WARNING:  “Control-Oriented Efforts Can Sabotage Student Motivation”

Joan R. Fretz

There are many controls being placed on American schools, their leaders and their teachers.  Many outside our school walls say these controls are necessary.  They want American students to have strong literacy and computation skills and to be creative problem solvers and innovative leaders in our world.   Schools have not consistently produced these results, so extrinsic controls (rewards or negative consequences) are put in place in an effort to motivate people to change their behavior and improve results. 

Many school employees are objecting to the heightened controls.  They site problems with implementation and have an innate sense that more controls will cause more teachers and students to disengage from school.  According to over 40 years of research on intrinsic motivation, they are right. 

Ironically, some teachers and administrators have been using control-oriented approaches to influence the people they teach or supervise, for years.  The problem with external controls – whether in the form of a reward or punishment, is that they actually sabotage intrinsic motivation. 

Not only do controls undermine intrinsic motivation and engagement with activities but – and here is a bit of bad news for people focused on the bottom line – they have clearly detrimental effects on performance of any tasks that require creativity, conceptual understanding, or flexible problem solving.  (Deci & Flaste, 1995, p. 51)

This article challenges American educators to deepen their understanding of how motivation works – not what tricks to use to control a student’s choice of behavior, but rather, how to create the conditions that inspire students to take charge of their own learning.  Once we make this part of our intentional practice, we will have more evidence against the use of control–oriented school reforms. Our students will become more committed to engage in learning, their achievement will increase, and the demand for controlling approaches will lessen. 

Motivation is not something you do to people.  It is intrinsic to each human being.  As children, we all start out filled with a natural tendency to enthusiastically explore our world and increase our skills.  However, as each year of learning becomes more and more prescribed, there are fewer and fewer choices for students (and their teachers.)  The problem of people becoming more passive and less responsible for their learning (or work) is related to the fact that they have less control or ownership.  Control-oriented approaches also make it difficult for teachers to effectively implement strategies that include independent learning activities:

Students come to see the purpose of school as just following rules, not constructing deep understanding of academic knowledge. And complex learning structures such as cooperative or problem-based learning require student self-mangagement.  Compliance with rules is not enough to make these learning structures work.  (Woolfolk, 2007, p.447)

It makes sense then, for the first lesson in turning around schools to be about understanding motivation and how to invite students to take control of their own learning.  So, instead of asking how we can motivate our students to work harder, a more accurate question would be, “How can people create the conditions within which others will motivate themselves?”  (Deci & Flaste, 1995, p. 10)

When someone is intrinsically motivated, they are “doing an activity for its own sake, for the reward that is inherent in the activity itself.”  (Deci, 1995, p. 21) Prominent pyschologists and researchers have been telling educators about intrinsic sources of motivation for nearly a half century.  In Maslow’s description of “Self Actualization,” Bandura’s concept of “Self-Efficacy,”  Csikszentmihalyi’s psychology of “Optimal Experience and Flow,” Purkey’s “Invitational Theory and Practice,” Dweck’s “Growth Mindset Theory” and Deci and Ryan’s “Self-Determination Theory,” the importance of choice and personal control rings loud and clear.  The more leaders and teachers ignore their findings, the more our schools struggle.  It’s time to infuse their wisdom into our intentional practice.

In Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s research on Self-Determination Theory, they identify three conditions that will foster intrinsic motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence and creativity.   These conditions are:

Autonomy:  The need to be the causal agent of one’s own life and act in harmony with one’s integrated self: The freedom to self-direct.  (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004)

Opportunities for choice.

Competence:  Being effective in dealing with the environment in which a person finds oneself.  (White, 1959)  Working towards mastery: the opportunity to build deep competence.

