Humans love to learn; but high schoolers hate it. Why?
Fostering the Natural Love of Learning: Overview of Self Determination Theory and Goal Orientation Theory for the High School Educator
The Challenge of the Educator
The educational environment is incredibly varied and complex. This is especially true for teachers of high school as the student body typically shows significant variance in psychological development and ability. (“The Power”) In addition to this heterogeneity, the high school environment must also conform itself to external standards such as the expectations of colleges. (“Subject Requirement…”) Navigating these constraints is the great challenge of the high school educator.
Perhaps the most important resource that educators can draw upon to help meet this challenge is student motivation. Research shows that motivated students are happier, more persistent, and perform better than students who are less motivated. (Neimec 133) After all, learning is a collaborative exercise that requires participation from both student and teacher, and a student who is more motivated is more likely to willingly and happily engage with activities that are beneficial for their learning. For these reasons, student motivation should be a central pillar of any effective pedagogical strategy.
It is, as mentioned above, the challenge of the educator to work within the constraints of their classroom to create a learning environment that best serves and motivates their students. For this reason, this essay is structured around the recognition that, just as the path to a destination changes based on one's starting position, the appropriate approach to teaching changes with each classroom. The following paragraphs, beginning with a broad discussion of student motivation and eventually narrowing in focus to specific theories and their potential applications in the classroom, will attempt to chart a few of the important landmarks that educators might consider when making choices in the classroom. While specific, empirically validated practices are discussed, they are not intended as instructions but rather as illustrations of ways in which the theories might be put into practice in a real classroom setting. In short, the objective of this essay is to act as a map by which one can orient themselves in the complex landscape of human psychology and not an itinerary that designates a specific course of travel.
Students’ Motivation
In order to understand how to best foster the motivation of students, we must first understand what motivation is and is not. Motivation, as it is defined in the psychological literature, is an internal psychological state that gives energy and direction to our behavior. In other words, it's why we do what we do. In the educational context, the what that is done is referred to as engagement and might include actions like attending class, completing homework, or studying for a test. (Reeve 150-151) Assuming, then, that we want our students to attend class, study for tests, and otherwise engage with the curriculum, we ought to understand what can be done to foster motivation, the antecedent to engagement, in our students.
Research focused on this question has resulted in optimistic findings for the educator. Theory and observation converge on a simple truth: It is a natural faculty of the human mind to enjoy learning new things and to be energized by the pursuit of mastery in new subject areas.
This finding represents both a tremendous resource and perplexing enigma when viewed through the lens of education. With this fact in mind, one would expect to find that our educational institutions are full of highly motivated, happy, and engaged students. But perplexingly, and especially within the high school context, we often find that the exact opposite is true. How did it come to be that a system designed to support and foster learning, an activity that humans are naturally motivated to pursue and enjoy, produces students who are profoundly unmotivated (Fig. 1) and will go to confusing lengths to avoid as much learning as possible (Fig. 2)?
Figure 1 - A student’s “relatable” TikTok comments on academic disengagement.
Figure 2 - A student Tweets about their lack of motivation.
Recent research suggests that some of the very systems we have put in place in our classrooms in order to support the education of our students may actually have the opposite of their intended effect. “All too often…” according to research by leading scholars in the field of motivational psychology, Christopher P. Neimiec and Richard M. Ryan, “educators introduce external controls into learning climates, which…stifle the natural, volitional processes involved in high-quality learning.” (133)
The central lesson here is that, if not designed properly, the structural elements that we implement in our classrooms in order to foster learning have the capacity to produce the opposite of their intended effect. This phenomenon is especially problematic because when students’ natural motivation to learn is diminished, educators are forced to increase their reliance on strategies of external control (deadlines, rewards, punishments, etc) to drive behavior, thus initiating a vicious cycle in which students’ declining interest is met by increasingly controlling policies that further diminish their motivation to learn (Niemiec 134) For this reason it is imperative that educators and administrators, as the authors of classroom policy, be armed with the appropriate knowledge to create effective strategies to support both student success and wellbeing.
Two theoretical frameworks from the literature that are particularly helpful in this regard are Self Determination Theory (SDT) and Goal Orientation Theory (GOT). The following paragraphs will discuss the relevance and applications of these theories in the educational context.
