Increasing Student Motivation – The Teacher’s Role

Student behaviour, as we have gathered, is something that I am intensely interested in. One of the many aspects of behaviour that I wanted to delve into was concerning student motivation. More specifically, I wanted to discuss the teacher’s role of fostering and increasing intrinsic motivation in their students. 

“If they don’t have the intrinsic motivation, then what is the point? They aren’t bothered to do X, Y and Z, so why should I bother putting my time into those students?”  

The above quote I have taken (paraphrased) from a conversation I had with somebody outside of my current school environment. They had a very strong opinion on student motivation and seemed to have a slightly fixed mindset as they felt that they could not (or perhaps would not) change the motivation of their students. As much as I admit that in teaching, some factors are certainly out of our control, I have a different opinion on student motivation. I believe that teachers CAN change their students’ attitude and motivation towards their education, with the research being fairly positive in light of this. After all, I certainly did not have much motivation for my own education in my early years. However, I would say that I am a living breathing product of someone who has had their life changed by a teacher, so much so, I became one myself. I now consider education as one of life’s biggest privileges.  

Motivation first became an interest of mine when I read Daniel Pink’s “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us: “. Pink explains that intrinsic motivation concerned the autonomy, mastery and purpose of individuals, and if we focus on these three concepts, motivation can be improved in a wide range of settings. With some references to Pink, but also research in the domains of education, I aim to discuss some of the interesting findings in this area. 

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation 

Motivation is “the process whereby goal directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece 2002). When delving deeper, researchers have aimed to separate understanding into two types of motivation - intrinsic and extrinsic (Barry & King, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is understood to be when people will complete activities or enact certain behaviours “for their own sake” and for the purposes of their own interests or enjoyment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Morris et al. 2022). In comparison, extrinsic motivation concerns more external influences on behaviour, for instance completing an activity for a reward rather than for an inherent satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Morris et al. 2022).  

Intrinsic motivation has been found to improve student engagement and performance (Morris et al. 2022). For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Taylor et al. (2014) found that students in a multitude of different countries were more likely to achieve better in school if they had higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Morris et al. 2022). However, interestingly this seemed to decline in later years, with schools lacking support in fostering motivation in students that were towards the end of their formative years (Gnambs & Handstingl 2016; Morris et al. 2022).  

Self-Determination Theory  

Like many areas of psychology, research has rapidly changed and developed in the area of motivation and this has led to developments and additions to our understanding of what motivates individuals. For instance, motivation of individuals is now predominantly linked with a wider psychological framework of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci 2017; Morris et al. 2022). Self-determination theory (SDT) places emphasis on the inherent need and propensity for learning, growing and succeeding (Ryan & Deci 2017). It is important to note however, there are certain psychological needs that support these internal tendencies and if these are not satisfied, healthy development cannot take place (Ryan et al. 2019). 

It is understood that there are three fundamental needs to support motivation: 

• Autonomy: feeling a sense of initiative and ownership in one’s life 

• Competence: feeling that mastery of something, success and personal growth is possible 

• Relatedness: feeling a sense of purpose, belonging and connection

  
  

Research has indicated huge positive outcomes as a result of fostering autonomy in the classroom (Morris et al. 2022). Studies like those by Skinner et al. (2017) on STEM students revealed improvements in academic performance, course engagement, and students' positive self-identification as motivated individuals and aspiring scientists. This narrative expands to teacher behaviour, with those who have ‘autonomy-supportive’ classrooms are more likely to experience higher intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and self-esteem (Morris et al. 2022). It is further argued that these ‘autonomy-supportive’ classrooms, twinned with adequate structure, allow for student autonomy, relatedness and competence to thrive (Ryan & Deci 2017).  

I think it is important here to address what an ‘autonomy-supportive classroom’ is. It appears that reading the literature, there has been a wealth of studies conducted on teacher behaviour and pedagogy that highlights certain characteristics of an ‘autonomy-supportive classroom’. Rather than explaining these characteristics in-depth, I have listed these below with each study that has been conducted: 

• Students can take ownership and initiative over their work 

• Teachers respond to students’ questions and thoughts, with meaningful rationales being provided 

• Provision of choice, allowing for curiosity to spark in students thinking 

• Students’ interests are acknowledged and responded to 

• Teachers acknowledge student improvement and mastery 

• Teachers provide clear expectations and provide consistency in rules 

• Teachers adequately scaffold and support students 

Studies collated from a review by Morris et al. (2022)

Studies have shown a clear link between teacher observations of each of these characteristics and improvements in intrinsic motivation (Vansteenkiste et al. 2012). It is argued that the autonomous and structural nature of the teaching is allowing for greater increases in the psychological needs highlighted in SDT (Morris et al. 2022). While it's evident that autonomy-supportive teaching enhances student autonomy, the structure and support provided by the teacher also bolster students' sense of relatedness and competence (Morris et al. 2022).  

