Project 2 | Prospectus Essay

Proposing a much needed a model for student motivation.

The Problem

Learning is a collaborative enterprise undertaken between student and teacher. Both of whom are well-versed on their side of the deal. I don’t say this to suggest that the relationship is or ought to be symmetrical. It shouldn’t be. It’s the educational professional’s job to manage student behavior in order to help students learn. However, this asymmetry can often lead us to forget that students fulfill their side of the educational agreement with agency. To approach the design of our learning environments with a simplistic, outcomes-focused model of student behavior and motivation is to be doomed to fail. For this reason, it’s in the best interests of both educators and students alike that an effective model for student motivation be available to those with influence over the learning environment.

The average American student spends just over six and a half hours a day in school and, conservatively, an hour and a half on homework every weekday. With a time commitment similar to a full-time job, one could say most students are “educational professionals” of a metaphorical type. Students, especially at the high school level and above, possess a deep understanding of the system they occupy and how to optimize their efforts within it.

This fact on its own isn’t inherently problematic, we should expect that a cohort of curious minds will form an understanding of whatever system they find themselves in. The problem arises when we rely too heavily on student’s businesslike understanding of rewards and punishments to secure compliance within the educational environment. It seems to be the case that “the high school climate is unsuccessful in fostering” interest-based motivation, according to a study by education researchers Catherine Ratelle and colleagues. With this in mind, then, it becomes clear that in order to solve this problem and best serve students, we have to work backwards from an understanding of how they think in order to make changes to our learning environments that put students’ experiences and motivations first.

The Model

So, how do we model how students think? We have to start with an abstract understanding of what motivates people in general. I believe that the most accurate framework upon which to build our understanding of student behavior is an economic one. I think that economic theories of motivation will prove to be especially useful when modeling motivations for largely extrinsically motivated endeavors. Endeavors of which compulsory education is a prime example. This is because economic theories of motivation assume that motivation for an action is the result of some subconscious calculation where the benefit enjoyed for an activity is compared to the cost of engaging in it. It follows, then, that this type of analysis would be less useful when the “benefit” of a given activity is largely subjective and varied amongst individuals and more useful when the “benefit” is more quantifiable. Furthermore, I think that an economic framework provides a unified scaffold on which to anchor not only our understanding of student motivation but also of student logic.

It is important, though, not to get distracted by the word economic and treat students as purely logical agents comparing dollars and cents. For our model to be accurate we have to account for an inconsistent appraisal of costs and benefits when comparing between students. Costs and benefits aren’t assets with a fixed value, they’re conceptual baskets in which we can group the negative and positive aspects of an undertaking, respectively. While costs and benefits might sometimes be quantifiable (grades, time investment, etc), their weight is ultimately subjective.

We have to, then, understand that our model will only ever be a framework by which we might generally understand the patterns of actions of students. We also have to recognize that our framework may be better suited to explain the motivations of some students than others. Poorly engineered or irrationally interpreted incentives are probably not the primary lens we should use to understand the motivation of a student with depression, for example.

Though it would ultimately have some limitations, a theory of this type that provides a reliable and valid model of student motivation would enable a new type of empathetic classroom management which has the potential to not only increase student wellbeing but also achievement.

The Way Forward

Ultimately, our goal should be to create a system where students engage with curricula out of an interest in the material and not an interest in avoiding punishment or seeking reward. We should strive to create an educational environment in which grades are not the primary benefit for engaging in academics. We should strive to create a system where, as much as possible, students engage with their studies because they want to, and not because they are motivated by some external factor to complete them. The way forward is uncertain, but an empathetic model can be our lantern, providing just enough light to allow us to stumble forward in the mist towards the direction of a better future for students and teachers.

Annotated Bibliography

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. "Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health." Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne 49.3 (2008): 182.

"Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health." is the foundational paper in which Self Determination Theory (SDT) is proposed by researchers and professors of Psychology Edward L. Deci and Ryan M. Richard. The 2008 paper has been cited over 8000 times. SDT, as proposed in this paper, is an economic theory of motivation that improves upon the current knowledge base by being A. Empirically verified; B. Predictive; and C. More detailed than previous concepts. The theory proposes that relatedness, competence, and autonomy are basic human needs that can be used to understand intrinsic motivation. The researchers also propose two types of motivation: 1. Autonomous motivation, a term inclusive of intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation; and 2. Controlled Motivation, a term used to describe motivation that relies primarily on rewards and punishments but may have been partially internalized.

