Tag: motivation

Self-Determination Theory, one of the most important theories of motivation, tends to operate behind the scenes.

That is: researchers often use self-determination theory to explain why something else works.

The theory itself argues that humans are motivated by a desire for three basic things.

Autonomy

Relatedness

Competence

Unlike many terms in psychology, those three mean exactly what you think they mean. So, “competence” means, basically, the feeling that I’m skillful at whatever I’m doing. “Relatedness” means, basically, “connected with others.” And so forth.

When giving teachers advice, researchers often turn to self-determination theory to explain why a particular set of suggestions might help students learn.

Goals and Feedback

Common sense tells teachers that we should make goals clear to our students. And, we should offer them specific feedback.

But, why might those two things help? Specifically, why might they promote motivation?

Researchers in Belgium and The Netherlands hypothesized that clear goals and specific feedback might encourage self-determination.

Specifically:

If I, as a student, know what the goals are, I can work more independently to achieve them. That will make me feel autonomous, and competent.

Likewise, specific feedback will allow me to work effectively–that is, competently.

And, of course, goals and (especially) feedback will increase my sense of relatedness with my teacher.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers worked with 500+ high school students taking PE classes. They surveyed them 6 times about their classes, asking about clarity of goals and feedback, and measuring their feelings of autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

What did they find?

(Too Much Of) A Good Thing

Sure enough, they found that clear goals and precise feedback helped students feel “in charge of their learning processes”: that is, autonomous.

They also felt more competent, and more connected and cared for.

In brief: goals and feedback can help students in a number of ways. In the world of motivation theory, they boost the three key components of self-determination theory.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this research puts an asterisk on that finding. While feedback helps, lots and lots of feedback reduces feelings of both competence and relatedness.

In fact, these findings make sense. If my teacher has to give me lots of feedback, the implication is that I’m not very good at what I’m doing–that is, not very competent.

And, that hovering might well feel irritating–reducing rather than increasing relatedness.

In other words, as is so often true, teachers have to apply research-based advice skillfully. We want to have clear goals and helpful feedback. And, we want to ensure that “helpful feedback” doesn’t tip over into excessive feedback.

Paradoxically, too much of a good thing can convert motivation into demotivation.

We want our students to learn. And: we want our students to want to learn.

So, the more we know about motivation, the better our schools will be.

Here’s one possibility: perhaps teachers’ beliefs about learning can motivate students. Or, sadly, demotivate them.

If that’s true, then we can un-de-motivate them — that is, we can MOTIVATE them — by realigning those beliefs.

Researchers in Germany wanted to explore this possibility.

Background Theory #1

Of course, psychologists have several theories about motivation.

In their work on Self-Determination Theory, for example, Edward Deci and Richard Ryan have argued that we’re motivated by a desire for three things:

Autonomy: that is, age-appropriate independence

Relatedness: that is, connection to other people

Competence: that is, the experience of effectiveness and even mastery

The German researchers focused particularly on the last of these: competence.

In schools, students probably feel competent when they get good grades. So, students who get bad grades need something else to feel some sense of effectiveness and mastery.

They might need a teacher who helps them see past grades to look at other parts of their development.

But, not all teachers will be able to see past grades. In particular, the researchers hypothesized that some teachers think success in math requires innate ability. If a student doesn’t have that innate ability, s/he just won’t learn very much math.

Teacher who focus on innate ability won’t bother to encourage students who get low grades.

But, teachers who don’t focus on innate ability will want to encourage students who get low grades. That encouragement might provide the feeling of competence that–according to Self-Determination Theory–provides motivation.

The Research, The Findings

To explore this causal chain, researchers investigated over 800 4th graders, taught by 56 different teachers across many different school.

If their hypothesis is correct, then students with low grades should feel less motivated IF their teachers think math requires innate ability. But, they should feel more motivated IF their teachers think it doesn’t.

And, students with high grades should feel motivated NO MATTER their teachers’ beliefs. (After all, their high grades provide a feeling of competence–which motivates by itself.)

Sure enough, that’s what the researchers found.

Because of the research methods, the results show up in particularly opaque stats-y language, so I don’t have graphs to post or comprehensible numbers to cite.

But the simple version is: students who struggle in math felt less motivation IF their teachers believed in the importance of innate ability than if their teachers didn’t.

Background Theory #2

The researchers don’t use the word “mindset” here. But, of course, you can see mindset theory all over this work.

At the most obvious level: the belief that success in math requires “innate ability” is itself about as fixed a mindset as we can get.

Of course, on the other hand, teachers who believe that math success doesn’t require innate ability presumably think students can improve. That’s a growth mindset.

I mention this point because: you have no doubt seen many stories in the last few months claiming that mindset theory is all-but dead.

As you’ve seen on this blog before: I think mindset theory is often badly used. (No: inspiring posters ain’t enough.) But, properly understood, it can be a powerful force for good.

Here’s an example:

If teachers accept mindset theory, they’re less likely to think that success in math requires innate ability.

And, according to this research, that means their struggling students will feel higher levels of motivation.

To me, that sounds like an easy win.

Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci & Richard Ryan, argues that people are motivated by a desire for three things: autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

(Here‘s a handy place to brush up on self-determination theory.)

This theory suggests that teachers can motivate students by creating lesson plans and classroom environments that promote all three.

As is always true, such broad categories identified by researchers might not be easy to translate into specific classroom practices that work for my students.

For example: What kind of metacognition is appropriate for 1st graders?

How, exactly, can I instill a growth mindset in high-schoolers? (I know: “process praise” in place of “person praise.” But what exactly does that sound like for a 16-year old?)

And: if I want to put self-determination theory to work, what precisely does autonomy look like in the classroom?

Of course, the answer to that question will be different for each of us. To get that conversation started, here‘s an article over at Edutopia listing a few strategies to promote classroom autonomy.

Some of these might be helpful for your students; some not. But, in any case, they’re a useful prompt for our own thinking about the appropriate kind of autonomy to motivate our own students.