WEEK4

Chapter 9 Motivation

Kerri Townsend, an elementary teacher, has been working with her students on subtraction with regrouping. In teaching the concept, she used everyday examples, cutouts, and manipulatives to help spark students’ interest. Now the students are solving problems at their desks, and Kerri is walking around, talking with students individually and checking their work.

The first student she checks on is Margaret, who feels she is not very good in math. Kerri says to Margaret, “Margaret, you got them all correct. You’re really getting good at this. That should make you feel good. I know that you’ll keep doing well in math this year.”

Next is Derrick, who’s having a hard time concentrating and hasn’t done much work. Kerri says to him, “Derrick, I know you can do much better. See how well Jason is working. (Jason and Derrick are friends.) I know that you can work just as well and do great on these problems. Let’s try.”

Jared likes to do better than others. As Kerri approaches, Jared says to her, “Ms. Townsend, see how good I’m doing, better than most others.” Kerri says, “Yes, you are doing very well. But instead of thinking about how others are doing, think about how you’re doing. See, you can do these problems now, and just a few weeks ago you couldn’t. So you really have learned a lot.”

As Kerri approaches Amy, she sees that Amy is wasting time. “Amy, why aren’t you working better?” Amy replies, “I don’t like these problems. I’d rather be working on the computer.” Kerri replies, “You’ll get your chance for that. I know that you can work better on these, so let’s try to finish them before the end of the period. I think you’ll like subtraction more when you see how well you can solve the problems.”

Matt enjoys learning and is a very hard worker. As Kerri comes up to his desk, Matt is working hard on the problems. Unfortunately he’s also making some mistakes. Kerri gives him feedback, showing him what he’s doing correctly and what he needs to correct. Then she says, “Matt, you’re a hard worker. I know that if you keep working on these, you will learn how to do them. I’m sure that soon you’ll find that you can do them easier.”

Kerri has been working with Rosetta on setting goals for completing her work accurately. Rosetta’s goal is to complete her work with at least 80% accuracy. Earlier in the year Rosetta averaged only about 30% accuracy. Kerri checks her work and says, “Rosetta, I’m so proud of you. You did 10 problems and got 8 of them completely correct, so you made your goal. See how much better you’re doing now than before? You’re getting much better in math!”

We have seen throughout this text that much human learning—regardless of content—has common features. Learning begins with the knowledge and skills that learners bring to the situation, which they expand and refine as a function of learning. Learning involves the use of cognitive strategies and processes such as attention, perception, rehearsal, organization, elaboration, storage, and retrieval.

This chapter discusses motivation—a topic intimately linked with learning.  Motivation  is the process of instigating and sustaining goal-directed behavior (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich,  2014 ). This is a cognitive definition because it postulates that learners set goals and employ cognitive processes (e.g., planning, monitoring) and behaviors (e.g., persistence, effort) to attain their goals. Although behavioral views of motivation are reviewed, the bulk of this chapter is devoted to cognitive perspectives.

As with learning, motivation is not observed directly, but rather inferred from behavioral indexes such as task choices, effort, persistence, and goal-directed activities. Motivation is an explanatory concept that helps us understand why people behave as they do (Graham & Weiner,  2012 ).

Although some simple types of learning can occur with little or no motivation, most learning is motivated. Students motivated to learn attend to instruction and engage in such activities as rehearsing information, relating it to previously acquired knowledge, and asking questions (Schunk & Zimmerman,  2008 ). Rather than quit when they encounter difficult material, motivated students expend greater effort. They choose to work on tasks when they are not required to do so; in their spare time they read about topics of interest, solve problems and puzzles, and work on computer projects. In short, motivation engages students in activities that facilitate learning. Teachers understand the importance of motivation for learning, and—as the opening vignette shows—do many things to raise student motivation.

This chapter begins by discussing some historical views of motivation; the remainder of the chapter covers cognitive perspectives. Key motivational processes are explained and linked to learning. Topics covered are achievement motivation theory, attribution theory, social cognitive theory, goal theory, perceptions of control, self-concept, and intrinsic motivation. The chapter concludes with some educational applications.

· When you finish studying this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

· ■ Discuss the major principles of historical theories of motivation: drive, conditioning, cognitive consistency, humanistic.

· ■ Sketch a model of motivated learning, and describe its major components.

· ■ Explain the major features in a current model of achievement motivation.

· ■ Discuss the causal dimensions in Weiner’s attribution theory and the effects they have in achievement situations.

· ■ Explain how goals, expectations, social comparison, and self-concept can affect motivation.

· ■ Distinguish between learning (process) and performance (product) goal orientations, and describe how they can promote or undermine motivation and learning.

· ■ Define intrinsic motivation, explain the variables that can affect it and how it can influence learning, and discuss the conditions under which rewards may increase or decrease intrinsic motivation.

· ■ Distinguish between personal and situational interest and explain how they relate to motivation and learning.

· ■ Describe the major findings on the role of emotions in motivation and learning.

· ■ Discuss educational applications involving achievement motivation, attributions, and goal orientations.

BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS

Historical Perspectives

Although some variables included in historical theories are not relevant to current theories, historical views helped set the stage for current cognitive theories. Further, several historical ideas have contemporary relevance.

Some early views reflected the idea that motivation results primarily from  instincts . Ethologists, for example, based their ideas on Darwin’s theory, which postulates that instincts have survival value for organisms. Energy builds within organisms and releases itself in behaviors designed to help species survive. Other theories have emphasized the individual’s need for  homeostasis , or optimal levels of physiological states. A third perspective involves  hedonism , or the idea that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Although each of these views may explain some instances of human motivation, they are inadequate to account for a wide range of motivated activities, especially those that occur during learning. Readers interested in these views should consult other sources (Schunk et al.,  2014 ; Weiner,  1992 ).

Three historical perspectives on motivation with relevance to learning are drive theory, conditioning theory, and cognitive consistency theory.

Drive Theory.

Drive theory originated as a physiological theory; eventually, it was broadened to include psychological needs. Woodworth ( 1918 ) defined  drives  as internal forces that sought to maintain homeostatic body balance. When a person or animal is deprived of an essential element (e.g., food, air, water), this activates a drive that causes the person or animal to respond. The drive subsides when the element is obtained.

Much of the research that tested predictions of drive theory was conducted with laboratory animals (Richter,  1927 ; Woodworth & Schlosberg,  1954 ). In these experiments, animals often were deprived of food or water for some time, and their behaviors to get food or water were assessed. For example, rats might be deprived of food for varying amounts of time and placed in a maze. The time that it took them to run to the end to receive food was measured. Not surprisingly, response strength (running speed) normally varied directly with the number of prior reinforcements and with longer deprivation up to 2 to 3 days, after which it dropped off because the animals became progressively weaker.

Hull ( 1943 ) broadened the drive concept by postulating that physiological deficits were primary needs that instigated drives to reduce the needs. Drive (D) was the motivational force that energized and prompted people and animals into action. Behavior that obtained reinforcement to satisfy a need resulted in drive reduction. This process is as follows:

Need → Drive → Behavior

Motivation  was the “initiation of learned, or habitual, patterns of movement or behavior” (Hull,  1943 , p. 226). Hull believed that innate behaviors usually satisfied primary needs and that learning occurred only when innate behaviors proved ineffective.  Learning  represented one’s adaptation to the environment to ensure survival.

Hull also postulated the existence of  secondary reinforcers  because much behavior was not oriented toward satisfying primary needs. Stimulus situations (e.g., work to earn money) acquired secondary reinforcing power by being paired with primary reinforcement (e.g., money buys food).

Drive theory generated much research as a consequence of Hull’s writings (Weiner,  1992 ). As an explanation for motivated behavior, drive theory seems best applied to immediate physiological needs; for example, one lost in a desert is primarily concerned with finding food, water, and shelter. Drive theory is not an ideal explanation for much human motivation. Needs do not always trigger drives oriented toward need reduction. Students hastily finishing an overdue term paper may experience strong symptoms of hunger, yet they may not stop to eat because the desire to complete an important task outweighs a physiological need. Conversely, drives can exist in the absence of biological needs. A sex drive can lead to promiscuous behavior even though sex is not immediately needed for survival.

Drive theory may explain some behaviors directed toward immediate goals, but many human behaviors reflect long-term goals, such as finding a job, obtaining a college degree, and sailing around the world. People are not in a continuously high drive state while pursuing these goals. They typically experience periods of high, average, and low motivation. High drive is not conducive to performance over lengthy periods and especially on complex tasks (Broadhurst,  1957 ; Yerkes & Dodson,  1908 ). In short, drive theory does not offer an adequate explanation for academic motivation.

Conditioning Theory.

Conditioning theory  ( Chapter 3 ) explains motivation in terms of responses elicited by stimuli (classical conditioning) or emitted in the presence of stimuli (operant conditioning). In the  classical conditioning model, the motivational properties of an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) are transmitted to the conditioned stimulus (CS) through repeated pairings. Conditioning occurs when the CS elicits a conditioned response (CR) in the absence of the UCS. This is a passive view of motivation, because it postulates that once conditioning occurs, the CR is elicited when the CS is presented. As discussed in  Chapter 3 , conditioning is not an automatic process, but rather depends on information conveyed to the individual about the likelihood of the UCS occurring when the CS is presented.

In  operant conditioning , motivated behavior is an increased rate of responding or a greater likelihood that a response will occur in the presence of a stimulus. Skinner ( 1953 ) contended that internal processes accompanying responding are not necessary to explain behavior. Individuals’ immediate environment and their history must be examined for the causes of behavior. Labeling a student “motivated” does not explain why the student works productively. The student is productive because of prior reinforcement for productive work and because the current environment offers effective reinforcers.

Ample evidence shows that reinforcers can influence what people do; however, what affects behavior is not reinforcement but rather are beliefs about reinforcement. People engage in activities because they believe they will be reinforced and value that reinforcement (Bandura,  1986 ). When reinforcement history conflicts with current beliefs, people act based on their beliefs (Brewer,  1974 ). By omitting cognitive elements, conditioning theories offer an incomplete account of human motivation.

Cognitive Consistency Theory.

Cognitive consistency  theory assumes that motivation results from interactions of cognitions and behaviors. This theory is  homeostatic  because it predicts that when tension occurs among elements, the problem needs to be resolved by making cognitions and behaviors consistent with one another. Two prominent perspectives are balance theory and dissonance theory.

Heider’s ( 1946 )  balance theory  postulated that individuals have a tendency to cognitively balance relations among persons, situations, and events. The basic situation involves three elements, and relations can be positive or negative.

For example, assume the three elements are Janice (teacher), Ashley (student), and chemistry (subject). Balance exists when relations among all elements are positive; Ashley likes Janice, Ashley likes chemistry, Ashley believes Janice likes chemistry. Balance also exists with one positive and two negative relations: Ashley does not like Janice, Ashley does not like chemistry, Ashley believes Janice likes chemistry ( Figure 9.1 ).

Figure 9.1 Predictions of balance theory.

Note: J, Janice (chemistry teacher); A, Ashley (student); C, chemistry (subject). The symbols “+” and “−” stand for “likes” and “does not like,” respectively, so that the top left balance can be read as follows: Ashley likes Janice, Ashley likes chemistry, and Ashley believes Janice likes chemistry.

Cognitive imbalance exists with one negative and two positive relations (Ashley likes Janice, Ashley does not like chemistry, Ashley believes Janice likes chemistry) and with three negative relations. Balance theory predicts no tendency to change when the triad is balanced, but people will try (cognitively and behaviorally) to resolve conflicts when imbalance exists. For example, Ashley might decide that because she likes Janice and Janice likes chemistry, maybe chemistry is not so bad after all (i.e., Ashley changes her attitude about chemistry).

That people seek to restore cognitive imbalance is intuitively plausible, but balance theory contains problems. It predicts when people will attempt to restore balance but not how they will do it. Ashley might change her attitude toward chemistry, but she also could establish balance by disliking chemistry and Janice. The theory also does not adequately take into account the importance of imbalanced relationships. People care very much when imbalance exists among people and situations they value, but they may make no effort to restore balance when they care little about the elements.

Festinger ( 1957 ) formulated a theory of  cognitive dissonance , which postulates that individuals attempt to maintain consistent relations among their beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Relations can be consonant, irrelevant, or dissonant. Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from or fits with the other; for example, “I have to give a speech in Los Angeles tomorrow morning at 9” and “I’m flying there today.” Many beliefs are irrelevant to one another; for example, “I like chocolate” and “There is a hickory tree in my yard.” Dissonant cognitions exist when one follows from the opposite of the other; for example, “I don’t like Deborah” and “I bought Deborah a gift.” Dissonance is tension with drivelike properties leading to reduction. Dissonance should increase as the discrepancy between cognitions increases. Assuming I bought Deborah a gift, the cognition “I don’t like Deborah” ought to produce more dissonance than “Deborah and I are acquaintances.”

Cognitive dissonance theory also takes the importance of the cognitions into account. Large discrepancies between trivial cognitions do not cause much dissonance. “Yellow is not my favorite color” and “I drive a yellow car” will not produce much dissonance if car color is not important to me.

Dissonance can be reduced in various ways:

· ■ Change a discrepant cognition (“Maybe I actually like Deborah”).

· ■ Qualify cognitions (“The reason I do not like Deborah is because 10 years ago she borrowed $100 and never repaid it. But she’s changed a lot since then and probably would never do that again”).

· ■ Downgrade the importance of the cognitions (“It’s no big deal that I gave Deborah a gift; I give gifts to lots of people for different reasons”).

· ■ Alter behavior (“I’m never giving Deborah another gift”).

Dissonance theory calls attention to how cognitive conflicts can be resolved (Aronson,  1966 ). The idea that dissonance propels us into action is appealing. By dealing with discrepant cognitions, the theory is not confined to three relations as is balance theory. But dissonance and balance theories share many of the same problems. The dissonance notion is vague and difficult to verify experimentally. To predict whether cognitions will conflict in a given situation is problematic because they must be clear and important. The theory does not predict how dissonance will be reduced—by changing behavior or by altering thoughts. These problems suggest that additional processes are needed to explain human motivation. Interested readers should consult Shultz and Lepper ( 1996 ), who present a model that reconciles discrepant findings from dissonance research and integrates dissonance with other motivational variables.

Humanistic Theories

Humanistic theories  as applied to learning are largely constructivist ( Chapter 8 ) and emphasize cognitive and affective processes. They address people’s capabilities and potentialities as they make choices and seek control over their lives.

Humanistic theorists make certain assumptions (Schunk et al.,  2014 ). One is that the study of persons is  holistic : To understand people, we must study their behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (Weiner,  1992 ). Humanists disagree with behaviorists who study individual responses to discrete stimuli. Humanists emphasize individuals’ self-awareness.

A second assumption is that human choices, creativity, and self-actualization are important areas to study (Weiner,  1992 ). To understand people, researchers should not study animals but rather people who are psychologically functioning and attempting to be creative and to maximize their capabilities and potential. Motivation is important for attaining basic needs, but greater choices are available when striving to maximize one’s potential. Well-known humanistic theories include those of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers.

Hierarchy of Needs.

Maslow ( 1968 ,  1970 ) believed that human actions are unified by being directed toward goal attainment. Behaviors can serve several functions simultaneously; for example, attending a party could satisfy needs for self-esteem and social interaction. Maslow felt that conditioning theories did not capture the complexity of human behavior. To say that one socializes at a party because one has previously been reinforced for doing so fails to take into account the current role that socialization plays for the person.

Most human action represents a striving to satisfy needs. Needs are hierarchical ( Figure 9.2 ). Lower-order needs have to be satisfied adequately before higher-order needs can influence behavior. Physiological needs, the lowest on the hierarchy, concern necessities such as food, air, and water. These needs are satisfied for most people most of the time, but they become potent when they are not satisfied. Next are safety needs, which involve environmental security. These needs dominate during emergencies: People fleeing from rising waters will abandon valuable property to save their lives. Safety needs are also manifested in activities such as saving money, securing a job, and taking out an insurance policy.

Once physiological and safety needs are adequately met, belongingness (love) needs become important. These needs involve having intimate relationships with others, belonging to groups, and having close friends and acquaintances. A sense of belonging is attained through marriage, interpersonal commitments, volunteer groups, clubs, churches, and the like. At the fourth level are esteem needs that comprise self-esteem and esteem from others. These needs manifest themselves in high achievement, independence, competent work, and recognition from others.

The first four needs are deprivation needs: Their lack of satisfaction produces deficiencies that motivate people to satisfy them. At the highest level is the need for  self-actualization , or the desire for self-fulfillment. Self-actualization manifests itself in the need to become everything that one is capable of becoming. Behavior is not motivated by a deficiency but rather by a desire for personal growth.

