# why we learn: motivation, effectiveness and joy ### surfing: scaffolding and training I recently about [my experience learning to surf](https://shaazahm.com/Website/Public/Blog/2025/learning+to+surf) for the first time in Costa Rica, and a recent surf camp in Sri Lanka has got me thinking more about the pedagogy of surfing. My first ever lesson was in Bundoran, Ireland, as a part of a group of 10. I caught one wave with the help of an instructor and received very little instruction. Then, in Costa Rica, I took one-on-one lessons, and I was taught to pop-up, i.e. standing up on the board, on a beach break in waist high water. The first learning outcome was learning to pop-up on white-water, or broken waves. I realized later that the instructor was making life easier for me. He held the nose of my surfboard and did the following: 1. pick a wave that he thought was gentle enough for me to ride 2. direct the board in the direction of the oncoming wave 3. give me a light little push so I didn't have to paddle to create momentum 4. time the push to be perfectly aligned What this meant was that I couldn't really surf on my own because do all of the above. But I got the good feeling of getting up on the board very early and very quickly. I'm not so sure if this sequencing was really necessary for me because I was quite motivated to try and fail and be out in the water for the fun of it. In fact sometimes it felt a little annoying that I had to continue going to one-on-one classes to be able to do everything and I wasn't able to practice on my own. However I understand that a huge part of surf tourism is getting people who don't really enjoy surfing to try surfing and learn to enjoy it. ### sri lanka and pedagogy of surfing Last week, I attended a week-long surf boot camp in Sri Lanka at the Soul & Surf designed and taught by an excellent coach, Justin. He mentioned he was quite interested in the pedagogy of surfing. One fact that contrasted my previous experience with the one-on-one lessons was how he felt instant gratification was sometimes detrimental to learning a skill well. For example, I was taught to pop-up first on white water waves in previous lessons but he mentioned that some parts of it was harder on white water than it was on the green waves. This is echoed by a redditor documenting their learning experience in this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeginnerSurfers/comments/1atss9y/should_i_be_riding_the_white_waves/): > Practicing pop-ups and balance riding white water waves after the wave has broken, just getting pushed forward. It's also a lot harder to stand up on the board in the white water because of all the turbulence. When you start catching unbroken waves you'll notice how much easier it is to balance. Nevertheless, white water is so much more forgiving for beginners when it comes to timing or the ability to practice in the safety of a shallow and sandy beach floor, and that's the quickest way to give a learner an early win. Bandura's research on self-efficacy theory provides the strongest argument for designing early wins into curriculum. [Experiencing success strengthens beliefs in one's capabilities, while repeated failures tend to undermine them](https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-efficacy.html). [The teacher or instructor has a clear role to play by providing careful scaffolding](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09571736.2022.2045679), so that 'feared activities are first modelled to show people how to cope with threats and to disconfirm their worst fears. Coping tasks are broken down into subtasks of easily mastered steps.' However, Bandura explicitly warns against making things _too_ easy. Regularly achieving easy success with little effort can lead people to expect rapid results, which [can result in their being easily discouraged by failure](https://positivepsychology.com/bandura-self-efficacy/). If people experience only easy successes they come to expect quick results and are easily discouraged by setbacks and failures. **The success needs to feel _earned_ through effort on a _challenging_ task—not handed to you.** ### scaffolding for feedback The research consistently supports **immediate feedback** (knowing how you're doing) rather than **instant success** (making things artificially easy). Consider the following hypothetical examples for sequencing learning for surfing or programming: | Phase | What Happens | Surfing Example | Programming Example | | ------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------- | | **1. Quick Win** | Achievable challenge that builds self-efficacy | Catching foam waves with assistance | "Hello World" or modifying existing code | | **2. Immediate Feedback** | Know quickly if you're improving | Feel the board moving, instructor feedback | Code runs/fails immediately | | **3. Graduated Challenge** | Difficulty increases as competence grows | Less assistance, bigger waves | More complex projects | | **4. Authentic Struggle** | Face real difficulty with developed