Tag: motivation

Let’s imagine that I — a 10th grade classroom teacher — want to motivate my students. I discover this list of motivational suggestions:

1. listen to students
2. give them time for independent work
3. provide time for students to speak
4. acknowledge students’ improvement
5. encourage their effort
6. offer them hints when they’re stuck
7. respond to their comments and questions
8. acknowledge students’ perspectives

Even better, I’m told that this list has RESEARCH behind it.

Before we dive in and adopt these suggestions, let’s pause for just a moment. Please look over that list and ask yourself: “if I were a student, would I feel more academically motivated if my teacher did any or all of those things?”

[I’m pausing here so you can review the list.]

Welcome back. If you like these suggestions, I’ve got some good news for you:

• This list DOES have research behind it, and
• That research, in turn, has a substantial theoretical perspective behind it.

For a few decades now, Richard Deci and Edward Ryan have developed self-determination theory: a theory of academic motivation that gets LOTS of love. The headlines sound like this:

“If we want to improve our students’ academic motivation, we should be sure that they feel

• AUTONOMY,
• RELATEDNESS, and
• COMPETENCE

in the classroom.”

Those three feelings — again: autonomy, relatedness, and competence — foster all sorts of good human outcomes, including academic motivation.

I have even better news. Unlike almost all psychology theories, self-determination theory uses these words in their everyday meaning. I don’t need to offer several paragraphs of translation to describe what Deci and Ryan mean by “autonomy.” They mean EXACTLY what you think they mean.

(This news might not sound like a big deal. But — trust me — in the world of cognitive psychology, few scholars offer clear terminology.)

I’ve described my three-word summary as “the headlines” of Deci and Ryan’s theory. But my blog title says that three words aren’t enough. What happens when we go beyond those three words?

Not So Fast

We should start by admitting that LOTS of people who talk about self-determination theory don’t get past these headlines. You’ll read SDT summaries that list and define those words, and then conclude with uplifting advice: “teachers — just go do that!”

Alas, I think even the headlines themselves raise pressing questions.

For instance: to my ear, “autonomy” and “relatedness” suggest two contrasting vibes. The words don’t exactly contradict one another — they’re not antonyms. But it’s easy to imagine a teaching strategy that INCREASES one but REDUCES the other.

For instance, let’s look at point #6 on the motivational list above: “offer struggling students a hint when they’re stuck.”

• On the one hand, that advice could certainly foster a sense of relatedness in the classroom.
  • A student might think: “I was struggling, and the teacher noticed and helped me. This is a great class!” This student didn’t precisely use the word “relatedness,” but that vibe is in the air.
• At the same time, offering hints might lessen another student’s sense of autonomy.
  • This student might think: “Does this guy think I’m completely helpless? I would have gotten it if he just left me alone. Sheesh.” So much for feelings of autonomy.

Let’s throw “competence” into this mix. If I offer a struggling student a hint, she might think:

• “Oh, wow — I can solve this problem now! I feel so happy an successful!” She exudes an aura of joyful competence. Or
• “Oh, wow — my teacher thinks I’m so hopeless that he has to offer me the answer on a platter. I must be the biggest loser in this class.” Her feelings of competence have clearly drained away.

Yes, you will hear “autonomy! relatedness!! competence!!!” offered as a formula to enhance student motivation. But I don’t think this formula — or ANY formula — works simply as a formula.

Reading the Fine Print

SDT’s emphasis on autonomy, relatedness, and comptence DOES provide an excellent place to start our pedagogical thinking. And, we need to keep going.

Each of the eight strategies listed above has been researched as a way to enhance student autonomy. Before we use any of them, however, I think we should stop and ask reasonable questions:

1. What are the potential conflicts here? Will this strategy enhance one of the Big Three, but harm another?
2. What are the individual differences here? Will this student respond to the strategy by feeling more competent, while that student responds by feeling more foolish?
3. What are the cultural differences here? Will students in — say — Korea find a particular autonomy strategy confounding while their counterparts in — say — Brazil find that same strategy encouraging? (To be clear: I’m being entirely speculative here. I don’t know enough about either of those cultures to even attempt an example.)

I’ll offer one more example, simply to emphasize the concerns that trouble me.

Strategy #2 says that we should “give students time for independent work.”

• On the one hand, what could possibly be more foundational to teaching. OF COURSE students need time to work on their own.
  • As a motivational benefit, all this independent work might make them feel autonomous and competent.
• On the other hand, students who lack appropriate prior knowledge could be overwhelmed and demotivated by all that time to work alone. What should they be doing? How do they do it?
  • Motivationally, they have no partner to rely on (so much for “relatedness”), and feel their own lack of skill all too forcibly (good bye “competence”).