Figure 9.2 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Source: Maslow, Abraham H.; Frager, Robert D.; Fadiman, James, Motivation and Personality, 3rd Ed., © 1987. Adapted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

·  Healthy people have sufficiently gratified their basic needs for safety, belongingness, love, respect, and self-esteem so that they are motivated primarily by trends to self-actualization [defined as ongoing actualization of potentials, capacities and talents, as fulfillment of mission (or call, fate, destiny, or vocation), as a fuller knowledge of, and acceptance of, the person’s own intrinsic nature, as an unceasing trend toward unity, integration or synergy within the person]. (Maslow,  1968 , p. 25)

Although most people go beyond the deficiency needs and strive toward self-actualization, few people ever fully reach this level—perhaps 1% of the population (Goble,  1970 ). Self-actualization can be manifested in various ways.

·  The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in inventions. At this level, individual differences are greatest. (Maslow,  1970 , p. 46)

APPLICATION 9.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s hierarchy can help teachers understand students and create an environment to enhance learning. It is unrealistic to expect students to show interest in classroom activities if they have physiological or safety deficiencies. Children who come to school without having had breakfast and who have no lunch money cannot focus properly on classroom tasks. Teachers can work with counselors, principals, and social workers to assist children’s families or to have children approved for free or reduced-cost meal programs.

Some students will have difficulty working on tasks with nearby distractions (e.g., movement, noise). Teachers can meet with parents to assess whether home conditions are disruptive. Disruption at home can result in an unfilled safety need—a desire to feel more secure about learning. Parents can be urged to provide a favorable home environment for studying. Teachers can teach students skills for coping with distractions (e.g., ways to concentrate and pay close attention to academic activities).

Some high schools have problems with violence and pressures associated with gang behaviors. If students are afraid that they may be physically harmed or often must deal with pressures to join a gang, concentrating on academic tasks may be impossible. Teachers and administrators might consider working with students, parents, community agencies, and law enforcement officials to develop effective strategies for eliminating the safety concerns. These issues must be addressed in order to create an atmosphere conducive for learning. Once the appropriate atmosphere is created, teachers should provide activities that students can complete successfully.

A strong motive to achieve is another manifestation of self-actualization ( Application 9.1 ).

Maslow informally studied personal acquaintances and historical figures. Characteristics of self-actualized individuals included an increased perception of reality, acceptance (of self, others, nature), spontaneity, problem-centering, detachment and desire for privacy, autonomy and resistance to enculturation, freshness of appreciation and richness of emotional reaction, frequency of peak experiences (loss of self-awareness), and identification with the human species (Maslow,  1968 ).

When self-actualized persons attempt to solve important problems, they look outside of themselves for a cause and dedicate their efforts to solving it. They also display great interest in the means for attaining their goals. The outcome (righting a wrong or solving a problem) is as important as the means to the end (the actual work involved).

Maslow’s hierarchy is a useful general guide for understanding behavior. It demonstrates that it is unrealistic to expect students to learn well in school if they are suffering from physiological or safety deficiencies. The hierarchy provides educators with clues concerning why students act as they do. Educators stress intellectual achievement, but many adolescents are preoccupied with belongingness and esteem.

One problem with the theory is conceptual vagueness; what constitutes a deficiency is not clear. What one person considers a deficiency, someone else may not. Another problem is that lower-order needs are not always stronger than higher-order ones. Many people risk their safety to rescue others from danger. Third, research on the qualities of self-actualized individuals has yielded mixed results (Petri,  1986 ). Self-actualization can take many forms and be manifested at work, school, home, and so forth. How it may appear and how it can be influenced are unclear. Despite these problems, the idea that people strive to feel competent and lead self-fulfilling lives is a central notion in many theories of motivation (Schunk et al.,  2014 ).

Actualizing Tendency.

Carl Rogers was a renowned psychotherapist whose approach to counseling is known as client-centered therapy. According to Rogers ( 1963 ), life represents an ongoing process of personal growth or achieving wholeness. This process, or  actualizing tendency , is motivational and presumably innate (Rogers,  1963 ). Rogers considered this motive the only fundamental one from which all others (e.g., hunger, thirst) derive. The actualizing tendency is oriented toward personal growth, autonomy, and freedom from control by external forces.

·  We are, in short, dealing with an organism which is always motivated, is always “up to something,” always seeking. So I would reaffirm … my belief that there is one central source of energy in the human organism; that it is a function of the whole organism rather than some portion of it; and that it is perhaps best conceptualized as a tendency toward fulfillment, toward actualization, toward the maintenance and enhancement of the organism. (Rogers,  1963 , p. 6)

The environment can affect the actualizing tendency. With development, individuals become more aware of their own being and functioning (self-experience). This awareness becomes elaborated into a self-concept through interactions with the environment and significant others (Rogers,  1959 ). The development of self-awareness produces a need for  positive regard , or feelings such as respect, liking, warmth, sympathy, and acceptance. We perceive ourselves as receiving positive regard when we believe that others feel that way about us. This relation is reciprocal: When people perceive themselves as satisfying another’s need for positive regard, they experience satisfaction of their need for positive regard.

People also have a need for  positive self-regard , or positive regard that derives from self-experiences (Rogers,  1959 ). Positive self-regard develops when people experience positive regard from others, which creates a positive attitude toward oneself. A critical element is receiving  unconditional positive regard , or attitudes of worthiness and acceptance with no strings attached. Unconditional positive regard is what most parents feel for their children. Parents value or accept (“prize”) their children all the time, even though they do not value or accept all of their children’s behaviors. People who experience unconditional positive regard believe they are valued, even when their actions disappoint others. The actualizing tendency grows because people accept their own experiences, and their perceptions of themselves are consistent with the feedback they receive.

Problems occur when people experience  conditional regard , or regard contingent on certain actions. People act in accordance with these conditions of worth when they seek or avoid experiences that they believe are more or less worthy of regard. Conditional regard creates tension because people feel accepted and valued only when they behave appropriately.

Rogers and Education.

Rogers ( 1969 ; Rogers & Freiberg,  1994 ) discussed education in his book Freedom to Learn. Meaningful, experiential learning has relevance to the whole person, has personal involvement (involves learners’ cognitions and feelings), is self-initiated (impetus for learning comes from within), is pervasive (affects learners’ behavior, attitudes, and personality), and is evaluated by the learner (according to whether it is meeting needs or leading to goals). Meaningful learning contrasts with meaningless learning, which does not lead to learners being invested in their learning, is initiated by others, does not affect diverse aspects of learners, and is not evaluated by learners according to whether it is satisfying their needs.

Students believe that meaningful learning will improve them personally. Learning requires active participation combined with self-criticism and self-evaluation by learners and the belief that learning is important. Rogers felt that learning that can be taught to others was of little value. Rather than imparting learning, the primary job of teachers is to act as  facilitators  who establish a classroom climate oriented toward significant learning and help students clarify their goals. Facilitators arrange resources so that learning can occur and, because they are resources, share their feelings and thoughts with students.

Instead of spending a lot of time writing lesson plans, facilitators should provide resources for students to use to meet their needs. Individual contracts are preferable to lockstep sequences in which all students work on the same material at the same time. Contracts allow students considerable freedom (i.e., self-regulation) in deciding on goals and timelines. Freedom itself should not be imposed; students who want more teacher direction should receive it. Rogers advocated greater use of inquiry, simulations, and self-evaluation as ways to provide freedom.  Application 9.2  offers suggestions for applying humanistic principles.

APPLICATION 9.2 Humanistic Teaching

Humanistic principles are highly relevant to classrooms. Some important principles that can be built into instructional goals and practices are

· ■ Show positive regard for students.

· ■ Separate students from their actions.

· ■ Encourage personal growth by providing students with choices and opportunities.

· ■ Facilitate learning by providing resources and encouragement.

Mr. Aberdon employed all four of these principles with Tony, a student in his American history class who was known to be a neighborhood troublemaker. Other teachers in the building told Mr. Aberdon negative things about Tony. He noticed, however, that Tony seemed to have an outstanding knowledge of American history. Undaunted by Tony’s reputation among others, Mr. Aberdon often called on him to share in the classroom, provided him with a variety of project opportunities and resources, and praised him to further develop his interest in history. At the end of the semester, he worked with Tony to prepare a project for the state history fair, after which Tony submitted it and won second place.

Rogers’s theory has seen wide psychotherapeutic application. The focus on helping people strive for challenges and maximize their potential is important for motivation and learning. The theory is developed only in general terms, and the meanings of several constructs are unclear. Additionally, how one might assist students to develop self-regard is not clear. Still, the theory offers teachers many good principles to use to enhance learner motivation. Many of the ideas that Rogers discussed are found in other theories.

Model of Motivated Learning

The central thesis of this chapter is that motivation is intimately linked with learning. Motivation and learning can affect each other. Students’ motivation can influence what and how they learn. In turn, as students learn and perceive that they are becoming more skillful, they are motivated to continue to learn.

This close connection of motivation and learning is portrayed in  Table 9.1  (Schunk et al.,  2014 ; Schunk,  1995 ). The model is generic and is not intended to reflect any one theoretical perspective. It is a cognitive model because it views motivation arising largely from thoughts and beliefs. The model portrays three phases: pretask, during task, posttask. This is a convenient way to think about the changing role of motivation during learning.

Table 9.1 Model of motivated learning.

Pretask	During Task	Posttask
Goals	Instructional variables	Attributions
Expectations	Teacher feedback	Goals
Self-efficacy	Materials	Expectations
Outcome	Equipment	Values
Values	Contextual variables	Affects
Affects	Peers	Needs
Needs	Environment	Social support
Social support	Personal variables
	Knowledge construction
	Skill acquisition
	Self-regulation
	Choice of activities
	Effort
	Persistence

Pretask.

Several variables influence students’ initial motivation for learning. Students enter tasks with various goals, such as to learn the material, perform well, finish first, and so on. Not all goals are academic. As Wentzel ( 1992 ,  1996 ) has shown, students have social goals that can integrate with their academic ones. During a group activity, Matt may want to learn the material but also become friends with Amy.

Students enter with various expectations. As discussed in  Chapter 4 , expectations may involve capabilities for learning (self-efficacy) and perceptions of the consequences of learning (outcome expectations). Students differ in their  values  for learning; for example, how important it is to them. There are different types of values, as explained later.

Students differ in their  affects  associated with learning. They may be excited, anxious, or feel no particular emotions. These affects may relate closely to students’ needs, which some theories postulate to be important.

Finally, we expect that the social support in students’ lives will vary. Social support includes the types of assistance available at school from teachers and peers, as well as help and encouragement from parents and significant others in students’ lives. Learning often requires that others provide time, money, effort, transportation, and so forth.

During Task.

Instructional, contextual (social/environmental), and personal variables come into play during learning. Instructional variables include teachers, forms of feedback, materials, and equipment (e.g., technology). Although these variables typically are viewed as influencing learning, they also affect motivation. For instance, teacher feedback can encourage or discourage; instruction can clarify or confuse; materials can provide for many or few successes.

Contextual variables include social and environmental resources. Factors such as location, time of day, distractions, temperature, ongoing events, and the like can enhance or retard motivation for learning. Many investigators have written about how highly competitive conditions can affect motivation (Ames,  1992a ; Meece,  1991 ,  2002 ). Students’ social comparisons of ability with peers directly link to motivation.

Personal variables include those associated with learning, such as knowledge construction and skill acquisition, self-regulation variables ( Chapter 10 ), and motivational indexes (e.g., choice of activities, effort, persistence). Students’ perceptions of how well they are learning and of the effects of instructional, contextual, and personal variables influence motivation for continued learning.

Posttask.

Posttask denotes the time when the task is completed, as well as periods of self-reflection when students pause during the task and think about their work. The same variables important prior to task engagement are critical during self-reflection with the addition of  attributions , or perceived causes of outcomes. All of these variables, in cyclical fashion, affect future motivation and learning. Students who believe that they are progressing toward their learning goals and who make positive attributions for success are apt to sustain their self-efficacy for learning, outcome expectations, values, and positive affects. Factors associated with instruction, such as teacher feedback, provide information about goal progress and outcome expectations. Thus, students who expect to do well and receive positive outcomes from learning are apt to be motivated to continue to learn, assuming they believe they are making progress and can continue to do so by using effective learning strategies.

ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

The study of achievement motivation is central to education and learning.  Achievement motivation  refers to striving to be competent in effortful activities (Elliot & Church,  1997 ). Murray ( 1938 ) identified the achievement motive, along with other physiological and psychological needs contributing to personality development. Motivation to act results from a desire to satisfy needs. Achievement motivation has been heavily researched, with results that bear on learning.

Murray ( 1936 ) devised the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to study personality processes. The TAT is a projective technique in which an individual views a series of ambiguous pictures and for each makes up a story or answers a series of questions. McClelland and his colleagues adapted the TAT to assess the achievement motive (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,  1953 ). Researchers showed respondents pictures of individuals in unclear situations and asked questions such as “What is happening?” “What led up to this situation?” “What is wanted?” and “What will happen?” They scored responses according to various criteria and categorized participants on strength of achievement motive. Although many experimental studies have employed the TAT, it suffers from problems, including low reliability and low correlation with other achievement measures. To address these problems, researchers have devised other measures of achievement motivation (Weiner,  1992 ).

The next section discusses the historical foundations of achievement motivation theory, followed by contemporary perspectives.

Expectancy-Value Theory

John Atkinson ( 1957 ; Atkinson & Birch,  1978 ; Atkinson & Feather,  1966 ; Atkinson & Raynor,  1974 ,  1978 ) developed an  expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation . The basic idea of this and other expectancy-value theories is that behavior depends on one’s expectancy of attaining a particular outcome (e.g., goal, reinforcer) as a result of performing given behaviors and on how much one values that outcome. People judge the likelihood of attaining various outcomes. They are not motivated to attempt the impossible, so they do not pursue outcomes perceived as unattainable. Even a positive outcome expectation does not produce action if the outcome is not valued. An attractive outcome, coupled with the belief that it is attainable, motivates people to act.

Atkinson postulated that achievement behaviors represent a conflict between approach ( hope for success ) and avoidance ( fear of failure ) tendencies. Achievement actions carry with them the possibilities of success and failure. Key concepts of this mathematical model are as follows: the tendency to approach an achievement-related goal (Ts), the tendency to avoid failure (Taf), and the resultant achievement motivation (Ta). Ts is a function of the motive to succeed (Ms), the subjective probability of success (Ps), and the incentive value of success (Is):

Ts = Ms × Ps × Is

Atkinson believed that Ms ( achievement motivation ) is a stable disposition (characteristic trait) of the individual to strive for success. Ps (the individual’s estimate of how likely goal attainment is) is inversely related to Is: Individuals have a greater incentive to work hard at difficult tasks than at easy tasks. Greater pride is experienced in accomplishing difficult tasks.

In similar fashion, the tendency to avoid failure (Taf) is a multiplicative function of the motive to avoid failure (Maf), the probability of failure (Pf), and the inverse of the incentive value of failure (−If):

Taf = Maf × Pf × (−If)

The resultant achievement motivation (Ta) is represented as follows:

Ta = Ts − Taf

Notice that simply having a high hope for success does not guarantee achievement behavior because the strength of the motive to avoid failure must be considered. The best way to promote achievement behavior is to combine a strong hope for success with a low fear of failure ( Application 9.3 ).

This model predicts that students high in resultant achievement motivation will choose tasks of intermediate difficulty; that is, those they believe are attainable and will produce a sense of accomplishment. These students should avoid difficult tasks for which successful accomplishment is unlikely, as well as easy tasks for which success, although guaranteed, produces little satisfaction. Students low in resultant achievement motivation are more apt to select either easy or difficult tasks. To accomplish the former, students have to expend little effort to succeed. Although accomplishing the latter seems unlikely, students have an excuse for failure—the task is so difficult that no one can succeed at it. This excuse gives these students a reason for not expending effort, because even great effort is unlikely to produce success.

Research on task difficulty preference as a function of level of achievement motivation has yielded conflicting results (Cooper,  1983 ; Ray,  1982 ). In studies of task difficulty by Kuhl and Blankenship ( 1979a ,  1979b ), individuals repeatedly chose tasks. These researchers assumed that fear of failure would be reduced following task success, so they predicted the tendency to choose easy tasks would diminish over time. They expected this change to be most apparent among students for whom Maf > Ms. Kuhl and Blankenship found a shift toward more difficult tasks for participants in whom Maf > Ms, as well as for those in whom Ms > Maf. Researchers found no support for the notion that this tendency would be greater in the former participants.

These findings make sense when interpreted differently. Repeated success builds perceptions of competence (self-efficacy). People then are more likely to choose difficult tasks because they feel capable of accomplishing them. In short, people choose to work on easy or difficult tasks for many reasons, and Atkinson’s theory may have overestimated the strength of the achievement motive.