Self Determination Theory
There are few theories of human motivation as comprehensive, empirically-grounded, and applicable to the context of education as Self Determination Theory. Developed by leading motivation researchers Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci and introduced in their 1985 book Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior, SDT builds on previous research to provide a robust and mechanistic framework for understanding human motivation. In the nearly four decades since SDT was introduced, extensive research has validated the theory and investigated its utility in various situations. Several studies have identified its notable value in the study and design of pedagogical practices. (Bureau, et al; Deci, et al Motivation; Deci, er al. Self-Determination; Jang, et al.; Niemiec; Reeve)
Given the extensive literature surrounding applications of SDT in education, I believe that there is tremendous untapped potential contained within the recommendations and conceptual framings generated by the theory. Self Determination Theory is also uniquely suited for practical use by educators due to its optimism, easy-to-understand language, and the generativity of its principals.
Self Determination Theory is predicated on the assumption “that inherent in human nature is the propensity to be curious about one’s environment and interested in learning and developing one’s knowledge.” but that this innate drive requires support from an individual’s environment in order to be sustained. (Ryan 1) This core supposition is important to the educator for two reasons. First, it rejects the notion that undesirable behavior is the result of “lazy” or “bad” students, instead centering the influence of the pedagogical environment as the cause of student outcomes. This framing is by no means intended to suggest that students’ engagement is entirely dictated by their teachers or that it is the job of the educator to “create or manufacture student…engagement.” (Reeve 152) Rather, centering the classroom environment empowers educators to help their students by emphasizing the factors over which they have control and reframing learning into a collaborative exercise in which the role of the teacher is to support students’ natural motivation to learn. Second, it precipitates a view of education as more than a societal necessity. It refuses to reduce children to mere “human becomings,” recognizing education as a worthy end in itself, a philosophy that is not only validating for the educator but also conducive to positive forms of student motivation that are discussed later. (OECD 62) In short, the optimism and agency afforded to students and educators by this core supposition provides a necessary energy and direction which will help to motivate positive change.
SDT is organized as a single umbrella theory containing five mini-theories (Fig. 3). Each mini-theory describes a distinct mechanism of human motivation and wellbeing. Under the umbrella of SDT, these mechanisms are understood as distinct processes that interact to produce different conscious and unconscious states of mind. Unfortunately, as discussion of all of the mini-theories described by Self Determination Theory is beyond the scope of this essay, only an overview of Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), and Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) will be included as I believe they offer the most practical value for educators.
Fig 3 - “Five minitheories of self-determination theory and the motivational phenomena each was developed to Explain” (Reeve 153)
Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, and Internalization.
According to Basic Psychological Needs Theory, human beings have an innate need to satisfy three basic needs: Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness. Furthermore, according to Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), motivation and well-being are highly dependent on the extent to which an individual perceives their environment as supporting or inhibiting the actualization of these needs. This basic principle has tremendous pedagogical utility. There is considerable evidence, for example, that classroom policies designed to maximize these three psychological needs promote increased and more internalized student motivation; increased engagement; higher well-being; and increased creativity. (Neimec 133, 136) Furthermore, it appears that interventions which cause students to feel more autonomous, competent, and related tend to initiate a virtuous cycle in which students’ increased engagement in the curriculum leads to further satisfaction of their psychological needs and therefore increased engagement, perpetuating the cycle. (Jang 1183; Reeve 163)
Autonomy, the need to feel like the cause, or to endorse the cause or one's actions, is particularly important to support in the classroom as, in addition to providing direct benefits to motivation and well being, it contributes to a phenomenon described by Organismic Integration Theory as internalization. Internalization refers to the degree to which an individual values and/or integrates an external idea or control into their sense of self. (Neimec 137) The extent to which motivation is internalized is described on a continuum from most to least autonomous, with the most internalized forms of motivation being the most sustainable and positive. (Neimec 139) It is in the interest of both students and teachers then, that our learning environments be designed in such a way that autonomy is maximally supported. Opportunities for autonomy support in the classroom include providing students with compelling explanations of an assignment’s value, maximizing students’ choice in the direction of their learning, reducing the amount of deadlines, and minimizing “imposed rules and limits.” (Neimec 139)(Reeve 156) Autonomy supports like these have been shown quantitatively and anecdotally (Fig. 4) to not only increase motivation and well-being in students but also lead to increased internalization and therefore more adaptive and sustainable types of motivation. (Bureau; Neimec 138)
Figure 4 - A Tweet documents a student's excitement to write an essay about an anime series that they love.
