 How can it be that three students of the same age display such very different levels of motivation? What makes one student curious and open to challenge while another certain that no improvement or growth can be made? It all comes down to the type of motivation. In broad terms, motivation can be classified into two camps, intrinsic coming from within and extrinsic originating from something external. We can all identify examples of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our everyday lives. And we know that these types of motivation feel very different. Perhaps you've been reading a spy novel and you're intrinsically motivated to finish the book and find what happens to the main character. In this case, you have a genuine intrinsic interest in engaging with this task. But also perhaps you are required to read documents for a work meeting the following day about a topic which holds little interest for you. Here, the motivation is to appear knowledgeable about the documents in front of your team and perhaps for fear of penalty feels very different. True motivation involves intrinsically driven thoughts and emotions. This contrasts sharply to motivation for external rewards as outlined by Schunk and Usher, 2012. What recent research tells us is that where there is true intrinsic motivation, providing its extrinsic rewards actually reduces this intrinsic motivation. The majority of classrooms operate on a system of extrinsic rewards. And yet we know that children are curious about exploring their world and thus are already intrinsically motivated. A baby strives with all his might to take his first steps as he truly wants to walk. And not because there's an external reward for reaching this milestone. That's not to say that some forms of external motivation are not wholly appropriate. The key factor here is whether extrinsic motivation is used as a method of control or if the individual gains satisfaction from the extrinsic reward. That is, is the motivation autonomous or imposed? The baby may be internally motivated to walk in order to say reach a toy, but walking is not imposed on him as a means of control. Deci and Ryan in 2011 note that for autonomous motivation to be present, three needs must be in place. We must have a level of competence, connect with others and have a sense of autonomy in our goals. Teachers who provide opportunities for students to become self-determined and to enjoy a level of competence have more motivated students. This is further explored in Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory of 2008. Based on theories of human motivation, human development and wellness, self-determination theory addresses the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation as predictors of performance and outcomes. It's important to note that both types of motivation direct and empower thought, but in very different ways and leading to very different outcomes. Autonomous motivation involves both intrinsic motivation and some forms of extrinsic motivation that are integrated into one's sense of self. Deci and Ryan described autonomously motivated learners as those who value and experience self-endorsement of their actions. Control motivation, on the other hand, consists of the external regulation of one's behavior resulting in the need for approval, avoidance of shame or punishment, or self-esteem contingent on the controlling factor. Self-determination theory proposes three fundamental needs which must be met for motivation to occur. The need for autonomy, the need for competence, and the need for relatedness. So what might this look like in the classroom? Zhang, Reeve, and Deckey suggest that autonomy-supportive teachers empower their students' personal autonomy by empathizing with students' perspectives. They identify and nurture students' needs their interests and their preferences, and they provide achievable challenges. They highlight meaningful learning goals, they present interesting, relevant, and enriching activities. Dressel and Hall in 2013 suggests that in facilitating students' need for autonomy, students might be encouraged to set their own learning and behavioral goals and choose the content or the process of some learning tasks. To assist with fostering students' need for competence, teachers should provide clear, purposeful, specific, and individualized feedback. As well as clear instructions and explanatory rationales for learning activities, a level of structure and guidance to model leadership and a range of learning activities that account for learning preferences and skills. To facilitate the need for relatedness, teachers can ensure the inclusion of collaborative activities. They can build a positive rapport between students and the teacher, and they can make known that the progress of each learner is really valued by the teacher. With this theory in mind, Carol Dweck has identified two types of mindsets. A fixed mindset suggests that intelligence and ability is static, and nothing can change what is biologically predetermined. A growth mindset, however, supports intelligence and ability as dynamic and ever-changing. Timothy Seifert's research highlights that students who attribute success and failure to internal, controllable causes are more likely to feel pride, satisfaction, confidence, and have a higher sense of self-esteem. They'll then choose to work on more difficult tasks, display greater self-determination and higher levels of cognitive engagement. They have a strong sense of control, they learn from their mistakes, and they produce work that is of a higher quality. Such learners are intrinsically motivated. They exhibit a positive effect, they're flexible, and they engage deeply with the task. Students that believe that their failure is attributed to uncontrollable factors are more likely to feel shame and will demonstrate reduced effort or cognitive engagement. They are performance, self, other, and failure-focused, and they view their self-worth as being tied to their performance and as compared to the performance of others. They may engage in task avoidance, which comes from the wish to protect self-worth. But it's not as simple as high-ability students do well and low-ability students do not. We know that intelligence, achievement, and motivation are malleable and subject to change. Learning-oriented students understand this and they work to be task-focused in an optimistic manner. Students who perceive themselves as capable are more likely to be self-regulating, strategic, and metacognitive than students who do not. Teacher talk in the classroom usually reveals an allegiance to either a fixed or a growth mindset. But Carol Dweck emphasizes the importance of teachers supporting a not-yet mindset. Supporting a growth mindset for students can really increase motivation and self-belief and ultimately deeper cognitive engagement.