Classical achievement motivation theory has generated much research (Trautwein et al.,  2012 ). One problem with a global achievement motive is that it rarely manifests itself uniformly across different achievement domains. Students typically show greater motivation to perform well in some content areas than in others. Because the achievement motive varies with the domain, how well such a global trait predicts achievement behavior in specific situations is questionable. Some theorists (Elliot & Church,  1997 ; Elliot & Harackiewicz,  1996 ) have proposed an integration of classical theory with goal theory; the latter is discussed later in this chapter.

APPLICATION 9.3 Achievement Motivation

Achievement motivation theory has implications for teaching and learning. If an academic assignment is perceived as too hard, students may not attempt it or may quit readily because of high fear of failure and low hope for success. Lowering fear of failure and raising hope for success enhance motivation, which can be done by conveying positive expectations for learning to students and by structuring tasks so students can successfully complete them with reasonable effort. Viewing an assignment as too easy is not beneficial: Students who feel that the material is not challenging may become bored. Notice in the opening vignette that Amy seems to be bored with the assignment. If lessons are not planned to meet the varying needs of students, the desired achievement behaviors will not be displayed.

Elementary teachers find that many students have difficulty with multiplication. They may need to spend the majority of their time learning facts and using manipulatives to reinforce learning of new concepts (e.g., division). Success on these activities in a nonthreatening classroom environment builds hope for success and lowers fear of failure. Students who are proficient in multiplication, have mastered the steps for solving division problems, and understand the relationship between multiplication and division do not need to spend lots of class time on review. Instead, they can be given a brief review and then guided into more difficult skills, which maintains challenge and produces optimal achievement motivation.

College professors benefit by becoming familiar with the research knowledge and writing skills of their students prior to assigning a lengthy paper or research project. Student background factors (e.g., type of high school attended, expectations and guidance of former teachers) can influence student confidence for completing such challenging tasks. Professors also can model research and writing projects in the classroom. Initially students might complete short writing tasks and critique various research projects. Then professors can provide students with detailed feedback regarding the effectiveness of their writing. As the semester progresses, assignments can become more challenging. This approach helps to build hope for success and diminish fear of failure, which collectively raise achievement motivation and lead students to set more difficult goals.

Contemporary Model of Achievement Motivation

The classical view of achievement motivation contrasts sharply with theories that stress needs, drives, and reinforcers. Atkinson and others moved the field of motivation away from a simple stimulus–response (S→ R) perspective to a more complex cognitive model. By stressing the person’s perceptions and beliefs as influences on behavior, these researchers also shifted the focus of motivation from inner needs and environmental factors to the subjective world of the individual.

An important contribution was emphasizing both expectancies for success and perceived value of engaging in the task as factors affecting achievement. Contemporary models of achievement motivation reflect this subjective emphasis and, in addition, have incorporated other cognitive variables such as goals and perceptions of capabilities. Current models also place greater emphasis on contextual influences on achievement motivation, realizing that people alter their motivation depending on perceptions of their current situations.

This section considers a contemporary theoretical perspective on achievement motivation. Later another current view of achievement motivation—self-worth theory—is presented. Collectively, these two approaches represent valuable attempts to refine achievement motivation theory to incorporate additional elements.

Figure 9.3  shows the contemporary model (Eccles,  1983 ,  2005 ; Wigfield,  1994 ; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles,  2006 ; Wigfield & Cambria,  2010 ; Wigfield & Eccles,  1992 ,  2000 ,  2002 ; Wigfield, Tonks, & Eccles,  2004 ; Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda,  2009 ). This model is complex. Only its features most germane to the present discussion will be described. Interested readers are referred to Eccles ( 2005 ) and the other references listed here for in-depth coverage of the model.

As the figure shows, achievement behavior is predicted by the expectancy and value components.  Value refers to the perceived importance of the task, or the belief about why one should engage in the task. Value answers the question, “Why should I do this task?” (Eccles,  2005 ). Answers might include interest and positive affect (e.g., “I like this and want to work on it”), perceived importance (e.g., “Doing this will help me in the future”), and perceived costs (e.g., “Doing this will take time away from playing the guitar”). In the opening vignette, Amy expresses negative affect and low value for the task.

The overall value of any task depends on four components. Attainment value is the importance of doing well on the task, for example, because the task conveys important information about the self, provides a challenge, or offers the opportunity to fulfill achievement or social needs. Intrinsic or interest value refers to the inherent, immediate enjoyment one derives from the task. This construct is roughly synonymous with  intrinsic motivation  discussed later in this chapter. Utility value relates to task importance relative to a future goal (e.g., taking a course because it is necessary to attain a career goal). Finally, there is a cost belief component, defined as the perceived negative aspects of engaging in the task (Wigfield & Eccles,  1992 ). When people work on one task, then they cannot work on others, and there may be associated costs (e.g., academic, social).

The expectancy variable refers to individuals’ perceptions concerning the likelihood of success on tasks; that is, their perceptions about how well they will do. The expectancy component answers the question, “Am I able to do this task?” (Eccles,  2005 ). In the opening vignette, Margaret feels she is not good in math and has a low expectancy of success for performing well. In contrast, Jared seems to have high expectancies for success, although he is overly concerned with doing better than others.

Expectancy is not synonymous with perceived competence; rather, it bears some resemblance to Bandura’s ( 1986 ) outcome expectation in the sense that it is forward looking and reflects the person’s perception of doing well. It also contrasts with task-specific self-concept, which involves current beliefs about perceived ability. Research shows that higher expectancies for success are positively related to achievement behaviors, including choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and actual achievement (Bandura,  1986 ,  1997 ; Eccles,  1983 ; Eccles & Wigfield,  1985 ; Trautwein et al.,  2012 ; Wigfield,  1994 ; Wigfield & Eccles,  2000 ,  2002 ; Wigfield et al.,  2009 ). Collectively, expectancies for success and task values are predicted to affect achievement-related outcomes.

Figure 9.3 Contemporary model of achievement motivation.

Source: Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices,” by J. S. Eccles,  2005 , p. 1006. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp 105–121). Copyright © 2005 by Guilford Press. Used with permission.

The next motivational components shown in  Figure 9.3  are students’ goals and  self-schemas  and their affective reactions and memories. Affective reactions and memories refer to learners’ affective experiences with this or similar tasks. Presumably these reactions can be activated by anticipation of engaging in the task when learners recall their prior experiences. Negative experiences can lead to students’ avoiding tasks and low perceived value.

Goals and self-schemas include students’ short- and long-term goals, as well as their self-schemas that reflect their beliefs and self-concepts. Students hold beliefs about what kind of person they are and what kind of person they want to become (possible or ideal selves). The latter include beliefs about personality and identity, as well as self-concepts about their physical attractiveness, athletic ability, academic ability, and social competence (Eccles,  2005 ).

Goals are cognitive representations of what students are trying to attain. They can range from short term (e.g., “Get an A on this test”) to much longer term (e.g., “Become a university professor”). Goals can be shaped by self-concepts and self-schemas. For example, students whose self-schemas include the idea of being of service and helping others might set a long-term goal of becoming a teacher, doctor, or social worker.

Goals and self-schemas are influenced by students’ perceptions of task demands, or students’ judgments of the difficulty of the task and other features of the task such as how interesting the task appears. Task difficulty perceptions are relatively task specific such as school subject areas (e.g., English, biology).

Another component includes how students perceive their social and cultural environments. This includes their perceptions of socializers’ beliefs (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) and how they perceive and interpret social roles such as gender roles and stereotypes about activities. Parents’ or teachers’ beliefs and behaviors can influence students, but these aspects of the social environment are mediated by the students’ perceptions of the environment. For example, a minority student may not perceive a bias against him in a classroom. Even if there is a bias it cannot influence his motivational beliefs because he does not perceive it.

Other influential variables are learners’ characteristics and experiences, as well as their cultural and social environments including the general cultural and societal milieu, gender and cultural stereotypes, and family demographics. These external factors set the context for learners as they engage in different activities and influence their motivation. These contexts also provide opportunities for and constraints on learners’ beliefs and behaviors. Thus, although the model emphasizes how students construct their motivational beliefs through social cognitive processing, it is assumed that their beliefs are grounded in the larger social and cultural contexts that constitute the learners’ worlds.

Research by Eccles, Wigfield, and others demonstrates support for many of the relations depicted in the model. Studies have used both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs that assess the beliefs and achievement of upper elementary and junior high students over time. A general finding across several studies is that expectancies and task-specific self-concepts are mediators between environmental contexts and achievement, as proposed by the model. Another finding is that expectancies are closely linked to cognitive engagement and achievement and that values are strong predictors of students’ choices (Schunk et al.,  2014 ). These findings have good generalizability because the studies use students in actual classrooms and follow them over lengthy periods (Eccles,  1983 ,  2005 ; Wigfield et al.,  2006 ). A challenge for the future is to explore in greater depth the links between variables and determine how these vary depending on the classroom context and variables associated with students (e.g., developmental status, ability level, gender).

Family Influences

It is plausible that achievement motivation depends strongly on factors in children’s homes. An early investigation studied parents’ interactions with their sons (Rosen & D’Andrade,  1959 ). Children were given tasks, and parents could interact in any fashion. Parents of boys with high achievement motivation interacted more, gave more rewards and punishments, and held higher expectations for their children than parents of boys with low achievement motivation. The authors concluded that parental pressure to perform well is a more important influence on achievement motivation than parental desire for child independence.

Other research, however, shows that family influences are not automatic. For example, Stipek and Ryan ( 1997 ) found that whereas economically disadvantaged preschoolers scored lower than advantaged children on cognitive measures, researchers found virtually no differences between these groups on motivation measures. Children’s achievement motivation suffers when parents show little involvement in children’s academics (Ratelle, Guay, Larose, & Senécal,  2004 ). Children who form insecure attachments with their parents are at greater risk for developing perfectionism (Neumeister & Finch,  2006 ).

Although families can influence children’s motivation, attempts to identify parental behaviors that encourage achievement strivings are complicated because parents display many behaviors with their children. Determining which behaviors are most influential is difficult. Thus, parents may encourage their children to perform well, convey high expectations, give rewards and punishments, respond with positive affect (warmth, permissiveness), and encourage independence. These behaviors also are displayed by teachers and other significant persons in a child’s life, which complicates determining the precise nature of familial influence. Another point is that although parents influence children, children also influence parents (Meece,  2002 ). Parents help children develop achievement behaviors when they encourage preexisting tendencies in their children; for example, children develop independence through interactions with peers and then are praised by parents.

Self-Worth Theory

Atkinson’s theory predicts that achievement behavior results from an emotional conflict between hope for success and fear of failure. This notion is intuitively appealing. Thinking about beginning a new job or taking a difficult course produces anticipated satisfaction from being successful as well as anxiety over the possibility of failing.

Self-worth theory  refines this idea by combining the emotions with cognitions (Covington,  1992 ,  1998 ,  2004 ,  2009 ; Covington & Beery,  1976 ; Covington & Dray,  2002 ). This theory assumes that success is valued and that failure, or the belief that one has failed, should be avoided because it implies low ability. People want to be viewed as able, but failure creates feelings of unworthiness. To preserve a sense of self-worth, individuals must feel able and demonstrate that ability to others.

One means of avoiding failure is to pursue easy goals that guarantee success. Another means is to cheat, although cheating is problematic. Shannon might copy answers from Yvonne, but if Yvonne does poorly, then Shannon will too. Shannon also might get caught copying answers by her teacher. Another way to avoid failure is to escape from a negative situation. Students who believe they will fail a course are apt to drop it; those who are failing several courses may quit school.

Strangely, students can avoid the perception of low ability through deliberate failure. One can pursue a difficult goal, which increases the likelihood of failure (Covington,  1984 ). Setting high aspirations is valued, and failing to attain them does not automatically imply low ability. A related tactic is to blame failure on low effort: One could have succeeded if circumstances had allowed one to work harder. Kay cannot be faulted for failing an exam for which she did not properly study, especially if she works at a job and had inadequate study time.

Expending effort carries risk. High effort that produces success maintains the perception of ability, but high effort that results in failure implies that one has low ability. Low effort also carries risk because teachers routinely stress effort and criticize students for not expending effort (Weiner & Kukla,  1970 ). Effort is a “double-edged sword” (Covington & Omelich,  1979 ). Excuses can help students maintain the perception of ability; for example, “I would have done better had I been able to study more,” “I didn’t work hard enough” [when in fact the student worked very hard], or “I was unlucky—I studied the wrong material.”

Self-worth theory stresses perceptions of ability as the primary influences on motivation. Research shows that perceived ability bears a strong positive relationship to students’ expectations for success, motivation, and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield,  1985 ; Wigfield et al.,  2009 ). That effect, however, seems most pronounced in Western societies. Cross-cultural research shows that effort is more highly valued as a contributor to success among students from China and Japan than it is among students from the United States (Schunk et al.,  2014 ).

Another problem with self-worth theory is that perceived ability is only one of many influences on motivation. Self-worth predictions depend on students’ developmental levels. Older students perceive ability to be a more important influence on achievement than younger students (Harari & Covington,  1981 ; Schunk et al.,  2014 ). Young children do not clearly differentiate between effort and ability (Nicholls,  1978 ,  1979 ). At approximately age 8, they begin to distinguish the concepts and realize that their performances do not necessarily reflect their abilities. With development, students increasingly value ability while devaluing effort (Harari & Covington,  1981 ). In the opening vignette, Matt is a hard worker, and effort does not yet imply lower ability to him. Teachers and adolescents will work at cross-purposes if teachers stress working harder while adolescents (believing that hard work implies low ability) shun expending effort. A mature conception eventually emerges in which successes are attributed to a combination of ability, effort, and other factors (e.g., good strategy). Despite these limitations, self-worth theory captures the all-too-common preoccupation with ability and its negative consequences.

Task and Ego Involvement

Achievement motivation theories have shifted their focus away from general achievement motives to task-specific beliefs. Later in this chapter, goal theory is discussed, which stresses the roles of goals, conceptions of ability, and motivational patterns in achievement contexts. In this section we discuss task and ego involvement, which are types of motivational patterns that derive largely from work in achievement motivation (Schunk et al.,  2014 ).

Task involvement  stresses learning as a goal. Task-involved students focus on task demands such as solving a problem, balancing an equation, and writing a book report. Learning is valued as a goal. In contrast,  ego involvement  is a type of self-preoccupation. Ego-involved students want to avoid looking incompetent. Learning is valued not as a goal but rather as a means to avoid appearing incapable (Nicholls,  1983 ,  1984 ).

Task and ego involvement reflect different beliefs about ability and effort (Jagacinski & Nicholls,  1984 ,  1987 ). Ego-involved students perceive ability as synonymous with capacity. Ability is a relatively fixed quantity assessed by comparisons with others (norms). The role of effort is limited; effort can improve performance only to the limit set by ability. Success achieved with great effort implies high ability only if others require more effort to attain the same performance or if others perform less well with the same effort. Task-involved students perceive ability as close in meaning to  learning , such that more effort can raise ability. Students feel more competent if they expend greater effort to succeed, because learning is their goal and implies greater ability. Feelings of competence arise when students’ current performance is seen as an improvement over prior performance.

Ego and task involvement are not fixed characteristics and can be affected by contextual features (Nicholls,  1979 ,  1983 ). Ego involvement is promoted by competition, which fosters self-evaluation of abilities relative to those of others. Students typically compete for teacher attention, privileges, and grades. Elementary and middle-grades students often are grouped for reading and mathematics instruction based on ability differences; secondary students are tracked. Teacher feedback may unwittingly foster ego involvement (e.g., “Marcus, finish your work; everyone else is done”), as can teacher introductions to a lesson (e.g., “This is hard material; some of you may have trouble learning it”).

Task involvement can be raised by individual learning conditions. Students evaluate their own progress relative to how they, rather than others, performed previously. Task involvement also is enhanced by cooperative learning ( Chapter 8 ). For example, Ames ( 1984 ) found that students placed greater emphasis on ability as a determinant of outcomes in competitive contexts but stressed effort in noncompetitive (i.e., cooperative or individual) situations.

ATTRIBUTIONS

Attributions  are perceived causes of outcomes. Attribution theory explains how people view the causes of their behaviors and those of others (Weiner,  1985 ,  1992 ,  2000 ,  2004 ). Attribution theory has been widely applied to the study of motivation (Graham & Weiner,  2012 ; Graham & Williams,  2009 ). The theory assumes that people are inclined to seek information to form attributions. The process of assigning causes presumably is governed by rules, and much attributional research has addressed how rules are used. Attributions can influence motivational beliefs, emotions, and behaviors.

Before discussing attributions in achievement settings, some relevant background material will be described. Rotter’s  locus of control  and Heider’s  naïve analysis of action  incorporate attributional concepts.

