Discussion board

Motivation

Kerri Townsend, an elementary teacher' has been working with her students on

subtraction with regroL;;i"g' '" teaching the concept' she used everyday examples'

cutouts, and manipulatwes to heip spark stuclents' interest Now the students are

solving problems at their desks, and-Kerri is walking around' talking with students

indiviJualy 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 get-

ting good at this. Tnar siould mak"e you'feel good l know that you'll keep doing

well in math this Year." Next is Derrick, who's having a harcl time concentrating and

hasn't done much

work. Kerri says to him, "Derrick, t k"o* you can do much better' See how well

Jason is u,'orking. Qason 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. 6ut instead olihinking about how others are doing' think

about how you're doing. See, you can clo these problems now' and just a few

w,eeks ago yotl coulcln't. So you really have learned a lot'"

As Kerri approaches Amy, she sees that Amy is wasting time "Amy' why

aren't you *oikirrg better?" Amy replies, "I don't like these problems l'd rather be

working on the computer." Kerri repiies, "You'll get your chance for that l knoq' that yoJ can work better on these, so let's try to finis1-r them before the end of the

period. I think you'll like subtraction more when you see how well you can solve

the problems."

Ntlatt enjoys learning ancl 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 mis-

takes. Kerri gives him f-eedback, shorv'ing him what he's doing correctly and what

he neecls to correct. Then she says, "Matt, you're a hard worker' I know that if you

keep working on these, yoti will learn how to do them' I'm sure that soon you'il find that you can do them easier."

340

\

Motivation 341

Kerri has been working with Rosetta on setting goals fbr completing her work accurately. Rosetta's goal is to complete her w'ork with at least 80% accLlracy. Earlier in the year Rosetta averaged only about 30%o accuracy. Kerri checks her work and says, "Rosetta, I'm so proud of you. You did 10 problems and got 8 of them com- pletely correct, so you rnade your goa1. See how'much better yoti're doing now than before? You're getting much better in math!"

'We have seen throughout this text that much human iearning-regardless of content-has common features. Learning begins w-ith 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 straiegies and processes such as attention, perception, rehearsal, organization, elaboration, storage, and retrieval.

This chapter discusses motivation-a topic intimately linked witl-r learning. Motiuation 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 cop;nitive 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 heips us understand u,'hy people behave as they do (Graham & r{'einer, 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 knowiedge, and ask- ing questions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Rather than qr-rit when they encounter diffi- cult 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 pr-rzzles, 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 open- ing 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 achieve- ment motivation theory, attribution theory, social cognitive theory, goal theory, percep- tions of control, self-concept, and intrinsic motivation. The chapter concludes with some educational applications.

-J/hen you finish studying this chapter, you should be able to do the follou,ing:

I Discuss the major principles of historical theories of motivation: drive, condition- ing, cop;nitive consistency, humanistic.

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

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

I Discuss the causai dirnensions in'Weiner's attribution theory and the effects they have in achievement situations.

r Explain how goals, expectations, social comparison, and self-concept can afTect motivation.

342 Chapter !

r Distinguish befween learning (process) and performance (product) goal orienta- tions, and describe how they can promote or undermine motivation and learning.

I Define inrinsic motivation, explain the variables that can affect it and how it can influence learning, and discuss the condi- tions under which rewards may increase or decrease intrinsic motivation.

I Distinguish between personai and situa- tionai interest and explain how they relate to motivalion and learning.

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

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

BACKGROUN D AND ASSUMPTIONS

Historical Perspectives

Although some variables included in historical theories are not relevant to current theo- ries, historical views helped set the stage fbr cllrrent cognitive theories. Fulther, 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 tirat instincts have survival value for organisms. Energy builds within organisms and releases itself in behaviors designed to help species surwive. Other theories have emphasized the individual's need for bomeostasis, or optimal levels of physioiogical states. A third per- spective involves bedortism, or the idea that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Although each of these views rnay 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 consuit other sources (Schunk et al.,2074; \7einer, 1992).