SDT is a prominent and empirically sound theory in motivation research, so in any case it would be inappropriate not to include it in my research. Additionally, I expect the utility provided by the concepts of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation to be great. Not only have these terms been verified as valid constructs by other researchers, they highlight almost perfectly a core distinction I plan to make in my paper.

@girls. Repost of a “relatable” video by user @jadenshontz with the caption “When you spend more time calculating the lowest possible grade you can get instead of actually studying.” TikTok. 18 December, 2021. https://www.tiktok.com/@girls/video/7040659844285648133?_r=1&_t=8WobMkq4Jpb&is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7040659844285648133

This TikTok, posted by user @jadenshontz was reposted by “relatable” content aggregator account @girls on the 18th of December 2021. The original poster has since made their account private, but we can assume from the context of the video that she was a college student at the time of posting. The original poster was presumably speaking from her own experience or those of her peers. Both her and the content aggregator @girls indicate that they believe other students would find the post relatable. The description of the post on @girls reads, “WHO ELSE DOES THIS INSTEAD OF STUDYING?! …” for example. This content is made by a student for other students about being a student.

It is a perfect primary document to highlight the ways in which students 1. Understand the structure of the school system and what they need to do to achieve a desired outcome; 2. That they use that understanding in illogical and or self sacrificing ways; and 3. That they do so consciously.

Ratelle, Catherine F., et al. "Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis." Journal of educational psychology 99.4 (2007): 734.

Researchers Catherine F. Ratelle and colleagues discuss the findings of various studies on student motivation in their 2007 paper, "Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis," published in the Journal of Educational Psychology. Their analysis, undertaken with the framework of SDT in mind, found that autonomous motivation was associated with persistence in college students, and that some combination of autonomous and controlled motivation seemed to be adaptive in high school students. Also notable was that they didn’t find a group of high school students who were primarily autonomously motivated and concluded that the high school environment wasn’t conducive to that type of motivation.

This study will serve the important purpose of introducing nuance into the project. It suggests that controlled motivation is a part of an effective learning environment and not something to be minimized at all costs. It also highlights the role of the school environment on fostering different types of motivation, which will help to set up some of my later arguments.

Studer, B., and S. Knecht. "A benefit–cost framework of motivation for a specific activity." Progress in brain research 229 (2016): 25-47.

Bettina Struder and Stefan Knecht, researchers and neurology specialists at Mauritius Hospital Meerbusch, propose in their 2016 study "A benefit–cost framework of motivation for a specific activity," a unified and application friendly framework for modeling motivation. Their theory aims to integrate the many extant models (including SDT) into an empirically sound model that can be used to understand motivation for real world activities.

I think that their paper will be an especially helpful source when drafting my research project for two main reasons: 1. Their model incorporates elements from many of the most prominent motivation theories; 2. It does so with a focus on empirically-backed validity; and 3. Their model is designed to be applied to, as the title says, “a specific activity.” So it will be especially useful when analyzing motivation in the specific context of education.

@ttaegogi. Tweet with the text: “school lately gives us zero motivation and too many assignments from different classes that just make us dwell doing them.” Twitter. 5 Feb, 2021. https://twitter.com/ttaegogi/status/1357725372570361859

This Tweet was posted by user @ttaegogi on February 5th, 2021 in response to a tweet by user @yoongivans which read: “😭 my favorite group of students won’t listen to me anymore, they don’t pay attention, they don’t do the homework... what am I doing wrong T-T” Their exchange was casual and kind, which lends a sense of authenticity to their words, even if it’s unclear what kind of/or if they are students or teachers respectively.

I’m so happy I found this Twitter exchange because it illustrates perfectly the complicated nature of this issue, as well as the relational aspect of learning. @yoongivans just wants their students to participate in a small assignment and @ttaegogi feels overwhelmed. Both are valid perspectives that need to be integrated into our understanding of student motivation. It also lends an empathetic perspective to both the student and teacher perspectives.

Works Cited

@girls. Repost of a “relatable” video by user @jadenshontz with the caption “When you spend more time calculating the lowest possible grade you can get instead of actually studying.” TikTok. 18 December, 2021. https://www.tiktok.com/@girls/video/7040659844285648133?_r=1&_t=8WobMkq4Jpb&is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7040659844285648133

Seifert, Timothy. "Understanding student motivation." Educational research 46.2 (2004): 137-149.

Studer, B., and S. Knecht. "A benefit–cost framework of motivation for a specific activity." Progress in brain research 229 (2016): 25-47.