Locus of Control

A central tenet of most cognitive motivation theories is that people seek to control important aspects of their lives (Schunk & Zimmerman,  2006 ). This tenet reflects the idea of  locus of control , or a generalized expectancy concerning whether responses influence the attainment of outcomes (Rotter,  1966 ). People may believe that outcomes occur independently of how they behave (external locus of control) or that outcomes are contingent on their behavior (internal locus of control).

Other investigators have contended that locus of control can vary depending on the situation (Phares,  1976 ). It is not unusual to find students who generally believe they have little control over academic successes and failures but also believe they can exert much control in a particular class because the teacher and peers are helpful and because they like the content.

Locus of control is important in achievement contexts because expectancy beliefs are hypothesized to affect behavior. Students who believe they have control over their successes and failures should be more inclined to engage in academic tasks, expend effort, and persist than students who believe their behaviors have little impact on outcomes. In turn, effort and persistence promote achievement (Lefcourt,  1976 ; Phares,  1976 ).

Regardless of whether locus of control is a general disposition or is situationally specific, it reflects  outcome expectations  (beliefs about the anticipated outcomes of one’s actions;  Chapter 4 ). Outcome expectations can affect achievement behaviors. Students may not work on tasks because they do not expect competent performances to produce favorable results (negative outcome expectation), as might happen if they believe the teacher dislikes them and will not reward them no matter how well they do. But positive outcome expectations do not guarantee high motivation (Bandura,  1982b ,  1997 ). Students may believe that hard work will produce a high grade, but they will not work hard if they doubt their capability to put forth the effort (low self-efficacy).

These points notwithstanding, self-efficacy and outcome expectations usually are related (Bandura,  1986 ,  1997 ). Students who believe they are capable of performing well (high self-efficacy) expect positive reactions from their teachers following successful performances (positive outcome expectation). Outcomes, in turn, validate self-efficacy because they convey that one is capable of succeeding (Schunk & Pajares,  2005 ,  2009 ).

Naïve Analysis of Action

The origin of attribution theory generally is ascribed to Heider ( 1958 ), who referred to his theory as a  naïve analysis of action .  Naïve  means that the average individual is unaware of the objective determinants of behavior. Heider’s theory examines what ordinary people believe are the causes of important events in their lives.

Heider postulated that people attribute causes to internal or external factors. He referred to these factors, respectively, as the effective personal force and the effective environmental force, as follows:

Outcome = personal force + environmental force

Internal causes are within the individual: needs, wishes, emotions, abilities, intentions, and effort. The personal force is allocated to two factors: power and  motivation . Power refers to abilities and motivation (trying) to intention and exertion:

Outcome = trying + power + environment

Collectively, power and environment constitute the can factor, which, combined with the try factor, is used to explain outcomes. One’s power (or ability) reflects the environment. Whether Beth can swim across a lake depends on Beth’s swimming ability relative to the forces of the lake (current, width, and temperature). Similarly, Jason’s success or failure on a test depends on his ability relative to the difficulty of the test, along with his intentions and efforts in studying. Assuming that ability is sufficient to conquer environmental forces, then trying (effort) affects outcomes.

Although Heider sketched a framework for how people view significant events in their lives, this framework provided researchers with few empirically testable hypotheses. Investigators subsequently clarified his ideas and conducted attributional research testing refined hypotheses.

Attribution Theory of Achievement

The search for achievement causes elicits such questions as, “Why did I do well (poorly) on my social studies test?” and “Why did I get an A (D) in biology?” Studies by Weiner and his colleagues provided the empirical base for developing an attribution theory of achievement (Graham & Weiner,  2012 ; Weiner,  1979 ,  1985 ,  1992 ,  2000 ,  2004 ,  2005 ,  2010 ; Weiner et al.,  1971 ; Weiner, Graham, Taylor, & Meyer,  1983 ; Weiner & Kukla,  1970 ). This section discusses those aspects of Weiner’s theory relevant to motivated learning.

Causal Factors.

Guided by Heider’s work, Weiner et al. ( 1971 ) postulated that students attribute their academic successes and failures largely to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. These authors assumed that these factors were given general weights, and that for any given outcome one or two factors would be judged as primarily responsible. For example, if Kara received an A on a mathematics exam, she might attribute it mostly to ability (“I’m good in math”) and effort (“I studied hard for the test”), somewhat to task difficulty (“The test wasn’t too hard”), and very little to luck (“I guessed right on a couple of questions”;  Table 9.2 ).

Table 9.2 Sample attributions for grade on mathematics exam.

Grade	Attribution	Example
High	Ability	I’m good in math.
	Effort	I studied hard for the exam.
	Ability + Effort	I’m good in math, and I studied hard for the exam.
	Task ease	It was an easy test.
	Luck	I was lucky; I studied the right material for the exam.
Low	Ability	I’m no good in math.
	Effort	I didn’t study hard enough.
	Ability + Effort	I’m no good in math, and I didn’t study hard enough.
	Task difficulty	The test was impossible; nobody could have done well.
	Luck	I was unlucky; I studied the wrong material for the exam.

Weiner et al. ( 1971 ) did not imply that ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck are the only attributions students use to explain their successes and failures, but rather that they are commonly given by students as causes of achievement outcomes. Researchers have identified other attributions, such as people (e.g., teachers, students), mood, fatigue, illness, personality, and physical appearance (Frieze,  1980 ; Frieze, Francis, & Hanusa,  1983 ). Of the four attributions identified by Weiner et al. ( 1971 ), luck gets relatively less emphasis, although it is important in some situations (e.g., games of chance). Frieze et al. ( 1983 ) showed that task conditions are associated with particular attributional patterns. Exams tend to generate effort attributions, whereas art projects are ascribed to ability and effort. In the opening vignette, we might speculate that Margaret attributes her difficulties to low ability and Matt attributes his successes to high effort.

Causal Dimensions.

Drawing on the work of Heider ( 1958 ) and Rotter ( 1966 ), Weiner et al. ( 1971 ) originally represented causes along two dimensions: (a) internal or external to the individual, and (b) relatively stable or unstable over time ( Table 9.3 ). Ability is internal and relatively stable. Effort is internal but unstable; one can alternatively work diligently and lackadaisically. Task difficulty is external and relatively stable because task conditions do not vary much from moment to moment; luck is external and unstable—one can be lucky one moment and unlucky the next.

Weiner ( 1979 ) added a third causal dimension: controllable or uncontrollable by the individual ( Table 9.3 ). Although effort is generally viewed as internal and unstable (immediate effort), a general effort factor (typical effort) also seems to exist: People may be typically lazy or hardworking. Effort is considered to be controllable; mood factors (to include fatigue and illness) are not. The classification in  Table 9.3  has some problems (e.g., the usefulness of including both immediate and typical effort; the issue of whether an external factor can be controllable), but it has served as a framework to guide research and attributional intervention programs.

Table 9.3 Weiner’s model of causal attribution.

	Internal	External
	Stable	Unstable	Stable	Unstable
Controllable	Typical effort	Immediate effort	Teacher bias	Help from others
Uncontrollable	Ability	Mood	Task difficulty	Luck

In forming attributions, people use situational cues, the meanings of which they have learned via prior experiences (Weiner et al.,  1971 ). Salient cues for ability attributions are success attained easily or early in the course of learning, as well as many successes. With motor skills, an important effort cue is physical exertion. On cognitive tasks, effort attributions are credible when we expend mental effort or persist for a long time to succeed. Task difficulty cues include task features; for example, reading passages with fewer or easier words indicate easier tasks than those with more words or more difficult words. Task difficulty also is judged from social norms. If everyone in class fails a test, failure is more likely to be attributed to high task difficulty; if everyone makes an A, then success may be attributed to task ease. A prominent cue for luck is random outcomes; how good students are (ability) or how hard they work (effort) has no obvious connection to how well they do.

Attributional Consequences.

Attributions affect expectations for subsequent successes, achievement behaviors, and emotional reactions (Graham & Weiner,  2012 ; Graham & Williams,  2009 ; Weiner,  1979 ,  1985 ,  1992 ,  2000 ). The stability dimension is thought to influence expectancy of success. Assuming that task conditions remain much the same, attributions of success to stable causes (high ability, low task difficulty) should result in higher expectations of future success than attributions to unstable causes (immediate effort, luck). Students may be uncertain whether they can sustain the effort needed to succeed or whether they will be lucky in the future. Failure ascribed to low ability or high task difficulty is apt to result in lower expectations for future success than failure attributed to insufficient effort or bad luck. Students may believe that increased effort will produce more favorable outcomes or that their luck may change in the future.

The  locus  dimension is hypothesized to influence affective reactions. One experiences greater pride (shame) after succeeding (failing) when outcomes are attributed to internal causes rather than to external ones. Students experience greater pride in their accomplishments when they believe they succeeded on their own (ability, effort) than when they believe external factors were responsible (teacher assistance, easy task).

The controllability dimension has diverse effects (Weiner,  1979 ). Feelings of control seem to promote choosing to engage in academic tasks, effort and persistence at difficult tasks, and achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman,  2006 ). Students who believe they have little control over academic outcomes hold low expectations for success and display low motivation to succeed (Licht & Kistner,  1986 ). Researchers have shown that students who attribute failures to low ability—which is not controllable—demonstrate lower classroom engagement up to a year later (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter,  1997 ).

Individual Differences.

Some research studies indicate that attributions may vary as a function of gender and ethnic background (Graham & Williams,  2009 ). With respect to gender, a common finding (although there are exceptions) is that in subjects such as mathematics and science, girls tend to hold lower expectancies for success than do boys (Bong & Clark,  1999 ; Meece,  2002 ; Meece & Courtney,  1992 ; Meece, Parsons, Kaczala, Goff, & Futterman,  1982 ). Margaret exemplifies this in the opening classroom scenario. What is not clear is whether this difference is affected by different attributions, as might be predicted by attributional theories. Some researchers have found that women are more likely to attribute success to external causes (e.g., good luck, low task difficulty) or unstable causes (effort) and attribute failure to internal causes (low ability; Eccles,  1983 ; Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, & Fennema,  1980 ); however, other research studies have not yielded differences (Diener & Dweck,  1978 ; Dweck & Repucci,  1973 ). Eccles ( 1983 ) noted the difficulties of attempting to make sense of this research because of differences in participants, instruments, and methodologies.

With respect to ethnic differences, some early research suggested that African American students used information about effort less often and less systematically than did Anglo American students and were more likely to use external attributions and hold an external locus of control (Friend & Neale,  1972 ; Weiner & Peter,  1973 ). Graham ( 1991 ,  1994 ) reexamined these and other findings and concluded that although many studies show greater externality among African American students because researchers often did not control for social class, African American students were overrepresented in lower socioeconomic backgrounds. When the effect of social class is controlled, researchers find few, if any, ethnic differences (Graham,  1994 ; Pajares & Schunk,  2001 ), and some researchers have found that African American students place greater emphasis on low effort as a cause of failure—a more adaptive attributional pattern (Graham & Long,  1986 ; Hall, Howe, Merkel, & Lederman,  1986 ).

Van Laar ( 2000 ) found a tendency toward external attributions in African American college students; however, these students also held high expectancies for success and felt that their efforts might not be properly rewarded (i.e., negative outcome expectations). This seeming paradox of high success expectancies amidst lower achievement outcomes has been reported by others (Graham & Hudley,  2005 ). In summary, research investigating ethnic differences in achievement beliefs has not yielded reliable differences (Graham & Taylor,  2002 ), and these inconsistent results warrant further research before conclusions are drawn.

Attribution theory has had a major impact on motivation theory, research, and practice. To ensure an optimal level of motivation, students need to make facilitative attributions concerning the outcomes of achievement behaviors. Dysfunctional judgments about abilities, the importance of effort and strategies, and the role of significant others can lead to low levels of motivation and learning.

Social cognitive theory provides another important cognitive perspective on motivation, and much of  Chapter 4  is relevant to motivation as well as to learning. The next section discusses influential social cognitive processes.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE PROCESSES

Although different perspectives on motivation are relevant to learning,  social cognitive  theorists have directed considerable attention to the relation between motivation and learning (Bandura,  1986 ,  1997 ; Pajares,  1996 ; Pajares & Schunk,  2001 ,  2002 ; Pintrich,  2000a ,  2000b ,  2003 ; Schunk,  2012 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2005 ,  2009 ; Schunk & Zimmerman,  2006 ). Important social cognitive motivational processes involved in learning are goals and expectations, social comparison, and self-concept.

Goals and Expectations

Goals and self-evaluations of goal progress are strong motivators (Bandura,  1977b ,  1986 ,  1991 ; Schunk & Ertmer,  2000 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ; Zimmerman,  2000 ;  Chapter 4 ). The perceived negative discrepancy between a goal and performance creates an inducement for change. As people work toward goals, they note their progress and sustain their motivation. In the opening classroom vignette, Rosetta’s goal progress should build her self-efficacy and sustain her motivation.

Goal setting works in conjunction with outcome expectations and self-efficacy. People act in ways they believe will help attain their goals. A sense of self-efficacy for performing actions to accomplish goals is necessary for goals to affect behavior ( Chapter 4 ). One of Kerri’s goals is to help build Margaret’s self-efficacy. Margaret may want teacher praise (goal) and believe she will earn it if she volunteers correct answers (positive outcome expectation). But she may not volunteer answers if she doubts her capabilities to give correct ones (low self-efficacy).

Unlike conditioning theorists who believe that reinforcement is a response strengthener ( Chapter 3 ), Bandura ( 1986 ) contended that reinforcement informs people about the likely outcomes of behaviors and motivates them to behave in ways they believe will result in positive consequences. People form expectations based on their experiences, but another important source of motivation is social comparison.

Social Comparison

Social comparison  is the process of comparing ourselves with others (Wheeler & Suls,  2005 ). Festinger ( 1954 ) hypothesized that when objective standards of behavior are unclear or unavailable, people evaluate their abilities and opinions through comparisons with others. He also noted that the most accurate self-evaluations derive from comparisons with those similar in the ability or characteristic being evaluated. The more alike observers are to models, the greater the probability that similar actions by observers are socially appropriate and will produce comparable results (Schunk,  1987 ). In the opening classroom scene, Jared uses social comparison as he compares his progress with that of his classmates.

Model–observer similarity in competence can improve learning (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & van den Bergh,  2002 ). This effect on learning may result largely from the motivational effects of vicarious consequences, which depend on self-efficacy. Observing similar others succeed raises observers’ self-efficacy and motivates them to try the task because they are apt to believe that if others can succeed, they will too. By comparing Derrick to Jason, Kerri hopes that Derrick’s behavior will improve. Observing similar others fail can lead people to believe they also lack the competencies to succeed, which dissuades them from attempting the behavior. Similarity may be especially influential in situations in which individuals have experienced difficulties and possess self-doubts about performing well ( Application 9.4 ).

Developmental status  is important in social comparison. The ability to use comparative information depends on higher levels of cognitive development and on experience in making comparative evaluations. Festinger’s hypothesis may not apply to children younger than 5 or 6, because they tend not to relate two or more elements in thought and are egocentric in that the “self” dominates their cognitive focus (Higgins,  1981 ;  Chapter 8 ). This does not mean that young children cannot evaluate themselves relative to others, only that they may not automatically do so. Children show increasing interest in comparative information in elementary school, and by fourth grade they regularly use this information to form self-evaluations of competence (Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman, & Loebl,  1980 ; Ruble, Feldman, & Boggiano,  1976 ).

APPLICATION 9.4 Social Comparison

Teachers can use social comparison to improve behavior and effort in completing assigned tasks. As a second-grade teacher works with a small reading group, she compliments students for appropriate behaviors, which emphasizes expected behaviors and instills self-efficacy in students for performing accordingly. She might say:

· ■ “I really like the way Adrian is sitting quietly and waiting for all of us to finish reading.”

· ■ “I like the way Carrie read that sentence clearly so we could hear her.”

Observing student successes leads other students to believe they are capable of succeeding. A teacher might ask a student to go to the board and write contractions for listed words. The students in the group have similar abilities, so the successes of the student at the board should raise self-efficacy in the others.

A swimming coach might group swimmers with similar talents and skills when planning practices and simulated competitions.

With students of like skills in the same group, a coach can use social comparison while working on improving certain movements and speed. The coach might say:

· ■ “Dan is really working to keep his legs together with little bending and splashing as he moves through the water. Look at the extra momentum he is gaining from this movement. Good job, Dan!”

· ■ “Joel is doing an excellent job of cupping his hands in a way that acts like a paddle and that pulls him more readily through the water. Good work!”

Teachers and coaches should be judicious in their use of social comparison. Students who serve as models must succeed and be perceived by others as similar in important attributes. If models are perceived as dissimilar (especially in underlying abilities) or if they fail, social comparisons will not positively motivate observers.

