“Motivation is left, right and centre in learning. Self Determination Theory’s (SDT) is one of the main theories of motivation, and its two founders, Ryan and Deci, are number 6 and 16, respectively, on the list of the most cited researchers in the world. (They have a staggering 1 148 467 citations between them as of today.) Can SDT give us ideas for how to support students’ motivation to perform academically?” This is the start of Mattias Lundmark‘s guest post about an iEarth Journal Club article, and of course he will answer that question!
I have summarized a lot of iEarth Journal Club articles over time because they are always really interesting, but this time, Mattias was faster. Thanks for letting me share it here! Mattias continues:
We take a look at the paper “Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation” by Vansteenkiste, Lens & Deci (2006). The paper is longish, with a bit of terminology, so below is an attempt at a shorter description of the ideas in the text (with all errors and misunderstandings attributable to myself).
Welcome to Journal Club!
/Mattias
Why are you reading about SDT?
Perhaps you are motivated by interest and curiosity? Perhaps your teacher is making you read up on motivation theory? Maybe you hope to find out how to increase your own motivation? Or impress someone with your knowledge of psychology? Does it matter, as long as you do the reading? Self Determination Theory (SDT) acknowledges all these motivations, but suggest that some motivations tend to produce better outcomes than others.
The fundamentals of SDT
Humans have evolved to be proactive organisms, and naturally tend towards activities that allow us to grow, improve and master challenges. We are also social beings, and the social context can support or thwart our natural tendencies towards growth and mastery. From this, SDT suggests that people are driven by the psychological needs to experience 1) autonomy (feeling in control, being able to make choices); 2) competency (feeling capable, having/developing skills to succeed with a task); and 3) relatedness (caring and positive interactions with others). When these needs are met, numerous studies document that we tend to experience enhanced engagement, performance, persistence, creativity, and well-being as we engage in an activity. The motivation to fulfil these needs is termed intrinsic, i.e., doing something for the joy of the activity (the activity is the reward). If you read this text out of curiosity and interest, you are intrinsically motivated. However, motivation also comes in a second flavour. It can be extrinsic, i.e., for a goal other than the activity itself (activity as means to an end). If you read this to get better grades, to impress someone, or because you have to for some reason, you are extrinsically motivated. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can get you to study, but intrinsic motivation tends to lead to more engagement and increased well-being among the students (Deci and Ryan 1985). In other words, as teachers it may be a good idea to review our teaching to make it support autonomy, competency and relatedness as much as possible.
But hang on, there’s more! Imagine an activity that you do for fun. Let’s say you love to swim, so much so that you swim at least 4h each week! What if you were given a salary for swimming at least 4h per week? Would it be more fun, just as fun, or less fun? Studies have shown that the answer tends to be… less fun. In fact, studies suggest that chances are you will swim less! The motivations are not additive, instead intrinsic motivation, the joy you get from swimming, decreases when you add an extrinsic motivation (cf. Deci and Ryan 1985). Early studies took this to mean that extrinsic motivation always decreases intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, all tasks aren’t inherently interesting and rewarding, sometimes extrinsic motivation is the only way to go. Are we then doomed to ruin students’ intrinsic motivation for their subjects by grades and deadlines?
More SDT
Luckily, further studies gave a more nuanced picture. Extrinsic motivations that make you feel pressured and coerced, controlled, e.g., tangible rewards (money, grades), punishments, deadlines, and surveillance, do tend to decrease intrinsic motivation. At the other end of the spectra are extrinsic motivations that align with your goals and values, i.e., you may not like the task, but since you value the goals of the task, you engage willingly. This identification with the goals of the task gives a sense of autonomy that can let you retain, or even increase your intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Cornell 1989).
Let’s imagine a geoscience student taking an obligatory statistics course though they do not like statistics much. Since the course is obligatory, the student is extrinsically motivated to study to pass the exam (i.e., activity as a means to an end). In the first scenario, the student feels pressured and coerced to take the course; perhaps they will decide to study the bare minimum to pass the exam and forget what they learnt afterwards. They may even consider cheating. Alternatively, let’s say the student appreciates that the course is important for their goal of becoming a geoscientist and that the techniques, once mastered, will be useful in the future. Chances are the student engages with the material, tries to understand it, and may even grow to enjoy some of the work!
In the first case, the extrinsic motivation is perceived as controlling by the student, in the second autonomous. As illustrated above, they can have quite different effects on the learner! As teachers, when we have to rely on extrinsic motivations, we can emphasize those that support students’ sense of autonomy. This has been shown to promote creativity, higher achievement, deeper learning and decreased drop-out rates. Likewise, we can promote a social environment that supports autonomy, giving students choices as in “you can” rather than “you have to” (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).
Are all personal goals equal?
In the example above, SDT demonstrates the power of moving from “just do it, it’s obligatory/will be on the exam” to motivating students by emphasizing the relevance and importance of an assignment. But does it matter what kind of relevance we invoke? The SDT suggests that we can think of learners’ personal goals as extrinsic (e.g., fame, financial success, physical appearance) or intrinsic (e.g., personal growth, contribute to the community, health, relations). The former have an “outward” orientation and are concerned with external manifestations of worth, the latter are directly related to experience of autonomy, competency and relations. Studies indicate that people for whom intrinsic goals are more important tend to have higher life-satisfaction and self-esteem, better relationships, and less anxiety, prejudice and social-dominant attitudes. In education, framing the goals of an activity in intrinsic terms, e.g., motivate students to learn a physical activity to become healthy, rather than in extrinsic terms, e.g., to become more physically attractive, appears to lead to increased performance and persistence. It seems intrinsic goals tend to be more conductive to academic success and well-being (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).
Summing up SDT for student motivation
An educational environment that supports students’ experiences of autonomy, competency and relatedness will also support students’ motivation and success. In practice, teachers can build such an environment by supporting student initiatives and including students in teaching and learning decisions; providing opportunities for students to make meaningful choices (e.g., what to investigate and how to present the findings from an assignment); avoid using pressure and coercion to motivate behaviour and instead explain/demonstrate why an assignment is meaningful and important; give timely positive feedback and allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills (supporting competency); and promote a supportive, encouraging and inclusive social setting.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57, 749.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 41, 19-31.