resilience | Paddle out alone, miss waves | Debug real problems | | **5. Internalized Motivation** | Joy comes from process, not just wins | Love being in water | Love solving problems | ### non-linear learning paths that optimize for motivation This non-linear scaffolded path to learning to surf is prevalent in a lot of other subjects, and makes me wonder about the effectiveness of each method. Maybe the right way to teach surfing is first to start with safety, then basic ocean knowledge, then learn how to paddle around in the water because that's 95% of what you do while surfing. However, this means that it takes much longer to get to the "orgasm" of the surfing experience, and more often than not it is that end result feeling that tends to drive what we want to do. (Claude: I wonder if there's research that indicates that people who are motivated intrinsically versus by the end goal have some kind of difference ) However having learned how to pop up and do a couple of simple green waves, I am ever more motivated to learn how to paddle well and swim well. I'm not so sure if I would have been the same level of motivated if I had simply started to learn how to paddle well. ### why we learn: for its own sake or as a means to an end In a [blog post](https://willcrichton.net/notes/learning-through-goals-in-computer-science/), Brown University CS professor Will Crichton mentions how he was unmotivated to learn Python for its own sake, but was motivated to learn the learn the Lua programming language as a tool to modify a game he used to play. > The single biggest mistake that I’ve seen time and time again in programmers, whether novices or senior developers, is learning tools _for the sake of learning the tool_. [...] When the tool/language/library that you’re learning is a means to an end, you will know not just how to use it but also when and why. > As I was learning about game development, I never had a goal like “learn X tool” or “learn Y language.” My goals were “make games that other people enjoy” or “get a job at Valve working on the stuff I love.” > Personally, my success in programming has been entirely driven by treating the act of learning to program as purely a means to some greater end. Will's experience resonates with my own as a self-directed learner of computer science. However there have also been subjects that have been fascinated for their own sake such as concurrency in distributed systems, low-level hardware, and so on. > As a caveat, I recognize there are some who learn tools just for the intrinsic enjoyment of learning them or to broaden their horizons, and that’s totally ok. For a long time, I've wanted to do the NAND to Tetris course based on the book "The Elements of Computing," where you build a computer from scratch purely to understand the inner workings of something that I use on a daily basis. Contrast that with my desire to learn a new programming language such as Rust which is complicated with motivations like wanting to find an interesting job in the systems programming area or learn the new language that everyone's talking about because it's the new trendy thing. One person's 'end goal' might be to learn distributed systems to work in big tech and get paid well, but for another it might be to learn distributed systems because they find it fascinating (with a host of personal reasons why they find it fascinating). ### why we learn: effectiveness of mastery vs goal orientation Given all that one can see a host of different reasons that someone might want to learn something. Looking at surfing here are a few different examples: > 1. 'competitive surfing': doing complex maneuvers on challenging waves > 2. 'soul surfing': a philosophy of surfing focused on the pure joy, spiritual connection, and harmony with nature found in riding waves, rather than winning competitions. This emphasizes grace, flow, mindfulness, and a deep, present-moment connection to the ocean. > 3. emotional growth (e.g. facing fears): I learned how to swim late and the thought of surfing was scary for me. Part of learning to surf was overcoming that fear and the emotional growth that I gained from overcoming that fear > 4. cognitive growth (e.g. learning a skill): learning something new and challenging has been shown time and again to enhance brain health and learning surfing is clearly a way to do that > 5. keeping active: simply as a way to stay active for physical and mental health purposes > 6. love for ocean, travel and beaches: as an excuse to spend more time in the ocean and see beautiful beach destinations of the world > 7. community: making friends or becoming part of a social community centered around an activity you all love > 8. employment: finding a job as a surf instructor because you think it fits your lifestyle > 9. vanity and social approval: look cool surfing because that's what's perceived to be cool in your little worldview I could keep going for different kinds of reasons for learning to surf. But it's worth realizing that any kind of learning is a complex array of motivations overlapped on top of each other. **Does any one motivation fare better than the other for effectiveness of learning?