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

Drive Theory. Driue tbeory originated as a physiologicai theory; eventually, it was broad- ened to include psychological needs. \Toodworth (1918) deflned driues as inrernal forces that sought to maintain homeostatic body balance. \X/hen 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 (Ricfiter, 1927; Woodw-ofih & Schiosberg, 7954).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 I took them to ftln to the end to receive food was measured. Not surprisingly, response strength (rurnning speed) normally varied directly with the number of prior reinforcernents and with longer deprivation up to 2 to 3 days, after which it dropped off because the animals became progressively weaker.

Nlotivation 313

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

Need-Drive+Behavior

Motiuation s'as the "initiation of learned, or habituai, patterns of movement or behav- ior" (Hu11, 1.943, p. 225). H,r,ll 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 aiso postuiated the existence of seconclaty 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 reinforce- ment (e.g., money buys food).

Drive theory generated much research as a consequence of Hull's writings (\fleiner, 1992-). Ls 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. StLldents hastily finishing an overdue term paper may erperience strong symptoms of hunger, yet they may not stop to eat because the desire to complete an important task outweigl-rs 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 erplain some behaviors directed toward immediate goals, but many human behaviors reflect long-term goa1s, 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 espe- cially on cornplex tasks (Broadhurst, 1957; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). In short, drive theory does not offer an adequate explanation for academic motivation.

Conditioning Theory. Conditioning tbeory (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 occllrs, 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 likeiihood of the UCS occurring when the CS is presented.

In operant conditioning, motivated behavior is an incr-eased rate of responding or a greater likelihood that a response will occur in the presence of a stimulus. Skinner (1953)

344 Chapter 9

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 produc- tive work and because the current environment offers eff-ective 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 reinforce- ment (Bandura, 1986'). When reinforcement history conflicts with current beiiefs, people act based on their beliefs (Brewer, 1974). By omitting cognitive elements, conditioning theories offer an incomplete account of human motivation.

Cognitive Consistency Theory, Cogt'titiue consistency theory assumes that motivation results from interactions of cognitions and behaviors. This theory is bomeostatic because it pre- dicts that when tension occurs among elements, the probiem needs to be resolved by making cognitions and behaviors consistent with one another. Tvr'o prominent perspec- tives are balance theory and dissonance theory.

Heider's (1946) balance theory postulated that individuals have a tendency to cogni- tively balance relations among persons, situations, and events. The basic situation invoives 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 rwo negative relations: Ashley does not like Janice, Ashley does not like chemistry, Ashley believesJanice likes chemistry (Figure 9.1).

J J J J

+ + + +

A CA CA CA c + +

J J J J

+ + + +

A CA CA CA c + +

Figure 9.1 Predictions of balance theory. Nore:J,Janice (chemisrry teacher); A, Ashley (studenc); C chemistry (subjecr). The symbols "f'and "-" srand for "likes" and "does not like," respectively, so that the rop left balance can be read as follows: Ashley likesJanice, Ashley likes chemisrry, and Ashley

believes Janice likes chemistry.

Motivation 345

Cognitive imbalance exists with one nepaative and tv\,o 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 ade- quately 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 littie abotrt the elements.

Festinger (1957) formulated a theory of cognitiue dissonance, which postulates that individuals attempt to maintain consistent relations among their beliefs, attitucles, 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 at9" and "I'm flying there today." Many beliefs are irrel- euant to one another; for example, "I like chocolate" and "There is a hickory tree in my yard." Dlssonant 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 propefiies leading to reduction. Dissonance should increase as the discrepancy between cognitions increases. Assuming I bought Deborah a gift, the cognition "I don't Iike 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 callse much dissonance. "Yellow is not my favorite color" and "I drive a yellow car" will not produce much dissonance if car color is not impoftant to me.

