One thing immediately stands out when you look at research on motivation in education: the same motivation theories are repeatedly cited and confirmed. Names such as the self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, … have remained popular for decades. In our psychology book we discuss an article by Cook and Artino that shows the greatest common denominator between these theories . Despite all the new insights and techniques in psychology, these established theories appear remarkably stable.

How is that possible? Scientists Kou Murayama and Luise von Keyserlingk explain that this stability is largely due to the fact that existing motivation theories are often quite broad and general. They identify important concepts such as goals, values, and needs but often do not go into depth enough about how these concepts work exactly. This makes it difficult to test the theories rigorously. Most studies simply confirm what we already suspect: good motivation leads to good results, and negative motivation factors do the opposite.

In addition, it appears that much research into motivation focuses primarily on the connections between motivational factors and outcomes, such as performance at school. As a result, the results quickly seem predictable and offer little room for surprising insights – although I personally disagree with this, interesting nuances do sometimes emerge. Relatively little is done to really delve deeply into the mechanisms that explain exactly how motivation works and changes.

The authors propose that researchers should be more critical and creative in their approach to these theories. Instead of testing the same ideas over and over again, they should focus more on developing more precise theories that clarify exactly how motivation arises and changes. According to them, this can be done, for example, with mathematical models, which help record exactly how certain motivational factors influence each other.

They also advise looking critically more often at what existing theories cannot explain well. It is precisely this critical approach that can ensure that the field continues to renew itself. Young researchers should also be encouraged to develop their own ideas and not be afraid to challenge established theories.

In short: although it is nice that we have solid theories that prove their worth time and again, it would be motivating to put them to the test more thoroughly. Because it is precisely by looking critically and creatively at existing theories that we can gain new, valuable insights into how we can really stimulate students.

Abstract of the article:

Although empirical research on motivation has been growing, one remarkable observation is that the same major theories continue to dominate the field, and the constellation of motivation theories has changed very little in recent decades. We argue that this status quo can be explained by the ways in which the major motivation theories are formulated and tested. Specifically, while existing theories of motivation have identified important motivation constructs (eg, goals, values, needs), the theories are somewhat underspecified and lack a detailed account of the dynamic causal mechanisms that underpin motivated behavior. Thus, strong tests of these theories are difficult, and empirical tests of the theories tend to consist of simple and rather obvious tests of statistical relationships between the constructs and their antecedents and outcomes. It is imperative that motivation theories be formulated with greater specificity for the field to advance. More formal training in theory and theory development is thereby needed, and we encourage (especially early-career) researchers to engage in more lively discussions about the theories themselves, rather than simply continuing to test them.