** I'm not so sure, since it likely depends on the intensity of that motivation for a specific person. There's substantial research on this, primarily through **Achievement Goal Theory** and **Self-Determination Theory** (developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan). The research distinguishes between: - **Mastery orientation** (learning for its own sake, developing competence) - **Performance orientation** (achieving external goals, demonstrating ability to others) Students with a mastery orientation are [more intrinsically motivated to learn, use deeper cognitive strategies, and persist through challenge and failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_orientation#Mastery_orientation). Research also shows that the [adoption of a mastery mindset leads to greater intrinsic motivation](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-006-0128-6), and intrinsic motivation has the following advantages for learning: 1. **Persistence**: Intrinsic motivation tends to be more sustainable over time compared to extrinsic motivation. 2. **Response to difficulty & failure**: People with mastery orientation seek feedback on past performance to evaluate current performance, focus on improving skills and acquiring knowledge, and are less concerned with making mistakes. A concept that is popular in recent times is [Carol Dweck's growth mindset](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_orientation#Growth_mindsets): characterized by the belief that talents and abilities are things that are developed through effort, practice and instruction, as opposed to the belief that one's basic qualities are fixed. Research has shown that the growth mindset leads to better learning performance over time. ### why we learn: satisfaction from learning I wonder if somebody who learns to surf because they simply love the 100% of the process of it, being out in the ocean, the paddling, the sun and whatever you have to do when you're surfing gets more internal peace and joy from surfing than somebody who sees it as a means to an end. [Research on subjective well-being](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40985-020-00142-5) suggests something counterintuitive: the person who loves the process of surfing—paddling, sitting in the water, the sun—may indeed experience more satisfaction, but _because_ they're not directly pursuing satisfaction as a goal. Modern psychological research on enjoyment, such as Csikszentmihalyi's theory of flow, aligns with valuing the satisfaction derived from meaningful effort and personal growth over passive consumption. [Research on eudaimonic and hedonic well being](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1089268019880886) notes that pursuing meaning and engagement (process) works better for wellbeing than directly pursuing happiness (outcome). ### types of goals & what we choose to master Although we've spoken about the benefits of a mastery orientation while learning, does it matter what we seek to master? For example, I could choose to master the Python programming language or I could choose to master building web apps and use / learn the Python language as a tool to achieve that goal. The Seijts & Latham Framework draws a distinction between two types of goals: - **Learning goal**: "Discover 5 effective strategies for structuring Python code" - **Performance goal**: "Build a working web app" Which of these goals is more effective for learning? The answer is nuanced ([research overview](https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/s-spire/documents/PD.locke-and-latham-retrospective_Paper.pdf)): - Kanfer and Ackerman found that in an air traffic controller simulation (a highly complex task), having a performance-outcome goal actually interfered with acquiring the knowledge necessary to perform the task. - Winters and Latham showed that the fault was with the type of goal that had been set rather than with the theory. They found that when a specific difficult learning goal rather than a performance goal was set, high goals led to significantly higher performance on a complex task. There's another dimension for types of goals based on how far out in time they are: - **Proximal goals** are specific, short-term objectives and providing immediate focus, feedback, motivation, and a sense of accomplishment by breaking down complex tasks into manageable, near-future achievements. - **Distal goals** are long-term, high-level objectives that are far in the future, abstract, and require significant, sustained effort, like earning a university degree or achieving net-zero emissions [Research indicates that proximal goals are more effective for children](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250959561_The_Effects_of_Proximal_and_Distal_Goalson_Goal_Level_Strategy_Development_and_Group_Performance) who exhibited gross deficits and disinterest in mathematical tasks. Under proximal