Dissonance can be reduced in various ways:

r Change a discrepant cognition ("Maybe I actually like Deborah"). r Qualify cognitions ("The reason I do not like Deborah is because 10 years ago she

borrowed $t00 and never repaid it. But she's changed a lot since then and prob- ably would never do that again").

r 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").

r Alter behavior ("I'm never giving Deborah another gift"). Dissonance theory calls attention to how cognitive conflicts can be resolved (Aronson,

t965). The idea that dissonance propels us into action is appealing. By dealing with dis- crepant 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

316 Chapter !

altering thoughts. These problems suggest that additional processes are needecl to explain human motivation. Interested readers should consult Shultz and Lepper (1996),who pres- ent a model that reconciles discrepant findings from dissonance research ancl integrates dissonance with other motivational variables.

Humanistic Theories

Humanistic tbeories as applied to learning are largely constructivist (Chapter g) 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 rs bolistic: To understand people, we must study their behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (weiner. 1992). Httmanists disagree with behaviorists nho study individual responses to discrete stimuli. Humanists emphasize individuals' self-aw-areness.

A second assumption is that human choices, creativity, and self-actualization are important areas to study (W'einer, 7992). To understand people, researchers should not study animals but rather people who are psychologically functioning ancl attempting to be creative and to maximize their capabilities and potential. Motivation is important fot attatn_ ing basic needs, but greater choices are available when striving to maximize one,s poten- tial. \tre1l-known humanistic theories include those of Abraham Maslou, and Carl Rogers.

Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow (7968, 7970) believed thar hurnan actions are unified by being directed toward goal attainment. Behaviors can selve several functions simultaneously for example, attending a pafiy could satisfy needs for self-esteem and social interaction. Maslow felt that conditioning theories did not capture the complexity of human behav_ ior. 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 bierarcbical (Figure 9.2). Lower-order needs have to be satisfied adequately before higher-order needs can influence behavior. Pbltsiological needs, the lowest on the hierarchy, concern necessi- ties such as food, air, and water. These needs are satisfied for most people most of the time, but they become potent when they are nor satisfied. Next are safety neecls, nhich involve environmental security. These needs dominate during emergencies: people fleeing from rising waters q,.i1l abandon valuable property to save their 1ives. Safety neecis are also manifested in activities such as saving money, securing a job, and taking oLlt an insurance policy.

Once phvsiologicai and safety needs are adequately met, belongingness ectue) neecls become important. These needs involve having intimate relationships u,ith others, belong_ ing to groups, and having close friends and acquaintances. A sense of belonging is attained through marriage, interpersonal commitments, volunteer groups, c1ubs, churches, and the 1ike. At the fourth ievel are esteem neecls that comprise self-esteem and esteem from others. These needs manifest themselves in high achievement, independence, com- petent work, and recognition from others.

The first four needs are depriuation. needs: Their lack of satisfaction produces deficiencies that motivate people to satisfy them. At the highest level is the need for

Motivation 347

Figure 9.2 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Source: Maslow Abraham H.; Frager, Robert D; Fadiman, James, Motivation and Personolity,3tdEd., @ 1987.

Adapted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Educarion, lnc., Upper Saddle River, NewJersey.

sef-actualization, or the desire for seif-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.

Healthy people have sufficiently gratified their basic needs for safety, belongingness, love, respect, and self-esteem so that they are motivated primalily by trends to self-actualization [defined as ongoing actualization of potentials, capacities and talents, as fulfillment of mission (or ca1l, f'ate, destiny, or vocation), as a fuller knowledge of, and acceptance of, the person's owl irrrinsic rrature, as all uttceasirlg uend roward urrity, ir]tegralion or synel'gy within the personl. (Maslow, 7968, p. 25')

Although most people go beyond the deficiency needs and strive toward self-actual- ization, few people ever fully reach this level-perhaps \o/o 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 n'ray be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in inven- tions. At this levei, individual differences are greatest. (Maslow, 7970, p. 46)

Self-actualization

Esteem

Belongingness

Safety

Physiological

348 Chaprer 9

A strong motive to achieve is another manifestation of self-actualization (Application 9.1). Masloq,, informally studied personal acquaintances and historical figures. Characteristics

of self-actuaiized individuals included an increased perception of reality, acceptance (of self, others, nature), spontaneity, problem-centering, detachment ancl clesire for privacy. autonomy and resistance to enculturation, freshness of appreciation and richness of emo_ tional reaction, frequency of peak experiences (loss of self-awareness), and identification with the human species (Maslow, 1968).