In other words: if I worry that my students lack motivation, I shouldn’t simply look at that list and pick one that sounds uplifting and research-y. “Oh, yes, I’ll give them independent work time — they’ll feel more motivated!”

Instead, I should look at the list and ask myself those follow-up questions. In brief, does this uplifting and research-y teaching strategy fit my students’ current educational and motivational needs? Have I considered both upsides and downsides?

In fact: these concerns about self-determination theory point to a broader challenge that teachers face when trying to implement research-backed strategies.

The Bigger Picture

In writing this post, I am using self-determination theory as an example of a larger problem. Research and researchers certainly can — and should!! — offer classroom teachers practical guidance.

And: we should always filter that guidance with friendly-but-persistent questions:

1. How good is this research? How many studies arrive at roughly the same conclusion?
2. Will this guidance benefit MY students (not just someone’s students)?
3. Does the benefit over here create a problem over there?
4. Does the cost — in money and in time — outweigh the potential benefit?

And so forth.

In brief: let’s use research to inform our practice. And: let’s also commit to being educators who dig deeper and ask tougher questions. The best teaching happens not when we follow scripts and formulas, but when we think carefully about the unique circumstances and students in our classrooms.

---

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of educational psychology, 98(1), 209.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101860.

You are walking through a museum after closing time, peering into room after room.

You might be planning a heist. Or, you might be executing a heist.

Does that distinction — “planning” vs. “executing” — influence your memories of what you see and learn?

According to recent research: yup.*

Here’s the story…

Bring in the Big Words

Research isn’t research unless we use fancy latinate words to name things. So, let’s get that done:

This study’s authors posit a difference between motivational states: interrogative vs. imperative. (I’m sorry that those words are so alike; don’t shoot the messenger.)

According to this study, interrogative motivation links to

“broad attention and expansive information-seeking, which supports learning associations, developing cognitive maps, and, putatively, attaining future goals.”

That sounds REALLY GOOD, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, imperative motivation comes from a

“salient, urgent goal, yielding restricted information-seeking and memory that efficiently represents predictors of the imperative goal.”

So, this second motivation state focuses on predictors of the urgent (“imperative”) goal…but restricts memory more broadly.

For that reason, it’s not necessarily a bad motivational state — we want students to succeed at urgent goals! But it certainly sounds less aligned with most teaching and learning goals than the “broad attention and expansive information seeking” prompted by interrogative motivation.

So there we have it:

Interrogative = curious exploring to benefit future tasks

Imperative = urgent focus on current tasks

Let’s Get Thieving

Having established this distinction — interrogative vs. imperative — the researchers tested their idea with the museum heist story described above.

As you no doubt can see, people in the process of stealing paintings have a “salient, urgent goal”: steal the most valuable ones right now. That is: they’re in an imperative motivational state.

Those planning to steal paintings also want to get the good stuff; however, they have more time to explore, inquire, and double-check. They’re in an interrogative motivational state. (I am, of course, speaking from my own extensive experience of stealing from museums.)

So: does this cover story make any difference for the participants? According to the researchers’ (complex!) findings:

In the short term, those in an imperative motivational state (“steal now!”) did better — they stole more valuable paintings.

In the longer term — the next day — those in an interrogative motivational state (“plan now, steal later!”) REMEMBERED more of the paintings, and the information about them.

Cool, no?

Teaching Implications

At this moment, I’m switching from research summary to teacherly imagination. That is: the researchers don’t make the specific claims that I’m about to suggest.

But:

It seems to me helpful to remember that the narrative frameworks we offer our students matter.

If we tell them they’re learning this topic because THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT WITH IT RIGHT NOW, that imperative state will — sure enough — focus them on the most salient details.

And, if we tell they they’re learning the topic because THOUGHTFUL EXPLORATION WILL BENEFIT THEM DOWN THE ROAD, they’ll take more time to meander, explore, and muse. And: they’ll remember more.

Now — at times — that first strategy just might be the right one.

But I suspect that, more often, we want students to stroll through the museum and take it all in. That is: our students probably benefit from an interrogative motivational state more often than an imperative one — although imperative states also have occasional benefits.

Once More with the Caveats

Long-time readers know that I just have to add caveats.

First: this study is VERY new — published in mid 2023. I’ve looked at my standard resources (scite.ai, connectedpapers.com) and found literally NO related research.

In other words: this research approach is so new that others in the field haven’t had much time to process it officially yet.

Second: I think the research task might limit the applicability of the findings.

That is: “planning a museum heist” sounds cool/fun/intriguing — well, at least to me. So, I suspect the zest of the task might shape motivational states.

Will the distinction between “imperative” and “interrogative” motivation matter when the students are studying … say … finding the area under a curve?

Or: Boyle’s law?

Or: diphthongs, the subjunctive, and the infield fly rule?