The meaning and function of comparative information change with development, especially after children enter school. Preschoolers actively compare at an overt level (e.g., amount of reward). Other social comparisons involve how one is similar to and different from others and competition based on a desire to be better than others (e.g., Jared) without involving self-evaluation (e.g., “I’m the general; that’s higher than the captain”; Mosatche & Bragioner,  1981 ). As children become older, social comparisons shift to a concern for how to perform a task (Ruble,  1983 ). First graders engage in peer comparisons—often to obtain correct answers from peers. Providing comparative information to young children increases motivation for practical reasons. Direct adult evaluation of children’s capabilities (e.g., “You can do better”) influences children’s self-evaluations more than comparative information.

Comparing one’s current and prior performances (temporal comparison) and noting progress enhances self-efficacy and motivation. Although this capability is present in young children, they may not employ it. R. Butler ( 1998 ) found among children ages 4 to 8 that temporal comparisons increased with age, but that children most often attended only to their last outcome. In contrast, children frequently employed social comparisons and evaluated their performances higher if they exceeded those of peers. Butler’s results suggest that teachers need to assist children in making temporal comparisons, such as by showing children their prior work and pointing out areas of improvement. Kerri does this with Jared, Matt, and Rosetta.

Self-Concept

Dimensions and Development.

Self-concept  refers to one’s collective self-perceptions (a) formed through experiences with, and interpretations of, the environment and (b) heavily influenced by reinforcements and evaluations by significant other persons (Shavelson & Bolus,  1982 ). Self-concept is multidimensional and comprises elements such as self-confidence, self-esteem, self-concept stability, and self-crystallization (Pajares & Schunk,  2001 ,  2002 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ).  Self-esteem  is one’s perceived sense of self-worth, or whether one accepts and respects oneself. Self-esteem is the evaluative component of self-concept.  Self-confidence denotes the extent to which one believes one can produce results, accomplish goals, or perform tasks competently (analogous to self-efficacy). Self-esteem and self-confidence are related. The belief that one is capable of performing a task can raise self-esteem. High self-esteem might lead one to attempt difficult tasks, and subsequent success enhances self-confidence.

Self-concept stability refers to the ease or difficulty of changing the self-concept. Stability depends in part on how crystallized or structured beliefs are. Beliefs become crystallized with development and repeated similar experiences. By adolescence, individuals have relatively well-structured perceptions of themselves in areas such as intelligence, sociability, and sports. Brief experiences providing evidence that conflicts with personal beliefs may not have much effect. Conversely, self-concept is modified more easily when people have poorly formed ideas about themselves, usually because they have little or no experience.

The development of self-concept proceeds from a concrete view of oneself to a more abstract one. Young children perceive themselves concretely; they define themselves in terms of their appearance, actions, name, possessions, and so forth. Children do not distinguish among behaviors and underlying abilities or personal characteristics. They also do not have a sense of enduring personality because their self-concepts are diffuse and loosely organized. They acquire a more abstract view with development and as a function of schooling. As they develop separate conceptions of underlying traits and abilities, their self-concepts become better organized and more complex.

Development also produces a differentiated self-concept. Although most investigators postulate the existence of a general self-concept, evidence indicates that it is hierarchically organized (Marsh & Shavelson,  1985 ; Pajares & Schunk,  2001 ,  2002 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2005 ,  2009 ; Shavelson & Bolus,  1982 ). A general self-concept tops the hierarchy and specific subarea self-concepts fall below. Self-perceptions of specific behaviors influence subarea self-concepts (e.g., mathematics, social studies), which in turn combine to form the academic self-concept. For example, Chapman and Tunmer ( 1995 ) found that children’s reading self-concept comprised perceived competence in reading, perceived difficulty with reading, and attitudes toward reading. General self-concept comprises self-perceptions in the academic, social, emotional, and physical domains. Vispoel ( 1995 ) examined artistic domains and found evidence for the multifaceted nature of self-concept but less support for the hierarchical framework.

Experiences that help form the self-concept emanate from personal actions and vicarious (modeled) experiences (Schunk & Pajares,  2005 ,  2009 ). The role of social comparison is important, especially in school (see discussion earlier in this chapter). This idea is reflected in the big-fish-little-pond effect (Marsh & Hau,  2003 ): Students in selective schools (who have intelligent peers) may have lower self-concepts than those in less selective schools. Marsh and Hau found evidence for this effect among students in 26 countries. Research also shows that being placed in a high-achieving group is associated with lower self-concept (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Marsh, & Nagy,  2009 ).

Evidence indicates that self-concept is not passively formed but rather is a dynamic structure that mediates significant intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (Cantor & Kihlstrom,  1987 ). Markus and colleagues (Markus & Nurius,  1986 ; Markus & Wurf,  1987 ) hypothesized that the self-concept is made up of self-schemas or generalizations formed through experiences. These schemas process personal and social information much as academic schemas process cognitive information. The multidimensional nature of self-concept is captured by the notion of  working self-concept , or self-schemas that are mentally active at any time (presently accessible self-knowledge). Thus, a stable core (general) self-concept exists, surrounded by domain-specific self-concepts capable of being altered.

Self-Concept and Learning.

The idea that self-concept is positively related to school learning is intuitively plausible. Students who are confident of their learning abilities and feel self-worthy display greater interest and motivation in school, which enhances achievement. Higher achievement, in turn, validates self-confidence for learning and maintains high self-esteem.

Unfortunately, these ideas have not been consistently supported by research. Wylie ( 1979 ) reviewed many research studies. The general correlation between academic achievement measures (grade point averages) and measures of self-concept was r = +.30, which is a moderate and positive relation suggesting a direct correspondence between the two. Correlation does not imply causality, so it cannot be determined whether self-concept influences achievement, achievement influences self-concept, each influences the other, or each is influenced by other variables (e.g., factors in the home). Wylie found somewhat higher correlations when standardized measures of self-concept were employed and lower correlations with researcher-developed measures. That higher correlations were obtained between achievement and academic self-concept than between achievement and overall self-concept supports the hierarchical organization notion. The highest correlations with achievement have been found with domain-specific self-concepts (e.g., in areas such as English or mathematics; Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ).

It is reasonable to assume that self-concept and learning affect each other. Given the general nature of self-concept, brief interventions designed to alter it may not have much effect. Rather, interventions tailored to specific domains may alter domain-specific self-concepts, which may extend up the hierarchy and influence higher-level self-concepts.

The research literature supports this proposition. The moderate relation between self-concept and achievement found in research studies may result because general self-concept measures were used. Conversely, when domain-specific self-concept measures are compared with achievement in that domain, the relation is strong and positive (Pajares & Schunk,  2001 ,  2002 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2005 ,  2009 ). As self-concept is defined more specifically, it increasingly resembles self-efficacy, and there is much evidence showing that self-efficacy predicts achievement (Bandura,  1997 ; Pajares,  1996 ; Schunk,  1995 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ;  Chapter 4 ).

Many of the suggestions made in this chapter have relevance for influencing self-concept. In their review of research on self-concept interventions, O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, and Debus ( 2006 ) found that domain-specific interventions had stronger effects on self-concept than did interventions designed to raise global self-concept. Teachers who show students they are capable of learning and have made academic progress in specific content areas, provide positive feedback, use models effectively, and minimize negative social comparisons can help develop students’ self-concepts (see  Chapter 4  for ways to enhance self-efficacy).

In summary, with its emphasis on goals, expectations, social comparisons, and self-concept, social cognitive theory offers a useful perspective on motivation.  Application 9.5  gives some classroom applications of social cognitive processes. We now discuss goal orientations, which are relevant to social cognitive processes.

APPLICATION 9.5 Social Cognitive Processes

Students enter learning situations with a sense of self-efficacy for learning based on prior experiences, personal qualities, and social support mechanisms. Teachers who know their students well and incorporate various educational practices can positively affect motivation and learning.

Instruction presented such that students can comprehend it fosters self-efficacy for learning. Some students learn well in large-group instruction, whereas others benefit from small-group work. If a university English professor is introducing a unit on the major works of Shakespeare, the instructor initially might provide background on Shakespeare’s life and literary reputation. Then the professor could divide the students into small groups to review and discuss what had been introduced. This process would help build the self-efficacy of both students who learn well in large groups and those who do better in small groups.

As the professor moves through the unit and introduces the major periods of Shakespeare’s career, the student activities, exercises, and assignments should provide students with performance feedback. Progress made toward the acquisition of basic facts about Shakespeare and his works can be assessed through quizzes or self-checked assignments. Individual student growth as it relates to understanding specific Shakespearean works can be conveyed through written comments on essays and papers and through verbal comments during class discussions.

Students should be encouraged to share their insights and frustrations in working with interpretations of Shakespearean plays. Guiding students to serve as models during the analysis and discussion of the plays will promote their self-efficacy better than will having a professor who has built his or her career studying Shakespeare provide the interpretation.

In working with students to develop goals toward learning and understanding Shakespeare and his works, the professor could help each student focus on short-term and specific goals. For example, the professor might have students read a portion of one major work and write a critique, after which they could discuss their analyses with one another. Breaking the content into short segments helps to instill self-efficacy for eventually mastering it. Commenting on the quality of the critiques by students is more beneficial than rewarding them for reading a certain number of plays. Being able to interpret Shakespeare’s work is more difficult than reading, and rewarding students for progress on difficult assignments strengthens self-efficacy.

GOAL ORIENTATIONS

Goal orientations  are learners’ reasons for engaging in academic tasks (Anderman, Austin, & Johnson,  2002 ). Goal orientations are central motivational variables in goal theory, which incorporates many variables hypothesized to be important by other theories (Schunk et al.,  2014 ). This theory postulates that important relations exist among goals and goal orientations, expectations, attributions, conceptions of ability, social and self comparisons, and achievement behaviors (Anderman & Wolters,  2006 ; Elliot,  2005 ; Maehr & Zusho,  2009 ; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman,  2006 ; Pintrich,  2000a ,  2000b ; Pintrich & Zusho,  2002 ; Weiner,  1990 ).

Although goal theory bears some similarity to goal-setting theory (Bandura,  1988 ; Locke & Latham,  1990 ,  2002 ;  Chapter 4 ), important differences exist. Educational and developmental psychologists developed goal theory to explain and predict students’ achievement behaviors. Goal-setting theory, in contrast, has drawn from various disciplines, including social psychology, management, and clinical and health psychology. Goal-setting theory is more concerned with how goals are established and altered and with the role of their properties (e.g., specificity, difficulty, and proximity) in instigating and directing behavior. Goal theory also considers a wide array of variables in explaining goal-directed behavior, some of which may not directly involve goals (e.g., comparisons with others). Goal-setting theory typically considers a more restricted set of influences on behavior.

Types of Goal Orientations

Goal theory emphasizes that different types of goals can influence behavior in achievement situations (Anderman & Wolters,  2006 ; Elliot,  2005 ; Maehr & Zusho,  2009 ; Meece et al.,  2006 ; Pintrich,  2003 ). Researchers have identified different orientations (Elliot & McGregor,  2001 ; Elliot & Thrash,  2001 ).

One distinction is between learning and performance goal orientations (Dweck,  1991 ,  1999 ,  2002 ; Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Elliott & Dweck,  1988 ; Schunk,  1996 ; Schunk & Swartz,  1993a ,  1993b ;  Figure 9.4 ). A  learning goal  refers to what knowledge, behavior, skill, or strategy students are to acquire; a  performance goal denotes what task students are to complete. Other types of goals mentioned in the literature that are conceptually similar to learning goals include  mastery , task-involved, and task-focused goals (Ames & Archer,  1988 ; Butler,  1992 ; Meece,  1991 ; Nicholls,  1984 ); synonyms for performance goals include ego-involved and ability-focused goals. In the opening scenario, Matt seems to hold a learning goal orientation, whereas Jared is more performance-goal oriented.

Figure 9.4a Effects of learning goals on motivation.

Figure 9.4b Effects of performance goals on motivation.

Although these goal orientations at times may be related (e.g., learning produces faster performance), the importance of these goals for achievement behavior and learning stems from the effects they can have on learners’ beliefs and cognitive processes (Pintrich, 2000a). A learning goal orientation focuses students’ attention on processes and strategies that help them acquire capabilities and improve their skills (Ames,  1992a ). The task focus motivates behavior and directs and sustains attention on task aspects critical for learning. Students who pursue a learning goal are apt to feel efficacious for attaining it and be motivated to engage in task-appropriate activities (e.g., expend effort, persist, and use effective strategies; Bandura,  1986 ; Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ). Self-efficacy is substantiated as they work on the task and assess their progress (Wentzel,  1992 ). Perceived progress in skill acquisition and self-efficacy for continued learning sustain motivation and enhance skillful performance (Schunk,  1996 ;  Figure 9.4a ). Learning goals positively predict intrinsic motivation (Spinath & Steinmayr,  2012 ). From a related perspective, students who pursue learning goals are apt to hold a growth mindset, which reflects the belief that one’s qualities and abilities can be developed through effort (Dweck,  2006 ).

In contrast, a performance goal orientation focuses attention on completing tasks ( Figure 9.4b ). Such goals may not highlight the importance of the processes and strategies underlying task completion or raise self-efficacy for acquiring skills (Schunk & Swartz,  1993a ,  1993b ). As students work on tasks, they may not compare their present and past performances to determine progress. Performance goals can lead to social comparisons of one’s work with that of others to determine progress. Social comparisons can result in low perceptions of ability among students who experience difficulties, which adversely affect task motivation (Schunk,  1996 ). Not surprisingly, competition can promote adoption of performance goals (Murayama & Elliot,  2012 ). Students who pursue performance goals may hold a fixed mindset, reflecting the idea that one’s qualities and abilities are limited and cannot change very much (Dweck,  2006 ).

Research results support these ideas (Rolland,  2012 ). During science lessons, Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle ( 1988 ) found that students who emphasized task-mastery goals reported more active cognitive engagement characterized by self-regulatory activities (e.g., reviewing material not understood). Intrinsic motivation (discussed later in this chapter) related positively to goals stressing learning and understanding.

Elliott and Dweck ( 1988 ) gave children feedback indicating they had high or low ability, along with instructions highlighting a learning goal of developing competence or a performance goal of appearing competent. Learning-goal children sought to increase competence by choosing challenging tasks and using problem-solving strategies. Performance-goal children who received high-ability feedback persisted at the task but also avoided challenging tasks that might have entailed public errors. Performance-goal children given low-ability feedback selected easier tasks, did not persist to overcome mistakes, and displayed negative affect.

During reading comprehension instruction, Schunk and Rice ( 1989 ) found that with children deficient in reading skills, a process goal (e.g., learning to use a comprehension strategy) and a product (e.g., performance) goal (e.g., answering questions) led to higher self-efficacy than did a general goal of working productively; however, the process and product conditions did not differ. Schunk and Rice ( 1991 ) found that combining a process goal with feedback on progress toward the goal of learning to use a strategy promoted self-efficacy and skill better than process and product goal conditions. These two studies suggest that without progress feedback, learning goals may not be more effective than performance goals among students with reading problems.

Schunk and Swartz ( 1993a ,  1993b ) provided children in regular and gifted classes with a process goal of learning to use a paragraph-writing strategy or a product (performance) goal of writing paragraphs. Half of the process-goal students periodically received feedback on their progress in learning the strategy. Schunk and Swartz found that the process goal with feedback was the most effective and that the process goal with or without feedback led to higher achievement outcomes than did the product goal.

Schunk ( 1996 ) provided fourth graders with instruction and practice on fractions, along with either a learning goal (e.g., learning how to solve problems) or a performance goal (e.g., solving problems). In the first study, half of the students in each goal condition evaluated their problem-solving capabilities. The learning goal with or without self-evaluation and the performance goal with self-evaluation led to higher self-efficacy, skill, motivation, and task orientation, than did the performance goal without self-evaluation. In the second study, all students in each goal condition evaluated their progress in skill acquisition. The learning goal led to higher motivation and achievement outcomes than did the performance goal. These findings were replicated with college students by Schunk and Ertmer ( 1999 ), who found that self-efficacy for applying computer skills was enhanced when students received a process (learning) goal and an opportunity to evaluate their learning progress.

Investigators have examined additional distinctions in the mastery–performance goal orientation dichotomy (Elliot,  2005 ; Elliot & McGregor,  2001 ; Elliot & Thrash,  2001 ; Maehr & Zusho,  2009 ). Linnenbrink and Pintrich ( 2002 ) proposed classifying mastery and performance goals according to whether they involve approach or avoidance and hypothesized that goals have different emotional consequences. Approach mastery goals are predicted to lead to positive affect, whereas both types of avoidance goals are expected to result in negative affect. The role of affect in goal choice and outcomes often is not addressed, yet the emotional consequences of motivation for schooling are important (Meyer & Turner,  2002 ). Murayama and Elliot ( 2012 ) found that competition promoted both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, which had conflicting effects on achievement: The former raised it whereas the latter undermined it. Other evidence, however, indicates that performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals are highly related (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.,  2012 ).