Reading the research, it appears there may even be scope for ‘autonomy-supportive’ classrooms, coinciding with appropriate structure, allows for increased satisfaction and well-being in both teachers and students (Ryan & Deci 2020). Ryan & Deci (2020) discusses a range of these studies, finding that ‘autonomy-supportive’ classrooms: 

• Increase student school satisfaction and subjective well-being (Tian, Chan & Huebner 2014) 

• Increased engagement and greater need satisfaction (Reeve & Lee, 2014) 

• Lower symptoms of anxiety and depression (Yu et al. 2016)  

• Greater self-regulation and lower anxiety (Vansteenkiste et al. 2012) 

• Well-being improvements during education transitions (Ryan et al. 2017) 

• Led to improved teacher empathy and teacher self-efficacy (Assor et al. (2009) 

• Reduced violence, improved behaviour & improved school culture (Assor et al. 2018) 

Despite the positives outlined above about increasing autonomy in the classroom, there is agreement that autonomy-supportive teaching is not always practically feasible (Ryan & Deci 2020). For example, time constraints, resources & curriculum planning are potential barriers to effective implementation of this autonomous style of teaching (Ryan & Deci 2020). Furthermore, it is important to note that teachers were found to be more likely to be autonomously motivated if they had experienced students who were autonomy-supportive (Klassen et al. 2012). It was further found that teachers who experienced more satisfaction of the need relatedness, were more likely to be engaged and have experienced lower levels of emotional exhaustion (Klassen et al. 2012). Lastly, it appears that senior leadership and administration can act as a catalyst or barrier for fostering an autonomy-supportive classroom (Pelletier et al. 2002). Controlling accountability processes and certain school policies from senior leadership can lead to less scope for autonomy-supportive teaching, as can controlling administration (Pelletier et al. 2002). It therefore might be suggested that students, leadership and other staff members can act as a barrier to implementing autonomy-supportive teaching, leading to potential decreases in the psychological needs required in SDT (Pelletier et al. 2002; Deci & Ryan 2020). 

Conclusion 

Thinking back to the conservation I had with the teacher who seemed inflexible with the idea of fostering intrinsic motivation in students, I considered if my view might change once I had read the research. However, reading the literature, I still stand firm on my view that intrinsic motivation can be changed in students. After all, research into SDT seemed very positive, with plenty of studies outlining the benefits of considering autonomy, relatedness and competency in teacher's practice. For example, the improvements in performance alone were a strong indicator of its potential. However, the benefits to mental wellbeing even further supported this view, with students having less anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as improved whole school behaviour and culture being observed.  It is important of course to note that there are barriers to implementing SDT through autonomy supportive teaching, as it seems students, senior leadership and support staff all have a part to play for this to be fully effective. To consider potential strategies to overcome these barriers are slightly deviating from the purpose of this blog, however it does seem some work needs to be done in regard to interventions for increasing motivation of students. 

References 

Pink, Daniel H. Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Canongate, 2011. 

Morris, L.S., Grehl, M.M., Rutter, S.B., Mehta, M. and Westwater, M.L., 2022. On what motivates us: a detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation. Psychological medicine, 52(10), pp.1801-1816. 

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268. 

Ryan, R.M., 2017. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. 

Ryan, R.M., Ryan, W.S., Di Domenico, S.I. and Deci, E.L., 2019. The CHAPTER6 Nature and the Conditions of Human Autonomy and Flourishing. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, p.89. 

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

Tian, L., Chen, H. and Huebner, E.S., 2014. The longitudinal relationships between basic psychological needs satisfaction at school and school-related subjective well-being in adolescents. Social indicators research, 119, pp.353-372. 

Reeve, J. and Lee, W., 2014. Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 106(2), p.527. 

Yu, C., Li, X., Wang, S. and Zhang, W., 2016. Teacher autonomy support reduces adolescent anxiety and depression: An 18-month longitudinal study. Journal of adolescence, 49, pp.115-123. 

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L. and Beyers, W., 2012. Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and instruction, 22(6), pp.431-439. 

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Feinberg, O. and Tal, K., 2009. Combining vision with voice: A learning and implementation structure promoting teachers' internalization of practices based on self-determination theory. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), pp.234-243. 

Assor, A., Feinberg, O., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Kaplan, H., 2018. Reducing violence in non-controlling ways: A change program based on self determination theory. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(2), pp.195-213. 

Pelletier, L.G., Séguin-Lévesque, C. and Legault, L., 2002. Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of educational psychology, 94(1), p.186.