We don’t know yet, because we haven’t researched this strategy in classrooms. (At least: as far as I know.)

TL;DR

Students use and remember information differently depending on the motivational framework they’re in.

When doing work framed as “urgent/imperative,” they focus on success critera (good!) but don’t remember much else (potentially bad!).

When doing work framed as “useful for the future,” they focus less on immediate success (potentially bad), but remember more information later (good!).

Teachers might (might!) be able to use this distinction in guiding our own students’ work.

 

---

*  This research study is behind a paywall; my write-up is based on a pre-print. I’d be surprised if the differences between the draft I read and the final version mattered, but it’s possible.

---

Sinclair, A. H., Wang, Y. C., & Adcock, R. A. (2023). Instructed motivational states bias reinforcement learning and memory formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(31), e2304881120.

Some research-based teaching advice requires complex rethinking of our work.

For instance:

We know that “desirable difficulties” like spacing and interleaving help students learn. At the same time, this strategy might require a fair amount of reorganization in our unit plans.

On the other hand, today’s suggestions could hardly be simpler. They go like this:

First: encourage students to use a straightforward self-talk strategy (see below).

Second: remind them frequently.

The likely result; they’ll learn more!

The First Step: A Self-Talk Strategy

Our students often know what they should do. But, they struggle to make themselves do it.

So many plausible excuses. So many reasons NOT to follow through!

Over two decades ago, researchers devised a remarkably simple way to redirect those excuses: “if-then” statements.

The strategy goes like this:

The student starts by setting a goal.

“I want to read 15 pages of the novel.”

She then lists the likely problems that could interfere with that goal.

“My dog could distract me.”

“I could get bored.”

“I could get a text.”

Next, she lists solutions to those likely problems — phrased as “if-then” statements.

“If my dog distracts me, then I’ll ask my brother to play with him.”

“If my phone buzzes, then I’ll turn it off and give it to my parents.”

We have good research suggesting that this “if-then” structure creates highly beneficial mental shortcuts.

At the moment of distraction, the student doesn’t have to decide what to do. She has already decided; she simply has to execute the plan she made for herself.

This strategy sounds too simple to work. But, we’ve got good research suggesting it does.

A Second Step: Well-timed Reminders

So far, this strategy could hardly be simpler. Students set goals, make “if-then” plans, and get to work.

A recent study asks a useful question: how often should teachers remind students about these “if-then” plans?

Here’s a useful analogy:

When you take a medication, you probably don’t take all of it all at once. Instead, you probably take one pill a day — or something like that. The whole course of medication is divided into doses.

Well, should teachers divide this strategy into doses? Does it matter how often we prescribe this study “medication”?

Researchers, led by Dr. Jasmin Breitwieser, explored these questions with medical students in Germany.

The details of the study get complicated quickly. But the headlines go like this:

Students in the control group set daily study goals, but did not make if-then statements.

Students in the study group also set daily goals, and “internalized” this statement:

If I am thinking about stopping [before I reach my goal], then I will tell myself that I will continue to answer questions until I have reached my intended workload!

Students in this second group got reminders on various schedules — as many as 3 days in a row, and as many as 3 days without a reminder.

So: what did the researchers find?

Results Please

First: Breitwieser’s team found that students who made the if-then commitments scored higher on the exam than those who didn’t. *

Second — an this is the big news: dosing mattered.

When students got several reminders in a row, they reached more of their goals.

When those same students got no reminders for 3 days in a row, they reached less of their goals.

In other words: if-then statements help students achieve — especially if they recommit to them frequently.

Teaching Implications

Teachers really struggle to help students find motivation in their school work.

This if-then strategy provides a remarkably simple way to help students achieve their own goals.

So, suggestion #1: teachers should take time to help students formulate these if-then statements.

Suggestion #2: one dose isn’t enough. We should have students return to these plans frequently.

The exact schedule will depend, I suspect, on your specific circumstances. It will be different for 1st graders, 5th graders, and 9th graders. It will be different depending on your school and your culture, and perhaps even your approach to teaching.

Based on other research pools, I suggest that the reminders be relatively frequent, but unpredictable. We don’t want our students going through this process by rote; they should engage with it as earnestly as possible each time.

If we get the dosing right, this simple strategy can help our students study more effectively — and therefore learn more.

---

* The difference was quite small: only 2 points. However, and this is a big however, the researchers worked with medical students preparing for a high-stakes exam. They are already highly successful and highly motivated students. I suspect we’ll see more dramatic effects for other groups of students.

---

Breitwieser, J., Neubauer, A. B., Schmiedek, F., & Brod, G. (2021). Self-regulation prompts promote the achievement of learning goals–but only briefly: Uncovering hidden dynamics in the effects of a psychological intervention. Learning and Instruction, 101560.