\flhen self-actualized persons attempt to solve importanr problen-rs, they look outside of themselves fbr a cause and dedicate their effor-ts to solving it. They also clisplay great interest in the means for attaining their goa1s. The outcome (righting a wrong or solving a problern) is as impofiant as the means to the end (the actual work involved).

Maslow's hierarchy is a useful general guide for understanding behavior. It dernon_ strates that it is unrealistic to expect students to learn well in schooi if they are suffering from physiological or saf'ety deficiencies. The hierarchy provides eclucators with clues concerning why students act as they do. Educators stress intellectual achievement, but many adolescents are preoccupied w.ith belongingness and esteem.

One problem u,ith the theory is conceptual vagueness; what constitutes a deficiency is not clear. \{'hat one person considers a deficiency, someone else may not. Another

Motivation 349

problem is that iower-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 yieldecl 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 inflr,renced are unclear. Despite these problems, the idea that people strive to feel competent and lead self-fuifi1ling lives is a central notion in man1, theories of motivation (Schunk et aL.,2074).

Actualizing Tendency. Carl Rogers was a renowned psychotherapist x''hose approach to counseling is known as client-centered tberapy. According to Rogers (1963), 1if-e repre- sents an ongoing process of personal growth or achieving w'holeness. This process, or actualizing tendency, is motivationai and presumably innate (Rogers, 1963). Rogers con- sidered 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 sl-rort, dealing u,ith an organism which is ahvays motivated, is always "up to some- thing," alu,'ays seeking. So I would reafflrm my belief that there is one central sonrce of energy in the human organism; that it is a function of the whole organism rather than son-re pofiion of it; ancl that it is perhaps best conceptualized as a tendency toward fulfillment. tou,arctr actualization, toward the maintenance and enhancernent of the organism. (Rogers, 1963, p. 6)

The environlnent can affect the actualizing tendency. \(ith development, individuals become more aware of their own being and functioning (.self-experience). This ar,r,areness becomes elaborated into a self-concept through interactions rl.itl-r the environment and significant others (Rogers, 1959). The development of self-avr,areness produces a need for positiue regard, or feelings such as respect, liking, warmth, sympathy, and acceptance. 'We perceive ourselves as receiving positive regard u,'hen we believe that others feei that way about us. This relation is reciprocal: -J7hen 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 fot positiue 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 attitllde toward oneself. A critical element is receiving unconditional positiue regard, or attitudes of worthiness and accep- tance with no strings attached. Ilnconditional positive regarci is what most parents feel for their children. Parents value or accept (l"prize") their children all the time, even thor-rglr they do not value or accept ail of their children's behaviors. Peopie who experience unconditional positive regard believe they are valued, even when their actions disappoint others. The actuaiizing tendency grows because people accepi their ow,n experiences, and their perceptions of themselves are consistent with the feedback they receive.

Problems occur when people experience conditional regard, or regard contingent on ceftain actions. People act in accordance with these conditions of wofih 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 vaiued only when they behave appropriately.

350 Chapter 9

Rogers and Education. Rogers (1969; Rogers & Freiberg, 1991) discussed edr_rcation 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 peruasive (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 learn_ ing, 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 pafiicipation combined with self-criticism and self-evah.ration by learners and the belief that learning is important. Rogers felt that learning that can be tatrght to others was of little value. Rather than imparting learning, the primary job of teachers is to act

^s facilitalors who establish a classroom climate oriented toq,ard significant learning

and help stlldents ciarify their goais. Facilitators arrange resources so that learning can occur and, because they are resources, share their feelings and thor_rghts with students.

Instead of spending a lot of time writing lesson plans, facilitarors should provide resources for students to use to meet their needs. Individual contracts are preferable to lock_ step sequences in which all srudents 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.

Nlotivatiofl 351

Rogers's theory has seen N.ide psvchotherapeutic 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. Stil1, 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 1earn. In turn, as students learn and perceive that they are becoming more ski11ful, they are motivated to continue to learn.

This close connection of motivation and learning is portrayed in Table 9.1 (Schunk et al., 201,4; 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 beiiefs. The model portrays three phases: pretask, during task, posttask. This is a convenient way to think about the changing role of motivation during learning.

Pretask Several variables influence students' initial motir.,ation for learning. Students enter tasks with various goals, sr-rch as to learn the matelial, perform well, finish first, and so on.

Table 9.1 AAodel of morivared lea"ning.

Pretask During Task Posttask

Goals

Expectations

Self-eff icacy

Outcome

Values

Affects

Needs

Social support

I nstructional variables

Teacher feedback

Materials

Equipment

Contextual variables

Peers

Environment

Personal variables

Knowledge construction

Skill acquisition

Seltregulation

Choice of activities

Effort

Persistence

Attributions

Goals

Expectations

Values

Affects

Needs

Social support

Not all goals are academic. As \Wentzel (.1992, 1996) has shown, srudents have social goals that can integrate with their academic ones. Dllring a grollp activity. Matt may want to learn the material but also become friends u.,ith Amy.

Students enter u,-ith various expectations. As discussed in Chapter 4, expectations may involve capabilities for learning (se1f-efficacy) and perceptions of the consequences of learning (outcome expectations). Students differ in their ualues for learning; for example, how important it is to them. There are different types of values, as explained later.

Students dilfer in their alJects associated with learning. They may be excited, anxious, or feel no particular emotions. These affects may relate closely to stLrdents, neecls, which some theories postuiate to be important.

Finally, we expect that the social supporl in students, Iives will vary. Social suppot"t includes the types of assistance available at school from teachers and peers, as *ell u, help and encouragement from parents and significant others in students, 1ives. Learning often requires that others provide time, money, effort, transportation, and so forth.

DuringTask. Instructional, contextual (socia1,/environmental), and personal variables come into play during learning. Instructional uariables 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 uafiables 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 com_ petitive conditions can affect motivation (Ames, 1992a; Meece, 7991, Z0O2). Students' social comparisons of ability with peers directly link to motivation.

Personal uariables include those associated with learning, such as knowledge con_ struction and skill acquisition, self-regulation variables (Chapter 10), and motivational indexes (e.9., 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 rn,e1l 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 attributiorzs, or perceived causes of outcomes. All of these variables, in cycli- cal fashion, affect future motivation and learning. Students who believe that they are progressing tow,ard their learning goals and who make positive atrributions for success are apt to sustain their self-efficacy for learning, outcome expectations, values, and posi_ tive affects. Factors associated with instruction, such as teacher feedback, provide infor_ mation 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 ancT can continue to do so by using effective learning strategies.

352 Chapter 9

Motivation 353

ACH I EVEMENT MOTIVATION

The study of achievement motivation is central to education and learning. Acbieuement motiuation refers to striving to be competent in effortful activities (Elliot & Church, 1997). Murlay (1938) identified the achievement motive, along with other physiological and psy- chological 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 (1935) devised the Tbematic 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 (McCle1land, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Researchers showed respondents pictures of individuals in unclear situations and asked questions such as "What is happening?" "'$7hat led up to this situation?" "1Vhat 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 suf- fers from problems, including low reliability and low correlation with other achievement measures. To address these problems, researchers have devised other measures of achievement motivation (\feiner, 1992).

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

Expectancy-Value Theory

John Atkinson (L957; Atkinson & Birch, 1978; Atkinson & Feather, t966; Atkinson & Raynor, 7914, 7978) developed an expectancy-ualue tbeory o.f acbieuement motiuation. 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 approacl-r (bope for success) and avoidance (fea.r" oif failure) tcndcncics. Achicvcment actions carry with them the possibilities of success and failure. Key concepts of this math- ematical model are as follows: the tendency to q.pproach an acbieuement-related goal (4), the tendency to auoid failure (To), and the resultant acbieuenxent motiuation (T). Ts is a funciion of the ruotiue to succeed (rfJ, the subjectiue probability of success (Pr), and the incentiue ualue of success (Ir):

Tr:MrXPsXls Atkinson beiieved that M, (acbieuement nxotiuation) is a stable disposition (character-

istic trait) of the individual to strive for success. P., (the individual's estimate of how likely

351 Chapter !

goal attainment is) is inversely related to 1r: Individuals have a gteat(x incentive to work hard at difficult tasks than at easy tasks. Greater pride is experlenced in accomplishing difficuit tasks.

