Series: Why Motivation Theory is Absolutely Crucial for Educators

Schools Find It Difficult to Change Without Compelling Reasons (and Even With Compelling Reasons)

When discussing the need for change in schools, educators can get in a rut of justifying current practice even when it does not deserve to be defended. That perpetuates status quo with little or no justification because it is the default. I remember one school where we looked articles pointing out the problems of traditional grading. One teacher approached me afterwards to ask, “What research definitively shows we should never use averaging and letter grades?” My first snarky inclination (but I held my tongue) was to retort, “What definitive research shows we SHOULD use averaging and letter grades?” We don’t seek definitive research to continue current, outdated practice.

It is not that questioning is wrong—just the opposite, we should question and examine all proposed changes. The problem is that some educators do not use these questions to discern the best instructional path, rather they use these questions more like an axe to the side of the ship to prevent launch…

The Journey to Understanding Motivational vs Behavioral Psych

…To be clear, SDT does not “replace” behavioral psychology. Understanding behavioral techniques continues to be important for educators and classroom management of student behaviors. But focus on behavior management often bled into a belief that compliance was the end goal to learner motivation.

The key point is this: as we learn more about intrinsic motivation, we begin to separate behavioral issues from learning/academic motivational issues. Viewing behavioral management as the same vehicle for all student motivation glosses over what we now know about intrinsic motivation. Separating the two also helps us to recognize when our academic rewards and systems are geared more for coercing learners’ behaviors rather than their true purpose: enhancing learning and motivation…

SDT Provides Specific Answers

…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…

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *