Motivation as a design problem
In this project, motivation is not something that lives only inside the student. It shows up in how the subject is organised, how tasks are framed, and what kinds of experiences students have in class. Børhaug and Borgund (2018) show this clearly in their work with Norwegian upper secondary students. Social studies felt motivating when it allowed self regulation, emotional engagement, and content that connected directly to studentsâ lives. At the same time, they warn that if motivation is built only on subjective interest and personal expression, the critical and structural side of the subject can fade into the background (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018).
The Sport Education and PE research points in the same direction. Siedentop (2002) and Wallhead and OâSullivan (2005) report that Sport Education seasons tend to increase enjoyment, engagement, and perceived competence, especially for lower skilled students and girls. It is not just that students âlike sportâ. They feel part of a team, they see their improvement recorded over time, and they have meaningful roles and goals inside the season structure (Siedentop, 2002; Wallhead & OâSullivan, 2005). Motivation here is tied to design choices about teams, roles, and records, not just to individual personality.
Self Determination Theory as a frame
Self Determination Theory (SDT) gives a useful language for thinking about how these structures support or undermine motivation. FernĂĄndez (2011) uses SDT to study social studies motivation in an urban high school and focuses on three basic psychological needs:
- Autonomy: feeling that you have some say in what you do and how you do it.
- Competence: feeling capable and seeing yourself improve.
- Relatedness: feeling connected to other people and that your work matters.
According to SDT, students move along a continuum from amotivation, through different forms of extrinsic motivation, toward more internalised and intrinsic motivation as these needs are better supported (FernĂĄndez, 2011). The same assignment can feel like âI have to do this for marksâ or âthis fits with who I am and what I care about,â depending on how it is framed and embedded in the course.
Fernåndez (2011) highlights a set of contextual factors that connect to these needs: teacher care, opportunities for self regulation, relevant content, and classroom structures that recognise student voice. Børhaug and Borgund (2018) find similar patterns in a different setting. Their students describe social studies as motivating when they have room to express personal views and when topics speak to their existential questions and emotions. They also show that this can drift into purely subjective engagement if teachers do not deliberately bring in structural, disciplinary analysis (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018).
Motivation in PE and Sport Education research
The Sport Education model offers concrete examples of how course structures can support SDT needs while still targeting disciplinary goals. Siedentop (2002) describes seasons built around persisting teams, competition schedules, record keeping, multiple roles, and culminating events. Wallhead and OâSullivan (2005) summarise research showing that these features tend to increase studentsâ enthusiasm, sense of belonging, and willingness to engage, particularly when records and roles are tied to valued outcomes such as tactical understanding, fair play, and participation.
James, Griffin, and France (2005) add another angle from assessment in elementary PE. Students were more positive about assessment when they understood the criteria and saw the process as fair and linked to their learning. When the teacher used performance based tasks and clearly explained standards, students could see what they were working toward, which supported feelings of competence and reduced anxiety (James et al., 2005). Motivation here comes from clarity, transparency, and alignment of assessment with learning goals.
Hopper, Sanford, and Fu (2018) extend this logic through videogame design. They argue that combining Teaching Games for Understanding and Sport Education with ideas from game design can create âoptimum challenges,â where tasks are neither too hard nor too easy and where feedback is immediate and meaningful. Good games provide clear goals, constant information about progress, and new challenges that sit just beyond the current level (Hopper et al., 2018). When teachers design units in this way, they tend to support competence (visible progress), autonomy (choices and different pathways), and relatedness (co operative and competitive group structures) all at once.
A simple way to see this is to map SDT needs onto common structural features:
| SDT need | How Sport Education / game based designs address it | Key sources |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Choice of roles (coach, referee, statistician, media), some control over strategies, options for how to complete extension tasks. | FernĂĄndez (2011); Hopper et al. (2018); Siedentop (2002) |
| Competence | Clear standards, visible records, levelled challenges, and feedback embedded in games and seasons so students can see improvement over time. | James et al. (2005); Siedentop (2002); Wallhead & OâSullivan (2005) |
| Relatedness | Persistent teams, shared goals, group records, and culminating events that build identity and tradition. | Siedentop (2002); Wallhead & OâSullivan (2005); Hopper et al. (2018) |
In all of these cases, motivation is not a separate hook at the start of a lesson. It is built into how seasons, roles, standards, and records are organised.
What motivates students in social studies
The social studies specific research lines up with these ideas but adds its own focus. FernĂĄndez (2011) shows that studentsâ motivation in social studies is strongly influenced by whether they experience the subject as something that helps them make sense of their own lives and futures. Perceived value of education, teacher support, and opportunities for discussion all matter, but so does the sense that social studies skills will be useful beyond school (FernĂĄndez, 2011). When students feel that they are only memorising facts for tests, motivation tends to stay at more external levels of the SDT continuum.
Børhaug and Borgund (2018) describe two main motives students talk about:
- Using social studies to think about identity, values, and life questions (existential exploration).
- Using social studies to analyse power, democracy, and social structures (critical engagement).
Classroom practices often support the existential side through discussion, personal writing, and emotionally charged topics. Without deliberate design, this can mean that the structural and disciplinary side is underplayed (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018). Students may enjoy the subject but not develop the kind of critical literacy that social studies aims for.
Taken together, these studies suggest that social studies teachers need structures that:
- Support autonomy with real choices in inquiry questions, roles, and ways of showing understanding.
- Support competence with clear standards and feedback on disciplinary skills like argumentation, source analysis, and recognising power relations.
- Support relatedness through dialogue, collaboration, and emotional engagement with meaningful issues.
- Balance personal relevance with critical, structural engagement.
Designing for motivation in social studies using this structure
When the organisational features from earlier sections (standards based grading with extensions, Sport Education style seasons, and gamified assignments) are viewed through this motivation lens, they turn into tools for systematically supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness in social studies.
For example, a unit on âCitizenship and protestâ can be set up so that:
- Autonomy is built in through team choice of specific case studies (for example, an Indigenous rights campaign, a labour strike, or an environmental movement) and options for how to present findings (podcast, digital exhibit, town hall simulation).
- Competence is supported with clear âI canâ statements around evidence use, explaining power and inequality, and participating in discussion, each with levels including extension that push toward deeper critical analysis.
- Relatedness is strengthened by stable inquiry teams, visible progress boards, and a culminating event where work is shared with peers or a wider audience.
SDT needs can also be used as a simple planning check when building units:
| Design question | Example in a social studies unit |
|---|---|
| Where do students experience real choice? (Autonomy) | Choice of protest case study, choice of role in the inquiry group, choice of medium for the final product. |
| How can students see themselves improving on important social studies skills? (Competence) | Proficiency scales for argument writing and source analysis, with regular self assessment and teacher feedback tied to specific criteria. |
| How will students feel that this work matters with and for others? (Relatedness) | Group structures that require interdependence, class norms for dialogue, and a culminating event where work is shared beyond the classroom. |
Using SDT and the existing motivation research as a frame helps keep the focus on more than just making things fun. The goal is to design a social studies environment where studentsâ psychological needs are supported at the same time as they are challenged to move from personal, existential engagement into critical, structural understanding of society (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018; FernĂĄndez, 2011).
Seen this way, the organisational structure drawn from Sport Education, game based design, and standards based assessment is not only about classroom management. It is a way of building motivational conditions into the core of a social studies course.