Why Motivation Theory Is Absolutely Crucial to Educators

Part 3: SDT Provides Specific Answers

This is Part 3 of a Series. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Self Determination Theory (SDT) helps educators fill the gaps in our understanding in two broad ways: 1) providing specifics on what truly taps intrinsic motivation within our learners and 2) explaining and justifying why traditional carrot-and-stick instructional practices and systemic structures should be canned sooner rather than later. As mentioned in the earlier parts to this article, there are 3 elements to intrinsic motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness; these are not aspirational, they are psychological basic needs. Classrooms that support these student needs, referred to as autonomy-supportive environments (versus controlling environments), will find that intrinsic motivation, well-being, and high-quality learning will likely result.

So, what are some of the specifics we need to take from SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2022) that we can apply to our learning environments? Here are a few that I have gleaned:

• rewards, even when positive, often are detrimental to intrinsic motivation
• academic rewards tied to contingencies are demotivating; when these rewards are perceived to be coercive or intended to manipulate behavior, they dramatically decrease intrinsic motivation
• performance contingent rewards, where the best performers get the best reward and the worst get the least reward, are highly demotivating
• in the previous point, the worst performers are not the only ones demotivated; even those who receive the “best” rewards decrease in intrinsic motivation because they now become dependent on the extrinsic reward and become “ego-involved”; it is the talented students who often feel the controlling pressure from parents and educators
• informational feedback affirms success and is relevant to enhancing competence; in contrast, grades provide little competence-relevant feedback by merely letting students know where they stand relative to others; this focus can deter them from wanting to learn rather than facilitate greater effort or interest
• ALL people (learners) desire to be competent; continually receiving messages of incompetence (lower grades/scores) without a chance to achieve competence creates a needs-thwarting environment
• need-thwarting environments bring out self-focused, defensive, amotivated, aggressive, and antisocial behaviors (not all these behaviors come from the home environment)
• sometimes activities that initially started as intrinsically motivating can quickly shift to extrinsic and are then difficult to revert back
• feedback from tests needs to be informationally useful and formative for the process of learning; otherwise they are experienced as pressuring, judgmental, or focused on social comparisons
• high persistence is often a sign of being “ego-involved” as opposed to intrinsically motivated “task-involved”; much of what education classifies as motivated behavior is not intrinsically motivated at all
• similar to what we learned from growth/fixed mindset, those with ego-involvement (typically high achievers) take fewer risks in order to preserve status and avoid diving deep into learning with difficult challenges
• learner goals are motivating when tied to feedback where learners experience growth and efficacy without social comparison; in contrast, performance goals have many motivational risks and hazards, even when students are successful
• while option choice can be motivating, action choice more deeply reinforces intrinsic motivation

(For those who are interested,Ryan and Deci’s book listed in the resources below goes into greater detail and explains the research behind their findings).

A Closer Examination of Implementing Choice

Going deeper into all these points is too large for this discussion, so let’s focus on the last concept. Autonomy is one of the “nutrients” to intrinsic motivation. It is tempting to think that creating a choice board for learners is the solution. SDT explains that there are two kinds of choice: option choice and action choice. Their research shows that option choice can provide some increase in intrinsic motivation, but action choice has much greater impact.

For example, let’s contrast two approaches. One approach is create a choice board where learners choose from a list of different instruction and practice options, where the choice is based primarily on learner preference–option choice. A second approach provides learners with data identifying their specific deficiencies that prevent them from achieving full competence, then gives choices on how they can best address those needs. In this context, the latter method, action choice, can be a more powerful motivator.

This can help explain why choice did not fair well with Hattie’s Visible Learning meta-analysis. When option choice is the primary vehicle, impact on learning can be small. On the other hand, tying action-style choice to feedback loops for improving learning can be quite motivating (which Visible Learning does reinforce).

Does this mean we shouldn’t do choice boards? No, choice boards are a vital option! We need to remember that choice boards by themselves are not the end-all solution. Transitioning our instructional strategies from option choices to action choices with continual learner feedback is how to deeply motivate learners.

This is only one example which illustrates why a deep dive in understanding details of SDT is important. We need the details to understand how to motivate learners. Broadly telling teachers to incorporate autonomy, competence, and relatedness is not enough. It is time we put our academic carrot-stick rewards systems under the microscope and evolve to more intrinsically rewarding instructional processes.

This is Part 3 of a Series. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Resources

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2018). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. United Kingdom: Guilford Publications.