the teacher could foster healthy competition as well as comradery which would help them to corroborate more and respect each other.
Reeve talks about competition and its effects on high and low need achievers. He talks about how competition promotes positive emotion, approach behavior, and improved performance in high-need achievers. In low-need achievers it promotes negative emotion, avoidance behaviors, and debilitating performance. Competition attracts high-need achievers because they enjoy demonstrating and proving their abilities (Reeve, 2009). This makes sense when you look at classroom settings because many people who are high-need achievers may see teaching techniques that are centered around fun as lacking a need for them to prove their skills, they see no reward for their achievement in the task (aside from having fun) and therefore will not try as hard. I do think that this speaks to many people. I know often in college courses I feel dismayed by the lack of actual work we do in class, a lot of the time teachers have small group discussions to fill time or simply lecture at the class for 50 minutes. These setting are not conducive to someone with a high need for achievement because these teaching techniques may foster thinking and discussion on important topics, but it lacks any sort of outcome that high-need achievers seek.