subgoals, children progressed rapidly in self-directed learning, achieved substantial mastery of mathematical operations, and developed a sense of personal efficacy and intrinsic interest in arithmetic activities that initially held little attraction for them. Distal goals had no demonstrable effects. | Goal Type | Surfing Example | Programming Example | Effectiveness for Complex Skills | | --------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | **Distal performance goal alone** | "Compete in surf competitions" | "Get a job at Valve" | Can interfere with learning if skill is lacking | | **Proximal learning goal alone** | "Learn to paddle efficiently" | "Learn Python syntax" | Builds skill but may lack sustained motivation | | **Connected proximal + distal** | "Learn paddling technique (proximal) to eventually ride green waves (distal)" | "Learn Lua scripting (proximal) to mod games I love (distal)" | **Most effective** | ### putting it all together: which motivation fares better? We have to accept that there is a complex ranking of motivations for any activity that someone undertakes, as illustrated with the surfing and programming examples. The impact of that motivation on learning is directly correlated to how much these motivations are **personally meaningful to the learner**. For learning effectiveness, what really matters is how strong the meaning of the goal is for a learner and the mindset that the learner has towards the process of learning. I used to believe that being very end or goal-focused is detrimental to learning since it often tends to remind people of the distance between their current skill and where they want to be. However that is a matter of perspective & mindset. It can be countered by giving a sense of progress to the learner towards that distal goal and shifting their perspective from one of insufficiency to one of progress. This is where proximal sub-goals become crucial: irrespective of whether the proximal goal is what motivates the learner the most or not, they are essential for both mastery and performance goals. What about satisfaction, or learning to enjoy learning? When we consider the impact of different motivations on satisfaction from learning, the research seems to indicate that enjoying the process and not pursuing the end directly leads to a more satisfactory experience. As a consequence one might think that in the long term this leads to sustained performance. An analogy from animal training research is instructive here. Dogs trained with reward-based methods show lower stress, learn faster, and develop more trusting relationships with their handlers than dogs trained with aversive methods—who display elevated cortisol, more anxiety, and even become more "pessimistic" in approaching new situations. The parallel to human learning is suggestive: learning associated with positive engagement produces better outcomes than learning driven by pressure or fear of failure. Environments built on encouragement and process-enjoyment foster both better welfare and more durable motivation than those built on the stress of needing to achieve. ### the future of learning and AI I recently spoke to an English tutor who teaches one-on-one English lessons to French speakers in corporate contexts. When I asked her how AI has affected her work, she mentioned that she could now tailor curriculum and progression specifically to the learning goals of individuals. For example, one of our clients wanted to learn English because she was involved in a legal project where a lot of the legalese was in English. She used ChatGPT to create curriculum that was tailored to this learner needs. I think AI offers a massive opportunity for teachers and tutors to educate the next generation. It is possible that AI can eventually replace some of the lower-quality mass teaching that we have in classrooms across the world today. But I think it's impossible for AI to compete with quality tutors and even harder to replace AI-assisted tutors. Based on our discussion of motivations earlier, I think AI can help tutors achieve better outcomes in the following areas: 1. Discovering the motivations and goals of students, which I think is heavily a human-driven thing 2. Tailoring the proximal goals of the curriculum to the distal goals of the learner 3. Provide feedback on the learner's progress via assessment of proximal subgoals 4. Tracking the ratio of success and failure and tuning how challenging the proximal subgoals are to the learner's skills 5. Guiding the learner to adopt mastery orientation and growth mindsets There are some other applications of AI to learning that we've discussed in other blog posts too: 1. [[personalized-ai]]: dealing with mental models of learners to detect and correct misconceptions 2. [[cognitive-science]]: nudging the learner to adopt the state-of-the-art learning techniques that accelerate learning, in essence teaching them how to learn Overall I'm quite excited about such applications. We'll also discuss what this means for Explorable's vision in a separate blog post.