Relatedness:  The desire to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for others; a connection to something larger than oneself, a greater good.  (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

These natural tendencies do not operate automatically.  They require ongoing social support.   The social context (everything and everyone around the learner) can either support or thwart a person’s feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness.   Government and business leaders, educators, parents, and basically anyone in a “one up” position sometimes chooses to use an extrinsic reward or punishment when they feel the need to control someone’s behavior.   They “assume that the promise of a reward, or the threat of punishment will make the offenders comply.” (Deci & Flaste 1995, p. 1)

Deci and Ryan’s research demonstrates that offering people extrinsic rewards for a behavior that is intrinsically motivated, undermines their intrinsic motivation and actually causes productivity to decrease, as people grow less interested in the activity and more focused on the reward.   In one of their many experiments, a group of people received a monetary (extrinsic) reward for solving puzzles, while another group received no rewards.  When the set time for the activity ended, the two groups remained in their rooms, with the puzzles and a variety of magazines.  The people who were working towards the monetary reward stopped working on the puzzles.  The people who were never promised any reward continued to work on the puzzles, demonstrating their intrinsic motivation.  So, an otherwise intrinsically motivated activity became controlled by the external reward.  The activity served as a vehicle for getting the reward, so the first group lost their enthusiasm for the activity. The reward actually undermined their autonomy, or choice to participate.   So, when we use a control-oriented approach, we unintentionally hinder a major condition for motivation.

In their later work, Deci and Ryan categorized behavior as either controlled or autonomous:

When autonomous, people are fully willing to do what they are doing, and they embrace the activity with a sense of interest and commitment.  Their actions emanate from their true sense of self, so they are being authentic.  In contrast, to be controlled means to act because one is being pressured.  When controlled, people act without a sense of personal endorsement.  Their behavior is not an expression of the self, for the self has been subjugated to the controls.  In this condition, people can reasonably be described as alienated.   (Deci & Flaste 1995, p. 2) 

When we are autonomy supportive of our students, they will respond with interest and commitment.  People tend to be more vested in an activity that they have chosen to do.  When we use controlling approaches, students will respond in one of two ways: with compliance or defiance.  The more we rely on controls, the more we alienate.

By now, you might be seeing some parallels with the current approach to school reform.   Years of increased mandates and mounting controls are causing a dangerous domino effect:  Government officials want students to be creative problem solvers, but the pressure they place on school leaders makes the school leaders use more controlling approaches with their teachers.  The pressure on the teachers makes them use more controlling approaches with their students, undermining the students’ motivation, creativity and conceptual understanding.   Mission not accomplished.  Mission sabotaged. 

While educators are not in a position to remove top down controls, the best way to eliminate the need for them, is for us to become intentionally less controlling in our own actions.  If we commit to modeling and explaining the benefits of being autonomy supportive from the bottom up, our success will eventually reduce or eliminate the need for controls.  Teachers will provide the conditions within which students will be intrinsically motivated to learn, and their success may prompt school leaders to provide these same conditions for their teachers to thrive.  If the research doesn’t convince you, consult another group of experts – our kids.

Ask any student what makes them want to work hard in a class and they’ll be able to describe in detail, the teacher’s choice of words or behavior that either helped or hindered them.  They’ll mention things like whether the teacher provided some choice as to how to do an assignment or with whom they could work (autonomy.) They’ll describe the encouraging comments teachers made that helped them feel more competent, as well as the discouraging ones that made them feel unable to handle the course, or the way the teacher temporarily “lowered the bar” to help them experience success (competence.) They’ll talk about the teacher with whom they felt a deep connection, or a bond that developed between the students in the class, the way they couldn’t stop working on a project that resonated with them, or the satisfaction they felt working on something greater than themselves (relatedness.)  Whether words or actions are used intentionally or not, students can tell if a teacher thinks they are able and valuable or not.  When teachers create the right conditions, intrinsic motivation kicks in and a student’s effort soars. 

Not everything that happens in school will be intrinsically motivating.   As managers, parents or teachers, we often find ourselves trying to convince others to do things they have no interest in doing.  “The real job involves facilitating their doing the activities of their own volition, at their own initiative, so they will go on doing the activities freely in the future when we are no longer there to prompt them.” (Deci & Flaste, 1995, p. 92)   It’s not so much what you are asking someone to do, but how you present it that makes the difference.

The key is to guide the person to internalize the activity – to turn an external prompt into an internal prompt.  Whether it’s getting the students to memorize multiplication tables or put out the garbage at home, try to:

• Provide a rationale for the person to choose to do the uninteresting activity.  It might help them to work towards something they are interested in attaining, feel connected to a group, or avoid other undesirable problems.   Pointing out the benefits to them, not to you, is important. 