Goal orientations play a key role in self-regulated learning ( Chapter 10 ), because they provide a framework within which learners interpret and react to events (Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Meece,  1994 ). Students who develop and maintain high self-efficacy for learning have higher expectancies for success, greater perceived control over learning, and more intrinsic interest in learning (Covington,  1992 ; Eccles,  1983 ; Harter & Connell,  1984 ). Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot ( 2000 ) found that mastery goals predicted immediate and long-term interest in the discipline among college students, whereas performance goals predicted grades better. Students are more likely to adopt a task/learning-goal orientation when they believe they can improve their ability through expending effort (Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Meece,  1994 ; Nicholls & Miller,  1984 ). Purdie, Hattie, and Douglas ( 1996 ) found among Australian and Japanese students that a conception of learning as understanding was related to greater use of learning strategies. In contrast to this incremental  conception of ability , students with a fixed conception believe that effort will improve ability only to a set limit. Effort becomes less important when ability is fixed.

Achievement goal patterns also can motivate self-regulated learning (Zimmerman & Cleary,  2009 ). Providing students with feedback stressing a learning-goal orientation can enhance self-efficacy, motivation, self-regulatory activities, and achievement more than providing feedback emphasizing performance goals (Schunk & Swartz,  1993a ,  1993b ). Achievement goals affect students’ task persistence and effort expenditure (Elliott & Dweck,  1988 ; Stipek & Kowalski,  1989 ). Under performance-oriented conditions, children with low perceived ability experience performance deterioration when they begin to fail (Meece,  1994 ); however, this pattern is not found among learning-oriented children regardless of perceived ability and among performance-oriented students with high perceived ability. Ames and Archer ( 1988 ) found that classroom mastery (learning) goal orientation relates positively to students’ reported use of effective learning strategies and effort attributions.

Research shows that achievement goals can affect how students study and what they learn (Dweck & Master,  2008 ). Learning-oriented students tend to use deep processing strategies that enhance conceptual understandings and that require cognitive effort (e.g., integrating information, monitoring comprehension; Graham & Golan,  1991 ; Nolen,  1988 ,  1996 ; Pintrich & Garcia,  1991 ). In contrast, ego-oriented goal patterns are associated with such short-term and surface-level processing strategies as rehearsal and memorization (Graham & Golan,  1991 ; Meece,  1994 ).

Factors in the home and school can affect the role of learning-goal orientation in self-regulation. Learning situations that emphasize self-improvement, discovery of new information, and usefulness of learning material can promote a learning-goal orientation (Ames & Archer,  1988 ; Graham & Golan,  1991 ; Jagacinski & Nicholls,  1984 ). In contrast, interpersonal competition, tests of intellectual skills, and normative evaluations can enhance performance goals. Murdock and Anderman ( 2006 ) found that performance goals related to cheating, whereas students who pursued mastery goals were less likely to cheat.

In sum, evidence demonstrates that a learning-goal orientation facilitates achievement motivation, beliefs, and skill acquisition better than a performance-goal orientation, although performance goals bear a relation to grades. We now consider a mechanism that may explain such effects.

Conceptions of Ability

Dweck and her colleagues hypothesize that goal orientation is intimately related to one’s theory about the nature of intelligence or ability (Dweck,  1991 ,  1999 ,  2006 ; Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Dweck & Master,  2008 ; Dweck & Molden,  2005 ). Dweck ( 1991 ,  2006 ) proposed two theories of intelligence or ability: entity and incremental. People who hold an  entity theory  (or fixed mindset) believe that intelligence or ability is relatively fixed, stable, and unchanging over time and task conditions. Effort helps to reach one’s limit, not for progressing much beyond it. Difficulties are viewed as obstacles and can lower self-efficacy and lead students to display ineffective strategies and give up or work halfheartedly.

In contrast, people who hold an  incremental theory  (or growth mindset) roughly equate intelligence or ability with learning. Students believe that intelligence can change and increase with experience, effort, and learning. An upper limit of intelligence—if it exists—is sufficiently high and does not preclude one from working harder to improve. Difficulties are viewed as challenges and can raise self-efficacy if students mobilize effort, persist at the task, and use effective strategies.

With some exceptions, students who hold a growth (incremental) mindset are likely to believe that learning will raise their overall ability and thus should be more apt to adopt learning goals. Conversely, students holding a fixed (entity) mindset may not adopt learning goals because they believe that learning will not raise their overall level of ability. These predictions have received research support (Dweck,  1991 ,  1999 ,  2006 ; Dweck & Molden,  2005 ).

Research also shows important relations among conceptions of ability, motivation, and achievement outcomes. Wood and Bandura ( 1989 ) had adults engage in a managerial decision-making task and told them that decision-making ability was fixed (reflecting their basic cognitive capabilities) or incremental (developed through practice). These ability conceptions often are associated with ego and task orientations, respectively (Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Jagacinski & Nicholls,  1984 ; Nicholls,  1983 ). Incremental decision makers maintained high self-efficacy, set challenging goals, applied rules efficiently, and performed better; entity participants showed a decline in self-efficacy. Jourden, Bandura, and Banfield ( 1991 ) obtained similar results among college students on a motor task. Participants who were led to believe that performance was an acquirable skill showed increased self-efficacy, positive self-reactions to their performance, and greater skill acquisition and task interest; those led to believe that performance reflected inherent aptitude showed no gain in self-efficacy, little increase in skill and interest, and negative self-reactions.

Implicit Theories

Constructivist theories ( Chapter 8 ) call attention to many facets of motivation, including the cognitive and the affective. A central premise of many contemporary theories of learning and motivation, and one that fits nicely with constructivist assumptions, is that people hold  implicit theories  about issues, such as how they learn, what contributes to school achievement, and how motivation affects performance. Learning and thinking occur in the context of learners’ beliefs about cognition, which differ as a function of personal, social, and cultural factors (Greeno,  1989 ; Moll,  2001 ).

Research shows that implicit theories about such processes as learning, thinking, and ability influence how students engage in learning, their achievement, and their views about what leads to success in and outside of the classroom (Duda & Nicholls,  1992 ; Dweck,  1999 ,  2006 ; Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ; Dweck & Molden,  2005 ; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick,  1990 ; Yeager & Dweck,  2012 ). The preceding section discussed how fixed and growth mindsets can affect students’ motivation differently. Evidence also shows that implicit theories and mindsets can affect the way that learners process information (Graham & Golan,  1991 ). Students who believe that learning outcomes are under their control (growth mindset) may expend greater mental effort, rehearse more, use organizational strategies, and employ other tactics to improve learning. In contrast, students who hold a fixed view may not expend the same type of effort.

Students differ in how they view kinds of classroom learning. Nicholls and Thorkildsen ( 1989 ) found that elementary school students perceived learning substantive matters (e.g., mathematical logic, facts about nature) as more important than learning intellectual conventions (e.g., spelling, methods of representing addition). Students also saw didactic teaching as more appropriate for teaching of conventions than for matters of logic and fact. Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen ( 1985 ) found that high school students held definite beliefs about what types of activities should lead to success. A focus during learning on mastery of the task was positively associated with student perceptions that success depends on being interested in learning, working hard, trying to understand (as opposed to memorizing), and working collaboratively.

Implicit theories likely are formed as children encounter socialization influences. Dweck ( 1999 ) found evidence for implicit theories in children as young as 3½ years. Early on, children are socialized by significant others about right and wrong, good and bad. Through what they are told and what they observe, they form implicit theories about rightness, badness, and the like. At achievement tasks, praise and criticism from others influence what they believe produce good and poor outcomes (e.g., “You worked hard and got it right,” “You don’t have what it takes to do this right”). As with other beliefs, these may be situated within contexts, and teachers and parents may stress different causes of achievement (effort and ability). By the time children enter school, they hold a wide range of implicit theories that they have constructed and that cover most situations. Stressing to learners that effort, good strategy use, and help from others contribute to success can help develop growth mindsets (Yeager & Dweck,  2012 ).

Research on implicit theories suggests that learning requires more than developing memory networks with academic content. Also important are how children refine, modify, combine, and elaborate their conceptual understandings as a function of experience. Those understandings are situated in a personal belief system and include beliefs about the usefulness and importance of knowledge, how it relates to what else one knows, and in what situations it may be appropriate.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Intrinsic motivation  refers to a desire to engage in an activity for no obvious reward except task engagement itself (Deci,  1975 ). Intrinsic motivation contrasts with  extrinsic motivation , or the desire to engage in an activity as a means to an end. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not two ends of a continuum; there is no automatic relation between them such that the higher one is, the lower the other is (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar,  2005 ). For any given activity, an individual may be high on both, low on both, average on one and low on the other, and so forth.

The importance of intrinsic motivation for learning is underscored by research showing that interest in learning relates positively to cognitive processing and achievement (Alexander & Murphy,  1998 ; Schiefele,  1996 ,  2009 ). This section examines intrinsic motivation, especially as it relates to learning.

Early Views

Early views on intrinsic motivation conceived of it as reflecting effectance motivation, mastery motivation, and incongruity and arousal.

Effectance Motivation.

In a seminal paper, White ( 1959 ) defined  effectance motivation  as:

·  Fitness or ability, and the suggested synonyms capability, capacity, efficiency, proficiency, and skill. It is therefore a suitable word to describe such things as grasping and exploring, crawling and walking, attention and perception, language and thinking, manipulating and changing the surroundings, all of which promote an effective—a competent—interaction with the environment. The behavior … is directed, selective, and persistent, and it is continued not because it serves primary drives, which indeed it cannot serve until it is almost perfected, but because it satisfies an intrinsic need to deal with the environment. (pp. 317–318)

Effectance motivation is seen in young children when they interact with environmental features that catch their attention. A youngster may reach out and grab an object, turn it over, and push it away in an effort to control it. Effectance motivation is undifferentiated in young children; it is directed toward all aspects of the environment. With development, motivation becomes increasingly specialized. Once children enter school, they manifest effectance motivation in achievement behaviors in various school subjects.

Effectance motivation arises when biological motives are satisfied; it also facilitates future need satisfaction. Taking the top off a jar initially satisfies the effectance motive, but in so doing the child learns that cookies are in the jar. This knowledge may be used in the future to satisfy hunger.

Mastery Motivation.

The notion of effectance motivation is intuitively appealing, but its generality limits the search for its causes and its effectiveness as an explanation for actions. The way to influence such a global construct, and thereby improve academic motivation, is unclear.

Harter ( 1978 ,  1981 ) attempted to specify the antecedents and consequences of effectance motivation in a developmental model of  mastery motivation . Whereas White focused on success, Harter took success and failure into account. Harter also stressed the roles of socializing agents and rewards, the process whereby children internalize mastery goals and develop a self-reward system, and the important correlates of effectance motivation (e.g., perceived competence and control).

The part of the model dealing with success is similar to White’s formulation. Effectance motivation can trigger mastery attempts. White considered the motive generic, but Harter differentiated it according to domain (school, peers, athletics). Most behaviors involve optimally challenging tasks. Successes produce intrinsic pleasure and perceptions of competence and control, which in turn strengthen effectance motivation.

Also important are socializing agents. Some positive reinforcement for mastery attempts is necessary to develop and maintain motivation. Much of this reinforcement comes from primary caregivers, and eventually a self-reward system is internalized, which allows children to reinforce themselves for mastery attempts. Children acquire mastery goals by observing others, and internalization becomes more complete with development. In support of these points, research shows that children from homes in which learning opportunities and activities are emphasized display higher intrinsic motivation for learning (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried,  1998 ).

Positive outcomes result when social environments satisfy children’s natural desires. Unsuccessful mastery attempts, coupled with a nonresponsive environment, can lead to low perceptions of competence, an external locus of control, and anxiety. Effectance motivation ebbs if children increasingly depend on others to set goals and reward actions.

Research supports many of the propositions of the model. For example, intrinsic motivation relates positively to perceived competence and internal control (Harter,  1981 ; Harter & Connell,  1984 ). Social models are important sources of mastery behavior and learning (Bandura,  1986 ,  1997 ; Schunk,  1987 ). Perceived competence relates positively to intrinsic motivation (Gottfried,  1985 ,  1990 ). Although socializing agents are important, researchers have identified other ways to foster mastery behavior, including setting learning goals, providing attributional feedback, and teaching self-regulatory strategies (Ames,  1992a ; Pintrich & Schrauben,  1992 ; Schunk,  1995 ; Zimmerman,  2000 ; Zimmerman & Cleary,  2009 ). Relatively little attention has been paid to educational implications of the model; for example, how students can be taught to adopt an intrinsic orientation toward school.

Incongruity and Arousal.

Some investigators have postulated that intrinsic motivation reflects an inherent need for a moderate amount of environmental stimulation. Hunt ( 1963 ) argued that exploratory behaviors and curiosity are intrinsically motivated and result from incongruity between prior experiences and new information. People extract information from the environment and compare it to internal representations. When incongruity exists between the input and internal knowledge or expectation, people become intrinsically motivated to reduce the incongruity. Hunt postulated that people require an optimal level of incongruity. When deprived of that level, they seek situations that provide it. Too much incongruity proves frustrating and triggers a drive to reduce frustration. Although Hunt’s views have intuitive merit, they have been criticized because “optimal level of incongruity” is vague and how much incongruity is required to trigger motivation is not clear (Deci,  1975 ).

Berlyne ( 1960 ,  1963 ) similarly hypothesized that an optimal level of physiological incongruity (stimulation to the nervous system) is necessary and adaptive. If it becomes too low, people are intrinsically motivated to increase it; conversely, they are motivated to reduce it if it becomes too great. Berlyne’s “arousal potential” may be interpreted as being approximately equivalent on a physiological level to Hunt’s psychological incongruity. Properties of stimuli involving their novelty, ambiguity, incongruity, and surprise affect arousal and motivate people to explore the objects.

Although the notions of arousal and incongruity seem intuitively sensible, the idea of an optimal level of arousal or incongruity is vague, and it is unclear how much is needed to stimulate motivation. Practically speaking, we know novelty and surprise raise student interest, but how much of either is optimal? Too much may lead to frustration, attempts to escape from the situation, and lower interest in learning.

Perceived Control

Cognitive conceptions of intrinsic motivation uniformly predict that  perceived control  over task engagement and outcomes is a critical influence (Schunk & Zimmerman,  2006 ). Perceived control also forms the core of the belief system of learned helplessness, which is a psychological perspective on behavior relevant to motivation.

Control Beliefs.

People might believe that they have greater or lesser amounts of control over many types of situations and circumstances. Recall that Bandura ( 1986 ;  Chapter 4 ) distinguished self-efficacy from outcome expectations; the former refers to perceived capabilities to learn or perform behaviors and the latter to beliefs about the consequences of actions. Perceived control (or  agency ) is central to both of these expectations. People who believe they can control what they learn and perform, as well as the consequences of their actions, have a sense of agency. They are more apt to initiate and sustain behaviors directed toward those ends than are individuals who hold a low sense of control over their capabilities and outcomes of their actions.

Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell ( 1990 ) distinguished three types of beliefs that contribute to perceived control. Strategy beliefs are expectations about factors that influence success (e.g., ability, effort, other persons, luck, unknown factors). Capacity beliefs refer to personal capabilities with respect to ability, effort, others, and luck. For example, a strategy belief might be, “The best way for me to get good grades is to work hard”; a capacity belief could be, “I cannot seem to work very hard in school.” Control beliefs are expectations about one’s chances of doing well in school without reference to specific means (e.g., “I can do well in school if I want to”).

Research by Skinner et al. ( 1990 ) showed that these three beliefs influence academic performance by promoting or decreasing active engagement in learning and that teachers contributed to students’ perceptions of control by providing  contingency  (clear and consistent guidelines and feedback) and involvement (interest in and dedication of resources to students).

Evidence also indicates that when people think they have control over their environment, they tolerate aversive stimuli better and perform at a higher level. In an early study, Glass and Singer ( 1972 ) periodically exposed adults to a loud, irritating noise as they worked on tasks. No-control participants could not control the sound. Researchers told perceived direct-control participants they could terminate the noise by pushing a button, but advised them not to do so unless they needed to. Researchers told perceived indirect-control participants that pushing a button would send a signal to a confederate who could terminate the noise; the experimenter also advised these participants not to push unless they needed to. Perceived control (direct or indirect) led to significantly longer persistence and fewer errors compared with no perceived control. Perceived-control individuals judged the noise as less aversive than did no-control participants. These results suggest that students holding a sense of agency or control may deal with difficulties better and eventually achieve.

