Thanks for taking the time to write this, Chris. My experience mirrors yours, particularly when you wrote:
“As a teacher, some days it feels like my whole job consists of finding ways to motivate students. I was intrigued, therefore, to find out that motivation might not be as central to education as I thought…”
and
“But I always thought that if I could tip the balance towards students wanting to learn the material for its own sake, the whole business might become more enjoyable for everyone. Which is why I was wary of Muijs’s conclusion.”
Your thoughtful scrutiny of the evidence provided valuable practical insights and reinforced the importance of looking beyond headline claims to understand what the research actually tells us.
Thanks George. When the students are in front of you, you’re thinking about what you’re teaching, but you’re also always wondering how you can get them to learn it – and to want to learn it. Motivation is an essential tool, and the more we understand about it – even in all its theoretical and practical messiness – the better.
Yes, I agree. Motivation is essential, particularly in compulsory subjects like Mathematics.
Also, I don't find the evidence Muijs cites especially convincing, and I'm sceptical of how effect sizes, particularly from meta-analyses, are often interpreted. I've written a deeper critique of Hattie's effect sizes here: https://visablelearning.blogspot.com/p/effect-size.html.
We should be cautious about overstating what the evidence shows, while also being willing to question both research findings and classroom intuitions when they don't align.
Key CL researchers seem to be doing this, eg Kalyuga 2025, added an overriding "Explicit Intention to Learn Principle" and argued that motivating students to engage in explicit learning is an important but under-researched area. He suggests future research should examine whether exploratory learning can improve motivation, under what levels of instructional guidance, and how factors such as curiosity, play, and imitation contribute.
Thanks, George. I sympathise with the aims behind Hattie's project, but I do think the way it's often been used overlooks a lot of the nuance around what we can measure - and what meta-analytic approaches inevitably leave out. I'm looking forward to reading your critique of his methodology, and I'll also take a look at Kalyuga's argument. I agree that we should be strengthening the evidence base around curiosity, motivation and related constructs, rather than assuming we've already answered those questions.
Thanks for taking the time to write this, Chris. My experience mirrors yours, particularly when you wrote:
“As a teacher, some days it feels like my whole job consists of finding ways to motivate students. I was intrigued, therefore, to find out that motivation might not be as central to education as I thought…”
and
“But I always thought that if I could tip the balance towards students wanting to learn the material for its own sake, the whole business might become more enjoyable for everyone. Which is why I was wary of Muijs’s conclusion.”
Your thoughtful scrutiny of the evidence provided valuable practical insights and reinforced the importance of looking beyond headline claims to understand what the research actually tells us.
Thanks George. When the students are in front of you, you’re thinking about what you’re teaching, but you’re also always wondering how you can get them to learn it – and to want to learn it. Motivation is an essential tool, and the more we understand about it – even in all its theoretical and practical messiness – the better.
Yes, I agree. Motivation is essential, particularly in compulsory subjects like Mathematics.
Also, I don't find the evidence Muijs cites especially convincing, and I'm sceptical of how effect sizes, particularly from meta-analyses, are often interpreted. I've written a deeper critique of Hattie's effect sizes here: https://visablelearning.blogspot.com/p/effect-size.html.
We should be cautious about overstating what the evidence shows, while also being willing to question both research findings and classroom intuitions when they don't align.
Key CL researchers seem to be doing this, eg Kalyuga 2025, added an overriding "Explicit Intention to Learn Principle" and argued that motivating students to engage in explicit learning is an important but under-researched area. He suggests future research should examine whether exploratory learning can improve motivation, under what levels of instructional guidance, and how factors such as curiosity, play, and imitation contribute.
Thanks, George. I sympathise with the aims behind Hattie's project, but I do think the way it's often been used overlooks a lot of the nuance around what we can measure - and what meta-analytic approaches inevitably leave out. I'm looking forward to reading your critique of his methodology, and I'll also take a look at Kalyuga's argument. I agree that we should be strengthening the evidence base around curiosity, motivation and related constructs, rather than assuming we've already answered those questions.