• Acknowledge that the person may not want to do what they are being asked to do.   Simply acknowledging people’s feelings helps prevent the requirement from undermining their motivation.

• Use a style of language that involves minimal pressure.  The request should be more like an invitation instead of a demand, emphasizing choice rather than control.  (Deci & Flaste 1995, p. 101)

Providing a rationale, acknowledging feelings and minimizing pressure will encourage someone to integrate the behavior, and do it of their own free will.  When we use a demanding or threatening approach, the person will respond by either being compliant or defiant.  In either case, they have not integrated the behavior as part of their true self.  It has been introjected, or forced upon them.  Being autonomy supportive means providing opportunities for people to internalize regulations and accept them as part of how they choose to behave.   (Deci, 1995, p. 94)

School adults can create an autonomy supportive environment by sharing a common mindset and performance culture.  Invitational Theory and Practice, developed by William Purkey, with Betty Siegel and John Novak, provides a framework for such intentional practice.   Invitational teachers assume:

• People are able, valuable and capable of self-direction, and should be treated accordingly.  
• Helping is a cooperative, collaborative alliance in which process is as important as product.
• People possess relatively untapped potential in all areas of human development.
• This potential can best be realized by places, policies, and programs that are intentionally designed to invite development, and by people who consistently seek to realize this potential in themselves and others, personally and professionally.  (Shaw & Siegel, 2010, p. 107)

An inviting teacher’s stance is one of intentional optimism, respect, trust and care.  They extend invitations for students to see themselves as able and valuable, to use positive self-talk and to consider choosing behaviors that are beneficial.  When this performance culture is infused into our planning, classroom climate, and instructional strategies, we will reach new heights of teaching competence.  

Sometimes, when problems seem so complex and insurmountable, it’s because we are missing a simple solution.  Sabotaging intrinsic motivation from the top down or the bottom up will not get us where we need to go.  Deepening our understanding of intrinsic motivation and creating the conditions for it to flourish in our schools, will help us break the vicious cycle in which we find ourselves.  Challenge yourself to be an autonomy supportive educator and become part of the solution.   

Joan Fretz is the Director of Fine and Performing Arts in the Huntington School District and presenter of workshops on motivational theory and teacher competencies.  

Join Joan at the following Western Suffolk BOCES events to learn more about this and related work:

Feb. 7 and March 6, 2012, 4:00PM – 6:30 PM

“Shaping Intentional Practice Through the Danielson Framework: 

How Highly Effective Teachers Promote Intrinsic Motivation,”  Joan Fretz, presenter

LI SELF Conference: Feb. 10, 2012, 8:00AM – 3:00PM

“Finding Authenticity in the Age of Madness – Oops…I Mean Mandates,” Michael Keany, keynote

Register online at www.wsboces.org/webreg

For comments or questions, contact Joan Fretz at:  jrfretz@optonline.net.

Copyright © 2012, Joan R. Fretz

References:

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995).  The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.  Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Deci, E. L., with Flaste, R. (1995).  Why We Do What We Do. New York, NY: Penguin Books

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000).  Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.  American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008).  Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological Well-Being Across Life’s Domains. Canadian Psychology 49, no.1 ( February): 14-23

Deci, E.L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004) Self-determination theory and basic need satisfactions:  Understanding human development in positive psychology.  Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17-34

Pink, Daniel H. Pink (2009) Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.  New York, NY: Riverhead Books

Purkey, W. and Novak, J. (1996). Inviting School Success, 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Purkey, W. and Strahan, D. (2002). Inviting Positive Classroom Discipline. Westerville, OH: Nat Mid Sch Assoc.

Shaw, D. and Siegel, B. (2010) Re-adjusting the Kaleidoscope: The Basic Tenants of Invitational Theory and Practice. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice. 16, 105 – 114.

White, R. W. (1959).  Motivation Reconsidered: The concept of competence.  Psychological Review, 66, 297-333

Woolfolk, A. (2007).  Educational Psychology.  Boston, MA: Pearson Educational