Strategies which support Competence, the need to feel as if we have done something well, and Relatedness, the need to form connections with others, also foster the motivation and well being of students. Especially important in the domain of competence support is effective assessment design. Assessments that emphasize evaluation against peers or a normative standard like a rubric, not only fail to provide relevant information to the student about how they might improve their abilities but also tend to reduce students’ perceptions of self efficacy. Conversely, assessments designed to highlight students’ efforts and provide meaningful feedback about how to improve tend to increase feelings of self efficacy and therefore support students’ competence needs. Furthermore, research indicates that students' perceptions of their control over academic achievement are associated with increased performance and persistence. (Wentzel 157, 158) Alongside effectively designed assessments, strong student teacher relationships are an important support for student competence as well as relatedness. When students feel like their teacher provides them with the tools they need to succeed and feel that their teacher likes and respects them, their perception that their needs for competence and relatedness are supported increases. (Neimec 139) Strong, supportive student-teacher relationships are also associated with increased student well being. For example, students across multiple countries reported lower levels of school-related anxiety when their science teacher provided individual support when they were struggling. (OECD 40) Additionally, emphasizing students effectance may be an important buffer against cheating as when students view the classroom as uncaring and unfair, they’re more likely to view cheating as a “pragmatic” way to “get…the grade.” (McCabe 3)
Figure 5 - A Twitter user recalls their relationship with their favorite high school teacher.
In summary there is considerable evidence that classroom policies and teaching styles which are designed to be supportive of students’ needs for Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness lead to desirable outcomes. When students perceive that their psychological needs are met by their learning environment they are more likely to engage with their studies in an honest, rich, and persistent manner. Further, this increase in engagement is self reinforcing as increased engagement leads to increased need satisfaction and internalization of classroom values, thus increasing motivation and, consequently, engagement. These effects represent a tremendous and sustainable resource for the educator that, in many classrooms, is yet to be tapped.
Goal Orientation Theory
Students, like all people, have certain things which they want to achieve. These goals are varied but can all be described in terms of their content and orientation. While it is the traditional approach to focus on the content, or concrete objective, of a goal, Goal Orientation Theory suggests that understanding the orientation, or motivation for, a goal offers a particular utility to the educator. A student, for example, may want to maintain good grades (content) in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than their peers (orientation).
Goal orientations within the academic context can be (very) roughly divided into two major categories: “ego” or “performance-involved” and “task” or “mastery-involved”. Performance goal orientation is generally motivated by a desire to outperform peers and demonstrate one's own abilities. Mastery goal orientation is generally associated with a desire to improve one's own skills and expand one’s knowledge. (Wentzel 159)
These goal orientations have important consequences for students' engagement with their schooling. For example,mastery goal orientation is associated with many adaptive and desirable attitudes and effects. Students who possess a mastery goal orientation are more self motivated, more likely to use their free time to continue exploring a topic, and more likely to use learning strategies that, while effortful, result in better understanding. (Nicholls 74) They are typically tolerant of ambiguity, open minded, thoughtful, and willing to try difficult things. (Nicholls 73) In addition to these positive traits, mastery goal orientation is also associated with increased performance on standardized tests. (Wentzel 163) Conversely, performance goal orientation is associated with several undesirable characteristics. Students who possess a performance goal orientation tend to avoid difficult problems in favor of ones that they are sure they can complete. (Nicholls 73) They also tend to value their education less and are less tolerant of ambiguity, more closed-minded, and less thoughtful than students with mastery goal orientations. (Nicholls 73-74) In almost all areas, students who possess mastery goal orientations exhibit qualities that are conducive not only to academic achievement but also deep conceptual understanding. Considering these extensive adaptive qualities, it is worth asking if anything can be done to foster such a mindset in our students.
Research indicates that assessment practices, assignment structure, and teaching styles have the potential to “communicate” goal orientations to students. (Nicholls 71; Kaplan; Wentzel 166) A classroom characterized by competitive assessments and/or assessments relative to a normative standard, for example, communicates to students that success is a matter of outcompeting one's classmates and demonstrating one’s own abilities (e.g. performance goal orientation). (Wentzel 165) If we want students to believe that success in the classroom is a matter of self-improvement, topic mastery, and curiosity (e.g. mastery goal orientation), then we have to communicate that to them through our classroom designs. In other words, we have to create a learning environment where those qualities lead to success.
Several things can help us achieve this goal. First, and most importantly, assessments should be designed to reflect more than just a student’s achievement relative to a normative standard (e.g. a rubric). Research indicates that assessments which reflect a student’s effort, improvement, and mastery of a subject foster mastery goal orientations in students. (Wentzel 166) Essentially, if we want students to see success as a function of mastery, then we have to define it that way. In addition to mastery-oriented assessment practices, classrooms which give students input in the direction of the curriculum as well as those with assignments that are diverse and challenging while still giving students the impression that they can be reasonably completed tend to be higher in mastery goal orientation. (Ames 332-334)
The full breath of the literature on fostering mastery orientations in students is beyond the scope of this essay. It can, for our purposes though, be summarized by the simple principle of defining success in terms of mastery, effort, and improvement. The literature on this subject also reveals an important pedagogical phenomenon. Students are incredibly attentive to the underlying structural elements of our classrooms. No matter what our rhetoric or sentiment, students will see what is required of them in order to succeed and adjust their mindset accordingly. Thus it is the responsibility of the teacher to create an environment which communicates with honesty to students the value of education and the love of learning that we wish them to have.
