Self-Determination Theory: Autonomy, Competence and Belonging in Learning

Sticker charts, house points, merit systems and screen time earned by finishing homework are part of daily life in many homes and schools. They often work in the short term. Self-determination theory, one of the most researched theories of motivation in psychology, asks a longer-term question: what happens to a child’s own interest in an activity when we start paying for it?

The theory in brief

Self-determination theory was developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester. Their 1985 book, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, set out the framework, and a widely cited 2000 paper in American Psychologist summarised it for a general psychology readership.

The theory separates motivation by its source.

• Intrinsic motivation is doing something because it is interesting or enjoyable in itself. A child who builds a Lego model all afternoon with no one asking is intrinsically motivated.
• Extrinsic motivation is doing something for an outcome separate from the activity: a reward, a grade, avoiding a telling-off.

Deci and Ryan do not treat all extrinsic motivation as the same. A pupil who revises because she has come to value doing well in science is extrinsically motivated, but the reason has become her own. A pupil who revises only because his parents will confiscate his phone is also extrinsically motivated, but the pressure comes entirely from outside. The theory describes a range between these, from controlled to more self-endorsed forms, and predicts that the more self-endorsed forms bring better persistence and wellbeing.

Three basic needs

At the centre of the theory are three psychological needs that Ryan and Deci (2000) argue are universal:

1. Autonomy: experiencing your actions as your own choice, not as being pushed.
2. Competence: feeling effective, that you can do things and get better at them.
3. Relatedness: feeling connected to and cared about by others.

When the social environment supports these needs, the theory predicts more intrinsic motivation and a better quality of extrinsic motivation. When it frustrates them, motivation becomes more controlled or collapses. Autonomy in this sense does not mean independence or doing whatever you like. A child can feel autonomous while following an adult’s request, if they understand the reason and feel some ownership of the task.

What happens with rewards

The marker pen study

One of the classic experiments in this area was run by Mark Lepper, David Greene and Richard Nisbett (1973). They first identified preschool children who already liked drawing with felt-tip markers during free play. The children were then asked to draw under one of three conditions: told in advance they would receive a “Good Player Award” certificate, given the same award unexpectedly afterwards, or given no award.

One to two weeks later, the researchers watched the children’s free play again. Children who had expected the award spent less time drawing with the markers than the other two groups. Those given the same award as a surprise showed no drop. The authors called this the overjustification effect: once a reward was attached, the children seemed to reinterpret drawing as something done for the prize.

The meta-analysis

Over the next decades, many studies tested this idea, and the results were debated. Judy Cameron and David Pierce (1994) published a meta-analysis concluding that the undermining effect was limited. Deci, Richard Koestner and Ryan (1999) then published a larger meta-analysis of 128 experiments in Psychological Bulletin. Their findings included:

• Expected tangible rewards given for doing, finishing or doing well at an interesting task tended to reduce later free-choice interest in it.
• Unexpected rewards did not have this effect.
• Verbal rewards, meaning positive feedback, tended to increase intrinsic motivation, though the effect was weaker for children than for college students.
• Tangible rewards were more undermining for children than for college students.

Two points keep this in proportion. First, the undermining effect applies to activities a child already finds interesting. Rewards for tasks with no inherent appeal are a different question, and the meta-analysis does not show they are harmful there. Second, these are laboratory tasks lasting minutes, with interest measured soon after. They show a mechanism, not a guarantee of what any particular sticker chart will do.

Autonomy-supportive teaching

Johnmarshall Reeve and Hyungshim Jang (2006) asked what teachers actually say and do that makes students feel autonomous. They observed teacher-student pairs during a learning activity and linked students’ sense of autonomy to specific things the teachers said and did.

Behaviours linked to more perceived autonomy included listening, giving time to work in the student’s own way, letting the student talk, praise that gave information about progress, encouragement, offering hints when the student was stuck, responding to the student’s questions, and acknowledging the student’s perspective.

Behaviours linked to less perceived autonomy included holding on to the materials, showing or telling the answer, giving commands, using “should” and “have to” statements, and asking controlling questions.

None of this means dropping structure. Clear expectations, routines and guidance support the need for competence, and autonomy support works alongside them.

In the classroom

• Offer real choices within a clear frame: which of three questions to start with, how to present findings, which book to read for the reading log.
• Give the reason behind a task. “We are practising this because next week you will need it for the experiment” invites buy-in in a way “because I said so” does not.
• Use informational feedback. “Your second paragraph uses evidence well; the first needs a quotation” supports competence. “Good work” says little.
• Watch for controlling language. Replace “You should” and “You must” with “You might try” or “One option is”, where the situation allows.
• Build belonging. Learning names quickly, noticing absences and showing interest in pupils’ lives all speak to relatedness.
• Use rewards with care for things pupils already enjoy. If a class loves reading, a reading-for-prizes scheme may not add much.

At home

• Notice and describe effort and progress, rather than paying for achievement: “You kept going with that tricky level until you worked it out.”
• Let children make some decisions about how and when tasks are done, such as homework before or after a snack.
• If you use a reward chart for a hard routine, such as getting dressed for school, plan how to phase it out once the habit is set.
• Protect the activities your child loves from too much adult management. Not every hobby needs a target.
• Explain household rules, even when they are non-negotiable. Understanding why makes it easier for a child to adopt a rule as their own.

Further reading

• Cameron, J. and Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
• Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum.
• Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: a test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137.
• Reeve, J. and Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.
• Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.