Learned Helplessness.

Learned helplessness  refers to a psychological state involving a disturbance in motivation, cognitive processes, and emotions due to previously experienced uncontrollability (Maier & Seligman,  1976 ; Peterson,  2000 ; Seligman,  1975 ,  1991 ). Learned helplessness is a psychological phenomenon that highlights perceptions of control and has implications for intrinsic motivation. Learned helplessness can result from a perceived independence between responses and outcomes.

Helplessness was identified in laboratory studies in which dogs given inescapable shocks were moved to another location, where they could avoid shocks by jumping a hurdle. The prior inescapable shocks conditioned the dogs; they made little attempt to escape in the new setting but, rather, passively endured the shock. Dogs not previously exposed to inescapable shock easily learned to escape.

One manifestation of helplessness is passivity. People may do nothing when they believe they have no control over a situation. Helplessness also retards learning. People and animals exposed to uncontrollable situations may never learn adaptive responses or may learn them more slowly than those not exposed to uncontrollability. Helplessness has emotional manifestations. Prior uncontrollable situations may initially make one respond more aggressively, but eventually behavior becomes less assertive. A sense of helplessness undermines intrinsic motivation, which is heavily dependent on perceptions of control.

Seligman’s original model of learned helplessness was reformulated to incorporate attributions (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale,  1978 ). The reformulated model postulates that explanations (attributions) for outcomes influence future expectancies of outcomes and reactions to them. Explanations vary along three dimensions: stable–unstable,  global – specific , and internal–external. One who attributes negative outcomes to stable causes (e.g., “I always arrive late for everything”) is more likely to expect bad events in the future and may acquire helplessness than is one who makes attributions to unstable causes (e.g., “I arrived late when the weather was bad”). Causes can affect many areas of one’s life (global) or only one area (specific). Students may believe they lack ability in all school subjects or only in one subject. Global attributions are more likely to produce helplessness. Causes for negative events may be internal to the person (low intelligence) or external (the teacher gives unfair tests). Internal attributions are apt to result in helplessness. Collectively, people most prone to helplessness are those who typically explain negative events with internal, global, and stable attributions (e.g., “I do poorly in school because I’m not very smart”).

Learned helplessness and low intrinsic motivation characterize many students with learning problems who enter a vicious cycle in which negative beliefs reciprocally interact with academic failures (Licht & Kistner,  1986 ). For various reasons, students fail, begin to doubt their learning capabilities, and view academic successes as uncontrollable. These beliefs produce frustration and giving up readily on tasks. Lack of effort and persistence contribute to further failures, which reinforce negative beliefs. Eventually, students interpret their successes as externally caused; for example, the task was easy, they were lucky, or the teacher helped them. They attribute failures to low ability, which is internal, global, and stable, and which negatively affects self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement (Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman,  1986 ). In the opening scene, Margaret may be a candidate for learned helplessness.

Compared with normal learners, students with learning problems hold lower expectations for success, judge themselves lower in ability, and emphasize lack of ability as a cause of failure (Chapman,  1988 ; Harris, Graham, & Mason,  2006 ; Palmer, Drummond, Tollison, & Zinkgraff,  1982 ). Such students often do not attribute failure to low effort (Pearl, Bryan, & Donohue,  1980 ). They give up readily when they encounter difficulties, cite uncontrollable causes for successes and failures, and hold low perceptions of control over outcomes (Licht & Kistner,  1986 ).

Dweck integrated learned helplessness into a model of achievement motivation (Dweck,  1986 ,  1999 ; Dweck & Leggett,  1988 ). Ego involvement characterizes helpless students. Their school goals are to complete tasks and avoid negative judgments of their competence. They may hold a fixed mindset and believe that intelligence is a stable quantity (Dweck,  2006 ). They avoid challenges, display low persistence in the face of difficulty, hold low perceptions of their capabilities, and may experience anxiety while engaged in tasks (Diener & Dweck,  1978 ). In contrast, mastery-oriented students are more likely to hold a growth mindset and display a task-involved achievement pattern. They believe intelligence can improve, and their goals are to learn and become more competent. They hold high perceptions of their learning capabilities, are intrinsically motivated to learn, seek challenges, and persist at difficult tasks.

Variables associated with the instructional environment can prevent students with learning problems from entering this cycle and can help them overcome it (Friedman & Medway,  1987 ). Attributional feedback can alter students’ maladaptive achievement beliefs and behaviors. Teachers also need to give students tasks they can accomplish and feedback highlighting progress toward learning goals (Schunk,  1995 ; Stipek,  2002 ). Stipek and Kowalski ( 1989 ) found that teaching task strategies to children who de-emphasized the role of effort raised their academic performance.

Self-Determination

Deci and colleagues (Deci,  1980 ; Deci & Moller,  2005 ; Deci & Ryan,  1991 ; Grolnick, Gurland, Jacob, & Decourcey,  2002 ; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan,  2004 ; Ryan, Connell, & Deci,  1985 ; Ryan & Deci,  2000 ,  2009 ) postulated that intrinsic motivation is an innate human need and originates in infants as an undifferentiated need for competence and  self-determination , or “the process of using one’s will” (Deci,  1980 , p. 26). As children develop, intrinsic motivation differentiates into specific areas (e.g., athletics, academics), and environmental interactions influence the direction of differentiation.

Self-determination theory postulates that intrinsic motivation is influenced by three basic innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The need for competence is similar to White’s ( 1959 ) need for mastery of the environment (effectance motivation). People have a need to feel competent and interact successfully with others, with tasks and activities, and within larger social contexts. The need for autonomy refers to a sense of control or agency in interactions in the environment (Ryan & Deci,  2000 ), which is akin to an internal locus of control. Relatedness refers to the need to belong to a group; it also is referred to as a need for belongingness.

Intrinsic motivation is “the human need to be competent and self-determining in relation to the environment” (Deci,  1980 , p. 27). The need for intrinsic motivation energizes people’s wills, and the  will uses the energy of intrinsic motivation to satisfy needs, resolve conflicts with competing needs, and hold needs in check. Intrinsic motivation is satisfied when individuals act willfully. It is the process of self-determination that is intrinsically motivating rather than the underlying need of the demonstrated behavior. A person may have an inherent need to learn and may manifest it by reading books or exploring websites. Intrinsic motivation is satisfied when that person decides which books or websites to read and when to read them, although the actual reading may provide further satisfaction.

This self-determination view emphasizes the internalization of social values and mores. Society contains many extrinsic rewards and controls that may not fit with children’s quest for self-determination but may produce good behavior and social functioning. With development, these external motivators can become an internalized part of the self-regulatory system ( Chapter 10 ).

Motivation is conceptualized as a continuum: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation anchor the ends and in the middle are behaviors that originally were extrinsically motivated but have become internalized and now are self-determined. For instance, students may want to avoid some academic activities but they work on them to obtain rewards and avoid teacher punishment. As skills develop and students believe they are becoming more competent, they perceive a sense of control and self-determination over learning.

Deci’s position is thought-provoking and has generated much research. It also has implications for educational practice because it stresses the role of self-determination in learning. Some points in the model are not clearly specified, but research continues to test its ideas (Reeve et al.,  2004 ).

Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation

Another conceptualization of intrinsic motivation was proposed by Lepper and Hodell ( 1989 ), who hypothesized four sources of intrinsic motivation: challenge, curiosity, control, and fantasy. The perspectives discussed earlier in this chapter support the importance of the first three sources. Fantasy contexts (e.g., involving role-playing, simulations) also seem well designed to heighten intrinsic motivation.

We typically think of intrinsic motivation increasing, but it also can diminish. Research shows that engaging in an intrinsically interesting activity to obtain an extrinsic reward can undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,  1999 ,  2001 ; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar,  2005 ; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras,  1999 ). This finding has important educational implications given the prevalence of rewards.

When people are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity for reasons intrinsic to the activity. The reward comes from working on the task; the task is both the means and the end. The rewards for intrinsic motivation may be feelings of competence and control, self-satisfaction, task success, or pride in one’s work.

Csikszentmihalyi ( 1975 ) studied persons who engaged in intrinsically motivating activities and found that their experiences reflected total involvement or flow with the activities.  Flow  is a personal process and reflects emergent motivation stemming from the discovery of new goals and rewards as a consequence of interacting with the environment (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde,  1993 ; Meyer & Turner,  2002 ).

In contrast, extrinsic motivation involves engaging in an activity for reasons external to the task. This activity is a means to some end: an object, a grade, feedback or praise, or being able to work on another activity. Students are extrinsically motivated if they try to perform well in school primarily to please their parents, earn high grades, or receive teacher approval.

We engage in many activities for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Many students like to feel competent in school and experience pride for a job done well, but they also may desire teacher approval and good grades. Rewards are not inherently extrinsically motivating. Deci ( 1975 ) contended that rewards have an informational and a controlling aspect. Reward systems may be primarily structured to convey information about one’s capabilities or to control one’s behavior, and the relative salience of each (information or control) influences subsequent behavior. A salient informational aspect indicating successful performance should promote feelings of competence, whereas a salient controlling aspect can lead to perceptions of the reward as the cause of the behavior.

For example, suppose that in a classroom reward system the more work students accomplish, the more points they earn. Although students will want to work to earn points (because the points can be exchanged for privileges), the points convey information about their capabilities: The more points students earn, the more capable they are. In contrast, if points are given simply for time spent on a task regardless of learning or output, the task may be viewed primarily as a means to an end. The points convey nothing about capabilities; students are more likely to view the rewards as controlling their task engagement. Expected, tangible rewards offered to students for simply doing a task diminish intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce,  1994 ,  2002 ).

Lepper ( 1983 ; Lepper et al.,  1999 ) postulated that the perception of reward influences students’ intrinsic motivation; that is, motivation is largely a function of one’s perceptions for engaging in the task. When external conditions are salient, unambiguous, and sufficient to explain the behavior, individuals attribute their behaviors to those conditions. If external conditions are viewed as weak, unclear, or psychologically insufficient to account for their behavior, people are more likely to attribute their actions to their desires or personal dispositions.

In a classic experiment (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett,  1973 ), preschoolers were observed during free play. Those who spent a lot of time drawing were selected for the study and assigned to one of three conditions. In the expected-award group, children were offered a good player certificate if they drew a picture. Unexpected-award children were not offered the certificate, but unexpectedly received it after they drew a picture. No-award children were not offered the award and did not receive it. Two weeks later children were again observed during free play.

The expected-award children engaged in drawing for a significantly shorter time following the experiment than they had prior to the study, whereas the other two conditions showed no significant change. Expected-award children spent less time drawing following the study compared with the other conditions. It was not the reward itself that was important but rather the contingency.

Lepper et al. ( 1973 ) postulated the  overjustification hypothesis : Engaging in an intrinsically interesting activity under conditions that make it salient as a means to an end (reward) decreases subsequent interest in that activity. The overjustification hypothesis has been supported in experimental investigations with different tasks and participants of all ages (Lepper et al.,  1999 ; Lepper & Hodell,  1989 ).

Rewards need not have detrimental effects on performance. Rewards can help develop skills, self-efficacy, and interest when they are linked to one’s actual performance and convey that one is making progress in learning. Offering children rewards based on the amount of work they accomplish during learning activities increases self-efficacy, motivation, and skill acquisition compared with offering rewards merely for task participation or not offering rewards (Schunk,  1983e ). During a subtraction instruction program, Bandura and Schunk ( 1981 ) found that higher self-efficacy related positively to the amount of intrinsic interest children subsequently showed in solving arithmetic problems.

APPLICATION 9.6 Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation involves perceptions of control and competence. Individuals develop perceived competence by mastering difficult situations. If elementary teachers are helping slower learners complete assigned tasks in an allotted time, they may begin by offering a reward (extrinsic motivator) and work toward building student pride in their accomplishments (intrinsic motivator). Initially teachers might reward students for increased output with time on the computer, verbal praise, or special notes home to parents. Gradually teachers could reward intermittently and then decrease it to allow students to focus more on their accomplishments. The ability to complete tasks in the appropriate time span provides students with information about their capabilities and their ability to control situations. When pride from successfully completing tasks becomes a reward, students are intrinsically motivated to continue to display the new behavior.

High school and college students often are motivated to achieve in school primarily to earn good grades (extrinsic motivators). Teachers and professors might attempt to show the connection between what is being taught in each course and the outside world and to link each student’s accomplishments with his or her ability to be successful in that world. Instructors can help move students toward wanting to learn for the sake of learning and to be able to better address future challenges (intrinsic motivator). Thus, subjects such as chemistry, physics, and biology are not stale subjects studied in artificial laboratories but have direct relevance to what we eat, wear, and do, and how we conduct our daily lives. Field experiences (internships) in teacher education courses allow students to observe applications of teaching and learning principles during actual teaching. Enhanced perceived value of learning is apt to strengthen students’ intrinsic motivation to learn.

Thus, when rewards convey that one has learned, they can increase self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. As a form of reward, grades can function in the same way. A grade that improves shows that one is performing better in the subject, which promotes self-efficacy and motivation for further learning. Unfortunately, research shows that children’s intrinsic motivation in learning declines with development (Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, & Drake,  1997 ), although other research shows that interest and self-efficacy are related positively in elementary and middle-grades students (Tracey,  2002 ).  Application 9.6  demonstrates ways to enhance and sustain intrinsic motivation.

INTEREST AND AFFECT

Interest  refers to the liking of and willful engagement in an activity (Schraw & Lehman,  2001 ).  Affect  is a general term that includes both general moods and specific emotions (Forgas,  2000 ). Students’ interests and affects are linked with motivation and learning in various ways.

Personal and Situational Interest

Researchers generally distinguish personal from situational interest. Personal interest is a relatively stable disposition or characteristic of the individual, whereas situational interest is a temporary psychological state of interest in a task or activity (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger,  1992 ; Schiefele,  2009 ). Although both types of interest are directed toward tasks or activities, personal interest is more diffuse and enduring than situational interest. Thus, one student may have a personal interest in dance, whereas another student might have a situational interest in a particular dance lesson or activity.

Interest is intimately linked with motivation. Students who are interested in activities are more motivated to engage in them and sustain their engagement over time (Schunk et al.,  2014 ). College students’ initial interest in course content positively predicts their adoption of mastery goals and continued interest several semesters later (Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer,  2008 ).

Interest also contributes to learning. Researchers have shown that both personal and situational interest relate positively to measures of learning such as attention, memory, comprehension, deeper cognitive processing, and achievement (Hidi,  2000 ; Hidi & Harackiewicz,  2000 ; Trautwein, Lüdtke, Marsh, Köller, & Baumert,  2006 ). This is true even among preschoolers, whose interest in different activities predicts their attention, recognition, and recall memory for these activities later on (Renninger & Wozniak,  1985 ).

Although young children have personal interests, these can be developed from initial situational interest. Hidi and Renninger ( 2006 ) proposed a four-stage model of the development of interest: triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging personal interest, and well-developed personal interest. This model implies that teachers should try to create situational interest in content or topics and that over time this situational interest may develop into personal interest. Teachers often try to do this by using fun activities, linking content to real-life applications, and using various forms of technology. Creating situational interest is much easier than attempting to determine the personal interests of all students and then trying to structure the unit to fit all the different personal interests (Hidi & Harackiewicz,  2000 ).

There also is a difference between creating situational interest and sustaining it. Mitchell ( 1993 ) found that in high school mathematics classes group work, puzzles, and computer technologies helped to activate interest but did not necessarily sustain it. Rather, situational interest was maintained by the use of meaningful activities and the active involvement of students in learning tasks. The sustaining of interest is imperative for situational interest to develop into personal interest.

Emotions

Affect  comprises moods and emotions.  Moods  are low-intensity, diffuse, and enduring affective states that have no clear causes and little cognitive content.  Emotions  are more short-lived, intense phenomena that usually have salient causes (Forgas,  2000 ). Thus, we might say that Jake was in a good or bad mood, or that he became emotionally upset when he received a D on his physics test.

Pekrun ( 1992 ) proposed a classification of achievement-related emotions that has relevance to motivation. Emotions can be either positive (e.g., pride) or negative (e.g., disappointment). Within each of these two categories, emotions can occur while engaged in the task (process-related; e.g., enjoyment or boredom), be prospective (forward-looking; e.g., hope or anxiety), or be retrospective (backward-looking; e.g., relief or sadness).

Pekrun ( 1992 ) also proposed that emotions can affect intrinsic motivation. Positive emotions such as enjoyment while engaged in a task or the anticipation of enjoyment may raise students’ intrinsic motivation, whereas negative emotions (e.g., boredom) can lower intrinsic motivation. There is some research to support these predictions (Schunk et al.,  2014 ). The implication for learning is that by creating and sustaining a positive emotional climate, teachers may help to raise not only students’ intrinsic motivation but also their task engagement and learning (Rolland,  2012 ). Research shows that fifth- and sixth-grade students’ achievement is predicted by classroom emotional climate and that this relation is mediated by students’ engagement in learning (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey,  2012 ).