Practical Applications of SDT and GOT
Perhaps the greatest barrier to the effective implementation of strategies informed by the principals described in this essay are the exogenous constraints placed on the educator by concerns of organization and college preparation. As such it may not be possible to exactly recreate some of the recommended policies mentioned in this essay in a real classroom environment. Reducing the salience of competitive, standards-based assessments, for example, would present an especially large challenge in an Advanced Placement calculus course where much of the emphasis on a single high stakes test is outside of the educator's control. (“AP…”)
For this reason, it is my hope that the research discussed in this essay can function as a sort of “jumping off point” for educators who wish to make improvements to their classroom designs. Ideally, the conceptual tools provided by SDT and GOT can enable educators to adapt to the needs of each course and cohort of students they are presented with and to continually revise their approach in order to best serve the needs of their students.
It is ultimately the creative decision making of the educator that can bridge the divide between the clean, empirical world of theory and the complicated, intuitive world of the classroom. It is my hope that this essay can be a resource for building that bridge. A bridge that will ultimately be constructed of assignments, assessments, and classroom policies that are designed, first and foremost, to support students’ feelings of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness and to communicate to students the inherent value of learning.
Through this unity of theory and practice, we give ourselves the opportunity to draw on the natural wellspring of students’ motivation and curiosity in such a way that encourages students to develop a love of learning that carries them through their formal education and beyond.
Works Cited
“About the Theory.” Selfdeterminationtheory.org, https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/about-the-theory/.
Ames, Carole. Achievement Goals and the Classroom Motivational Climate. Student Perceptions in the Classroom, 1992.
“AP Calculus AB – AP Students.” Exam – AP Students | College Board, 2022, https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-calculus-ab/assessment.
Bureau, Julien S., et al. “Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 92, no. 1, 2021, pp. 46–72., https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, 1996.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. “Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health.” Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, vol. 49, no. 3, 2008, pp. 182–185., https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
Deci, Edward L., et al. “Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective.” Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, no. 3-4, 1991, pp. 325–346., https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.
@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
Hartnett, Maggie. Motivation in Online Education. Springer Singapore, 2018.
Howard, Joshua L., et al. “Student Motivation and Associated Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis from Self-Determination Theory.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 16, no. 6, 2021, pp. 1300–1323., https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789.
Jang, Hyungshim, et al. “Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory's Motivation Mediation Model in a Naturally Occurring Classroom Context.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 104, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1175–1188., https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089.
Kaplan, Avi, and Martin L. Maehr. “The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory.” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 19, no. 2, 2006, pp. 141–184., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5.
@lyriilove. Tweet with the text: “My cousin @ViolentVinny1
messaged me today about writing an essay in his English class with the topic of it being Stardust Crusaders from JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. What a big High School English teacher W. No wonder it was my favorite subject to begin with. 😂😂 #jjba” Twitter. 9 Dec, 2022. https://twitter.com/lyriilove/status/1601313228889681922
McCabe, Donald L. “Academic Dishonesty among High School Students .” Adolescence, vol. 34, no. 136, 1999, pp. 681–687., https://doi.org/link.gale.com/apps/doc/A59810226/HRCA?u=anon~efa15339&sid=googleScholar&xid=82091c7c. Accessed 2 Dec. 2022.
Nicholls, John G., et al. “Individual Differences in Academic Motivation: Perceived Ability, Goals, Beliefs, and Values.” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 1, no. 1, 1989, pp. 63–84., https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(89)90010-1.
Niemiec, Christopher P., and Richard M. Ryan. “Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom.” Theory and Research in Education, vol. 7, no. 2, 2009, pp. 133–144., https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.
OECD. “PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being.” PISA, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.
“The Power of the Adolescent Brain: A TAG Talk.” The Power of the Adolescent Brain: A TAG Talk | Youth.gov, United States Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, https://youth.gov/feature-article/power-adolescent-brain-tag-talk.
@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
Reeve, Johnmarshall. “A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement.” Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 2012, pp. 149–172., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7.
“Subject Requirement (A-G).” Subject Requirement (A-G) | UC Admissions, Regents of the University of California, https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requirements/freshman-requirements/subject-requirement-a-g.html.
Wentzel, Kathryn R, and Allan Wigfield. “Academic and Social Motivational Influences on Students' Academic Performance.” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 1998, pp. 155–175., https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022137619834.