We conclude this special issue with our perspective on theoretical convergences and distinctions among the theories included in the special issue; how the theory article authors answered our questions on diversity, methodology, and motivation interventions; and sense of how the motivation field has advanced over the last 20 years. The convergences include multiple theorists holding the view that motivation is bidirectional and dynamic, that contextual influences on motivation are crucial, and that there are “hierarchies” of motivational beliefs rather than isolated, specific ones. Distinctions include the theories’ scope or range, constructs included in some theories but not others, breadth of antecedents influencing motivation, and consequences of certain processes (i.e., social comparisons) on motivational beliefs. We believe that each of the theorists discussed important ways in how their model incorporates diversity but argue that a consideration of how experiences of racism and discrimination impact motivation needs further consideration. Both commentators and theorists made interesting suggestions regarding methodologies to use as research on motivation moves forward. Theory article authors also documented the success of interventions based in their theories and several made good suggestions for next step interventions. Taken together, we strongly believe that the academic motivation field is in an excellent position to move past its current critical juncture and it will continue to make major advances in our understanding of students’ motivation.

我们以对本专刊中所包含理论之间的理论融合和区别的观点来结束本专刊。理论文章的作者如何回答我们有关多样性，方法论和动机干预的问题；以及过去20年中动机领域的发展情况。趋同包括许多理论家，他们认为动机是双向的和动态的，对动机的情境影响至关重要，并且存在动机信念的“层次结构”，而不是孤立的，具体的信念。区别包括理论的范围或范围，某些理论中所包含的构造而其他理论中没有的构造，影响动机的前因的广度以及某些过程（即社会比较）对动机信念的影响。我们认为，每个理论家都讨论了如何在其模型中纳入多样性的重要方式，但认为，关于种族主义和歧视经历如何影响动机的考虑需要进一步考虑。评论家和理论家都对有关动机研究的方法论提出了有趣的建议。理论文章的作者还根据他们的理论记录了干预措施的成功经验，其中一些人为下一步干预措施提出了很好的建议。两者合计，我们坚信学术动机领域处于超越当前关键时刻的良好位置，并且它将继续在我们对学生动机的理解上取得重大进展。