Why Motivation Theories in Education Haven't Changed in Decades (And Why It Matters for Schools)

New paper suggests that our understanding of motivation has been stuck in the 1980s which is good for academics but not useful for teachers and parents.

A really interesting new paper just published yesterday in Educational Psychologist has nailed a lot of things I had been suspicious about with student motivation especially constructs like self-determination theory. In "A critical analysis of the current motivation theories in educational psychology," researchers Kou Murayama and Luise von Keyserlingk ask a deceptively simple question: Why have the same motivation theories dominated education for decades with so little change? This paper feels like a useful corrective to me and a good challenge to a field that is much needed. My main problem with motivation field is that it typically explains what motivation is rather than how to get it. Intrinsic motivations sounds great but the typical suggestions for how to get it always seemed dubious to me. Same with Growth Mindset. (Although to be fair, Growth Mindset is really a theory about beliefs in intelligence rather than motivation but is often pushed as such.)

The Motivation Theory Status Quo

First, let's be honest about motivation research: despite the abundance of research on motivation, we're still largely working with theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s. Self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, achievement goal theory etc, these frameworks have dominated educational psychology for 40+ years.

But the interesting thing about this is that these theories aren't necessarily wrong. In fact, they've led to many successful classroom interventions. But according to Murayama and von Keyserlingk, they all share a fundamental limitation: they identify what motivates students without adequately explaining how motivation actually works at a mechanistic level. This really captures something that many teachers instinctively feel about motivation: I know it’s important but the research says almost nothing useful about how to make it happen!

The Problem with Our Current Thinking

Here's where things get particularly interesting for classroom teachers. The authors argue that current motivation theories follow a predictable formula:

"Adaptive forms of motivation (e.g., need satisfaction, mastery goals, self-efficacy) predict positive outcomes, while maladaptive forms predict negative outcomes."

Well yeah…In other breaking news; "healthy eating leads to better health while unhealthy eating leads to worse health". If you've ever attended a professional development session on motivation, you've likely heard some version of this: "Students with mastery goals perform better than those with performance goals" or "Self-efficacy leads to better outcomes." Right.

The problem is that these statements, while generally true, don't tell us much about the underlying mechanisms. When we label a student as having "low self-efficacy" or "performance avoidance goals," we're just describing a phenomenon, not explaining it.

When a high-achieving student shows mastery goals, we point to it as evidence the theory works. When the same student occasionally displays performance goals but still succeeds, we simply note it as an exception or add complexity to the model. The theories bend but never break under the weight of contradictory evidence.

Why This Matters For Schools

As teachers, we've all experienced the frustration of motivation interventions that work initially but fade over time. You implement a strategy you learned about to boost intrinsic motivation, see some initial improvement, and then watch as effects gradually diminish. This "fade-out effect" happens precisely because we don't fully understand the causal mechanisms at work. As the authors note, "to understand and prevent the fade-out effect, the field needs to understand the mechanisms by which interventions promote students' engagement, preferably explanations of how their motivation can be sustained for a long period of time."

The authors propose an alternative way of thinking about motivation through what they call a "reward-learning framework." Instead of focusing on broad constructs like "intrinsic motivation," this framework details a self-sustaining cycle:

1. Students become aware of a knowledge gap

2. This awareness triggers information-seeking behavior

3. Learning provides a rewarding experience

4. New knowledge generates new questions, increases capability, and enhances the value of existing knowledge

5. This creates a positive feedback loop sustaining long-term engagement

What This Means for Your Teaching Practice

1. Focus on creating awareness of knowledge gaps Rather than simply trying to "motivate" students with external rewards or appeals to intrinsic motivation, deliberately highlight intriguing gaps in their knowledge. Ask questions that reveal what they don't yet know but might find fascinating.

2. Pay attention to the feedback loops The most powerful insight from this paper is the importance of creating self-sustaining cycles of learning. When a student learns something new, actively help them see:

• What new questions this knowledge raises

• How this knowledge makes their existing knowledge more valuable

• How this knowledge enables them to understand even more complex ideas

3. Consider the timescale of your interventions Motivation isn't a static state but a dynamic process that unfolds over time. When implementing motivation strategies, think beyond immediate effects and consider how you might sustain the positive cycle over weeks and months.

4. Look beyond labels Instead of simply categorizing students as having "high" or "low" motivation, try to understand the specific mechanisms driving their engagement or disengagement. What knowledge gaps are they aware of? What barriers exist in their information-seeking process? What's disrupting their feedback loop?

Moving the field forward

The useful thing about this paper is that it’s a real kick up the ___ for the motivation field which has been far too self-congratulatory. It sort of reconceptualises motivation as a dynamic, mechanistic process rather than a collection of static constructs. While traditional motivation theories have served us well in many ways, they may have reached the limits of their explanatory power. As the authors note, "One important aspect of the reward-learning framework of knowledge acquisition is that it explains long-term intellectual engagement without using common motivation constructs, such as interest, curiosity, or intrinsic motivation."

For me this research has shown something I have long thought which is that in order to motivate students, don’t try and motivate them. Motivation often is a side-effect of other things like achievement rather than being ‘motivated.’ If you know a lot about something, and can do something well, you are probably more likely to be motivated than being asked to write a self-efficacy-intrinsic-motivation-unicorn diary.

---

"A critical analysis of the current motivation theories in educational psychology: Why the same theories continue to dominate" by Kou Murayama and Luise von Keyserlingk was published in Educational Psychologist on March 13, 2025.