A topic of much educational interest is test anxiety. Test anxiety is a normal reaction by individuals to evaluative situations. Test anxiety becomes a problem when it becomes overwhelming and interferes with students’ thinking and performance (Zeidner,  1998 ).

A large body of research shows that test anxiety has negative effects on learning and achievement (Zeidner,  1998 ). This is not surprising. Anxiety can interfere with attention because negative thoughts and worries can distract students’ attention from the learning. It also is possible that highly test-anxious students are that way in part because they use deficient learning and test-taking strategies. They do not study well or know how to take a test. Thus, their anxiety compounds the problem by contributing to poor test performance. Such students enter a vicious cycle in which poor strategy use produces poor performance, which leads to more anxiety and continued poor strategy use and performance.

Reducing the importance that teachers place on tests can help alleviate some anxiety. Students also can be taught effective learning and test-taking strategies, which are commonly incorporated into learning skills courses at the middle school, high school, and college levels. Teaching students relaxation techniques to use when they become anxious while studying for or taking tests (e.g., breathing exercises) also has been shown to be beneficial (Zeidner,  1998 ).

INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS

The material in this chapter suggests many educational applications. Three applications that are linked closely with learning involve achievement motivation training, attribution change programs, and goal orientations.

Achievement Motivation Training

The goal of  achievement motivation training  is for students to develop thoughts and behaviors typical of learners high in achievement motivation (de Charms,  1968 ,  1984 ). de Charms ( 1976 ) initially prepared teachers, who then worked with students to help them acquire personal responsibility for their learning outcomes.

The teacher preparation included self-study of academic motivation, realistic goal setting, development of concrete plans to accomplish goals, and evaluation of goal progress. Student motivation was integrated with academic content. Classroom activities included self-study of academic motives, achievement motivation thinking, development of self-concept, realistic goal setting, and promotion of personal responsibility. During a spelling activity designed to teach goal setting, students could choose to learn easy, moderate, or difficult words. To teach personal responsibility, teachers had students write stories about achievement, which were then used in a classroom essay contest. The results showed that the program raised teachers’ and students’ motivation, halted the trend among low achievers to fall increasingly behind their peers in achievement, and reduced student absenteeism and tardiness.

Integrating instruction on achievement motivation with academic content, rather than including it as an add-on activity with special content, seems imperative. The danger of the latter approach is that students may not understand how to apply achievement motivation principles to other content.

Alderman ( 1985 ,  1999 ) recommended several useful components of achievement motivation instruction. One is having teachers assist students to set realistic goals and provide feedback concerning their goal progress. Another aspect is self-study to examine one’s motives for learning and to develop personal responsibility. The distinction between task and ego involvement seems useful. A series of questions helps students examine how they feel about tasks and what they see as their goals (e.g., learning versus pleasing others). Attributional training (discussed next) also is relevant. One means of teaching personal responsibility is to help students place greater emphasis on effort as a cause of outcomes rather than blaming others when they fail or believing they were lucky when they succeed. As students experience successes, they should develop increased self-efficacy for continued learning and assume greater control of their learning.

Alderman ( 1985 ) applied these ideas to a senior high girls’ physical education class. On the first day of class, students completed a self-evaluation of their health, physical fitness status, and competence and interest in various activities, and they set fitness goals. They took weekly self-tests in different activities (e.g., aerobics, flexibility, strength, and posture). At the end of the first grading period, students set goals for the final exam. They had various ways to accomplish the aerobic goal (running, walking, and jumping rope). The teacher met with individual students to assess goals and made suggestions if these did not seem realistic. Students established practice schedules of at least three times a week for 9 weeks and kept a record of practices. Following the final exam, students completed a self-evaluation of what they had learned. Alderman noted: “To the instructor, the most striking comment made by students on the final self-evaluation was, ‘I learned to set a goal and accomplish it’” (p. 51).

Attribution Change Programs

Attribution change programs attempt to enhance motivation by altering students’ attributions for successes and failures. Students commonly have some difficulties when learning new material. Some learners attribute these problems to low ability (e.g., Margaret in the opening scenario). Students who believe they lack the requisite ability to perform well may work at tasks in a lackadaisical fashion, which retards skill development. Researchers have identified students who fit this attributional pattern and have trained them to attribute failure to controllable factors (e.g., low effort, improper strategy use) rather than to low ability. Effort has received special attention; students who believe that they fail largely because of low ability may not expend much effort to succeed. Because effort is under one’s control, teaching students to believe that prior difficulties resulted from low effort may lead them to work harder with the expectation that it will produce better outcomes ( Application 9.7 ).

APPLICATION 9.7 Attributional Feedback

Providing effort attributional feedback to students for their successes promotes achievement expectancies and behaviors, but the feedback must be perceived as credible. When a student is having trouble mastering difficult multiplication problems, the teacher can use past student successes and attributional feedback to build confidence in learning. If the student has mastered addition and multiplication concepts and facts, the teacher might say, “I know these new problems look hard, but you can learn how to work them because you know all the things you need to know. You just need to work hard and you’ll do fine.”

As the student works, the teacher can interject comments similar to the following:

· ■ “You’re doing well; you completed the first step. I was sure you knew your multiplication facts. Keep working hard.”

· ■ “Wow! Look at that! You did those so quickly. I knew you could do that because you’re working hard.”

· ■ “You did it! You got it right because you worked hard.”

· In a nursing program an instructor should give the future nurses positive and accurate feedback regarding their administration of various clinical procedures and their effectiveness in interacting with patients. For example, after a trainee has completed the drawing of blood for testing purposes, the instructor might say:

· ■ “I’m glad to see you used all the correct safety procedures in handling the blood. You know what to do.”

· ■ “You did a great job of explaining the procedure to the patient before starting the process. You are really good at giving explanations!”

· ■ “You completed the procedure very calmly and with a smile. You have real talent at this.”

These types of remarks reflect positive attributional feedback concerning students’ competencies, which can raise their self-efficacy and motivation for further learning.

In an early study, Dweck ( 1975 ) identified children who had low expectations for success and whose achievement behaviors deteriorated after they experienced failure (e.g., low effort, lack of persistence). Dweck presented the children with arithmetic problems (some of which were insolvable) to assess the extent of performance decline following failure. Children largely attributed their failures to low ability. During training, children solved problems with a criterion number set for each trial. For some (success-only) children, the criterion was set at or below their capabilities as determined by the pretest. A similar criterion applied on most trials for  attribution retraining  children, but on some trials the criterion was set beyond their capabilities. When these children failed, they were told they did not try hard enough. On the posttest, success-only children continued to show deterioration in performance following failure, whereas attribution-retraining children showed less impairment. Success-only children continued to stress low ability; attribution-retraining students emphasized low effort.

Dweck did not assess self-efficacy or expectancies for success, so the effect of attributions on expectancies could not be determined. Other investigations have shown that teaching students to attribute failures to low effort enhances effort attributions, expectancies, and achievement behaviors (Horner & Gaither,  2004 ; Robertson,  2000 ; Schunk,  2008 ).

Providing effort-attributional feedback to students for their successes also promotes achievement expectancies and behaviors (Schunk,  1982a ; Schunk & Cox,  1986 ; Schunk & Rice,  1986 ). In the context of subtraction instruction, Schunk ( 1982a ) found that linking children’s prior achievements with effort (e.g., “You’ve been working hard”) enhanced task motivation, perceived competence, and skill acquisition better than linking their future achievement with effort (e.g., “You need to work hard”) or not providing effort feedback. For effort feedback to be effective, students must believe that it is credible. Feedback is credible when students realistically have to work hard to succeed, as in the early stages of learning. Notice in the opening vignette how Kerri provides effort feedback to Derrick, Amy, and Matt.

Effort feedback may be especially useful for students with learning problems. Schunk and Cox ( 1986 ) provided subtraction instruction and practice opportunities to middle school students with learning disabilities. Some students received effort feedback (“You’ve been working hard”) during the first half of a multisession instructional program, others received it during the second half, and learners in a third condition did not receive effort feedback. Each type of feedback promoted self-efficacy, motivation, and skill acquisition better than no feedback. Feedback during the first half of the program enhanced students’ effort attributions for successes. Given students’ learning disabilities, effort feedback for early or later successes may have seemed credible.

Attribution preferences change with development (Sigelman,  2012 ). Young children attribute successes to effort, but by age 8 they begin to form a distinct conception of ability and continue to differentiate the concepts up to about age 12 (Nicholls,  1978 ,  1979 ; Nicholls & Miller,  1984 ). Ability attributions become increasingly important, whereas the influence of effort as a causal factor declines (Harari & Covington,  1981 ). During arithmetic instruction and practice, Schunk ( 1983a ) found that providing children with ability feedback for prior successes (e.g., “You’re good at this”) enhanced perceived competence and skill better than providing effort feedback or ability-plus-effort (combined) feedback. Children in the latter condition judged effort expenditure greater than ability-only children and apparently discounted some of the ability information in favor of effort. In a follow-up study using a similar methodology (Schunk,  1984b ), ability feedback given when children succeeded early in the course of learning raised achievement outcomes better than early effort feedback regardless of whether the ability feedback was continued or discontinued during the later stages of learning.

The structure of classroom activities conveys attributional information (Ames,  1992a ,  1992b ; see  Chapter 11 ). Students who compete for grades and other rewards are more likely to compare their ability among one another. Students who succeed under competitive conditions are more likely to emphasize their abilities as contributing to their successes; those who fail believe they lack the requisite ability to succeed. These conditions create an ego-involved motivational state. Students begin to ask themselves, “Am I smart?” (Ames,  1985 ).

Cooperative , or individualistic, reward structures, on the other hand, minimize ability differences. Cooperative structures stress student effort when each student is responsible for completing some aspect of the task and for instructing other group members on that aspect, and when the group is rewarded for its collective performance. In individualistic structures, students compare their current work with their prior performances. Students in individualistic structures focus on their efforts (“Am I trying hard enough?”) and on learning strategies for enhancing their achievement (“How can I do this?”).

Goal Orientations

Goal theory and research suggest several ways that teachers can foster a productive learning goal orientation. Teachers might help students alter their beliefs about limits to their abilities and the usefulness of effort as a means to improve their motivation. Giving students progress feedback showing how their skills have improved (i.e., how much they have learned), along with information showing that effort has helped to produce learning, can create a growth mindset, raise self-efficacy, and motivate students to improve skills further.

Another suggestion is to use more collaborative student activities. Duda and Nicholls ( 1992 ) found for both sport and schoolwork that task orientation (growth mindset) related to high school students’ beliefs that success depends on effort and collaboration with peers, whereas ego orientation (fixed mindset) was associated with beliefs that success is due to high ability and attempting to perform better than others. Goal orientations and beliefs about success were not strongly related to perceived ability. Perceived ability related better to satisfaction in sport than in school; the opposite pattern was obtained for task orientation.

A learning-goal orientation can be developed by helping students adopt learning goals. Teachers can stress acquiring skills, learning new strategies, developing problem-solving methods, and so forth. They also can de-emphasize goals such as completing work, finishing earlier than other students, and rechecking work. Assignments should involve learning; when students practice skills, teachers can stress the reasons for the practice (e.g., to retard forgetting) and inform students that skillful practice shows skills have been retained (i.e., recast practice in terms of skill acquisition).  Application 9.8  gives some other suggestions for instilling a task orientation, incremental ability conception, and focus on learning goals in students.

APPLICATION 9.8 Goal Orientations

Promoting learning goal orientations in the classroom can foster self-efficacy and enhance learning. In working with elementary students on multiplication, Ms. Cataino might introduce the unit by saying, “Boys and girls, today we are going to learn some things about putting numbers together that will make you much better math students.” Then she could emphasize acquisition of skills (“As we work today, you are going to learn how to multiply numbers together”), learning of new strategies (“We are going to use these manipulatives to help us figure out different ways to group numbers together and multiply”), and development of problem-solving methods (“I want all of you to put on your thinking caps as we work to figure out different numbers you can multiply together to make 20”). It is important to stress these goals and deemphasize goals such as completing work and finishing before other students.

Working in a large group, in small groups, or in pairs to solve problems collaboratively helps diminish competition and allows students to focus more on learning than on completing tasks. With law students, an instructor could pair them to help each other locate prior cases on child abuse and encourage them with statements such as, “I want you to put your efforts toward learning how to research a case,” and “I want you to work to prepare precise short and direct opening statements.” These types of statements focus students on goals for the task at hand; students can then assess learning progress against these statements.

SUMMARY

Motivation is the process of instigating and sustaining goal-directed behavior. Some early views on motivation were drive theory, conditioning theory, cognitive consistency theory, and humanistic theory. Each of these contributed to the understanding of motivation, but none was adequate to explain human motivated behavior. Current theories view motivation as reflecting cognitive processes, although these theories differ in the importance ascribed to various cognitions. Models of motivated learning assume that motivation operates before, during, and after learning.

Achievement motivation theory postulates that need for achievement is a general motive leading individuals to perform their best in achievement contexts. Achievement behavior represents an emotional conflict between hope for success and fear of failure. Contemporary achievement motivation theory stresses learners’ expectancies of success and the value or importance they place on learning. Self-worth theory hypothesizes that achievement behavior is a function of students’ efforts to preserve the perception of high ability among themselves and others. Other researchers have focused on motivational states such as task and ego involvement.

Attribution theory incorporates Rotter’s locus of control and many elements of Heider’s naïve analysis of action. Weiner’s attribution theory, which is relevant to achievement settings, categorizes attributions along three dimensions: internal–external, stable–unstable, and controllable–uncontrollable. Attributions are important because they affect achievement beliefs, emotions, and behaviors.

Key social cognitive processes are goals and expectations, social comparison, and self-concept. People set goals and act in ways they believe will help them attain their goals. By comparing present performance to the goal and noting progress, people experience a sense of self-efficacy for improvement. Motivation depends on believing that one will achieve desired outcomes from given behaviors (positive outcome expectations) and that one is capable of learning or performing those behaviors (high self-efficacy). Social comparison with others is an important source of information to form outcome and efficacy expectations. Research suggests that self-concept is hierarchically organized and multifaceted. It develops from a concrete to a more abstract self-view. Self-concept and learning appear to influence one another in reciprocal fashion.

Goal orientations are the reasons that students engage in tasks. Learners may possess learning (mastery) or performance (ability-focused) goal orientations. Learning goals focus attention better on skills and competencies needed for learning, and as students perceive progress, their self-efficacy and motivation are enhanced. In contrast, performance goals may not lead to the same focus on progress, but rather result in social comparison, which may not raise motivation. Goal orientations are linked with conceptions of ability that reflect an entity (fixed mindset) or incremental (growth mindset) perspective.

Intrinsically motivated activities are ends in themselves, in contrast to extrinsically motivated actions that are means to ends. Investigators have hypothesized that young children have intrinsic motivation to understand and control their environments, which becomes more specialized with development and progression in school. Harter’s theory highlights the role of socializing agents and perceived competence. Other theorists hypothesize that intrinsic motivation depends on the needs for optimal levels of psychological or physiological incongruity. Many theories stress people’s desire to exert control over important aspects of their lives. When people perceive independence between responses and outcomes, learned helplessness manifests itself in motivational, learning, and emotional deficits. Self-determination theory postulates that intrinsic motivation is influenced by three basic innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

Much research has addressed the effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Offering rewards for task engagement decreases intrinsic motivation when rewards are seen as controlling behavior. Rewards given contingent on one’s level of performance are informative of capabilities and foster students’ self-efficacy, interest, and skill acquisition.

Interest, or the liking and willful engagement in an activity, can affect motivation and learning. Personal interest is a stable personality variable directed toward specific activities or topics, whereas situational interest is temporary interest generated by specific features of the environment. A model of interest development postulates that personal interest can develop from initial situational interest. Affect comprises moods and emotions. Moods are low-intensity and diffuse affective states that may not have specific causes or much cognitive content. Emotions are more intense and short lived. They can be traced to specific causes, be positive or negative, and occur before, during, or after task engagement. One emotion—test anxiety—can have negative effects on motivation and learning when it becomes excessive.

Achievement motivation, attributions, and goal orientations have important educational applications. Achievement motivation programs are designed to foster students’ desire to learn and perform well at achievement tasks. Attributional change programs attempt to alter students’ dysfunctional attributions for failure, such as from low ability to insufficient effort. Attributional feedback for prior successes improves self-efficacy, motivation, and skill acquisition. Teachers can foster productive goal orientations in students by teaching them to set learning goals and providing feedback on their goal progress.

FURTHER READING

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 31–60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.