Teach Primary Issue 19.5

50 | www.teachwire.net ADR I AN BETHUNE way of talking about intrinsic motivation – that is, motivation that comes from within. When we’re intrinsically motivated, we do things for their own sake and derive satisfaction from doing so. We don’t need rewards or the threat of punishment to get us to act and behave in certain ways when we are self-determined. Since the 70s, hundreds of studies have backed up Deci and Ryan’s original findings. One recent study by Frank Martela at the University of Helsinki surveyed over 45,000 adults across 27 European countries. Martela found that high scores for competence, autonomy and relatedness were strongly correlated with higher levels of life satisfaction and having a sense of meaning in life. This matters, because the latest Good Childhood Report (2024) put UK children as the unhappiest in Europe, and children’s ‘happiness with school’ as the lowest score to date. What’s the harm? Deci and Ryan’s original research was seen as heretical at the time, because it claimed that how many businesses and schools were set up harmed intrinsic I f I asked 1,000 teachers if they wanted their pupils to feel more motivated and happy in their classrooms, I would bet that very few would say, ‘No, thanks’. But what if I told you that many common practices in schools can actually harm motivation and wellbeing? This is why I believe every teacher and school leader needs to know about self-determination theory (SDT) and how small tweaks to our practice can be the key to better learning, motivation and long-term happiness. What’s the theory? Self-determination theory is a model of motivation proposed by two eminent psychologists, Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, back in the 1970s. SDT states that humans have three core psychological needs that are the foundations of our motivation and wellbeing. These are competence, autonomy and relatedness (more on these later). When those needs are satisfied, we feel motivated, we are productive, and we are content with our lives. But if those core needs are denied, we can become lost, unproductive and miserable. SDT is another motivation. Let’s take the common practice of rewards (think certificates, stickers, house points). Deci and Ryan claimed that when a person expects a reward (e.g. house points) for carrying out an activity (e.g. completing work), they attribute their behaviour to the reward rather than the activity. In the short term, this doesn’t seem problematic, as work is getting completed and we assume children are learning. However, once the activity is linked with the reward, children will think the activity is always associated with a reward – and once the reward is removed, they are much less inclined to complete the activity in the future. This is how rewards can backfire. And it’s not just rewards that can harm motivation; punishments can, too. Common thinking in schools is that if you want to stop certain unwanted behaviours, then you increase the sanctions associated with them. If a child talks in a ‘silent corridor’, for example, then a detention or missing some of their playtime will put them off engaging in that behaviour in the future, or so the logic goes. But, in Psychology in the Classroom , psychologists and teachers Marc Smith and Jonathan Firth, state that, ‘Highly controlled classroom environments undermine intrinsic motivation.’ They then go on to say that, ‘Research strongly indicates that practices that attempts to motivate pupils through sanctions… undermine the quality of student engagement.’ What works? It’s important to point out that I am not advocating for eliminating all rewards MR MOTIVATOR See pupils really shine when you drop the reliance on transient rewards and punishments, and focus instead on internal momentum... “Competence, autonomy and relatedness are correlated with life satisfaction”