In similar fashion, the tend.ency to auoidfailure (.To) is a multiplicarive function of the motiue to auoidfailurn !"f),the probability offailure (p), arrd tie inuerse of the incen_tiue ualue offailure (-I):

To1: MolX PfX (-D The resultant achieuement nxotiuation (T) is represented as follows:

To: Tr- Tr1 Notice that simply having a l"righ hope for success does not gllarantee achievement

behavior because the strength of the motive to avoid fhih-rre must be considered. The best way to promote achievement behavior is to combine a strong hope for success with a 1ow f'ear of failure (Application 9.3).

This model predicts that students high in resultant achievement moti_",ation will choose tasks of intermediate difficulty; that is, those they believe are attarnable and will produce a sense of accomplishment. These students should avoid difficult tasks for whicli successful accomplishment is unlikely, as well as easy tasks for which success, although guaranteed, produces iittle satisfaction. Students low- in resultant achievement motivatiJn 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 unlike1y, students have an excuse for failure-the task is so difficult thal no one can succeed at it. This excuse gives these students a reason for not expending effort, because even great effort is unlikeiy to produce sllccess.

Research on task difficulty preference as a function of level of achievement motiva_ tion has yielded conflicting resuks (Cooper, 19g3; Ray, i9g2). In studies of task difficulty bv Kuhl and Blankenship (1979a, 7979b), indivicjuals repeatedly chose rasks. 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 studenrs forwhontMol>,11r. Kuhl and Biankenship found a shift tou,ard more difficult tasks for participants in whom lo,jof),,14r, as v,ell as for those in whom llr) MtResearchers found no suppoft for the notion thai this tendency wor,rid be greater in the former parricipants.

These findings make sense when interpreted differentiy. Repeated sllccess builcis perceptions of corlpetence (self-efficacv). people then are more likely to choose difficult tasks because they i'eel capable of accomplishing them. In short, peopie choose to work on easy or difficult tasks for many reasons, and Atkinson,s theory may have overesti- mated the strength of the achievement motive.

Classical achievement motivation theory has generated much research (Trautwein et al., 2012). One ploblem with a global achievemenr motive is that it rarely manifesrs itself uniformly across differenr achievernent clomains. Students typically shor,v grearer motivation to perform well in some content areas than in others. Because the achieve_ ment motive varies with the domain, how well such a global trait predicts achievement behavior in specific situations is questionable. Some theorists (Elliot & Church. 1997r

Motivation 355

Elliot & Harackieu,,icz, 1.996) have proposecl an integration of classical theory with goal theory; the latter is discussed later in this chapter.

Contemporary Model of Achievement Motivation

The classical view of achievement motivation contrasts sharply with theories that stress neecls, 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

355 Chapter 9

researchers also shifted the focus of motivation from inner needs and environmental fac- tors to the subjective n'orld of the individual.

An important contribution was emphasizing both expectancies for success and per_ ceived value of engaging in the task as factors affecting achievement. Contemporary models of achievement morivation reflect this subjective emphasis and, in addition, have incorporated other cognitive r.ariables 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 moti_ vation. Later another current view of achievement motivation-self-worth theorv_is pre_ sented. Collectiveiy, these two approaches represent valuable attempts to reiine achievement motivation theory to incorporate additional elements.

Figure 9.3 shows the conremporary model (Eccles, 19g3, 2005; \figfield, 1!!4; \fligfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; \fligfleld & Cambria, 20lO; \fligfield & Ecc]es, 1992, 2000,2002; \7igfield, Tonks, & Eccles, 2004; \figfie1d, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009). This model is complex. Only its feaiures most germane to the present discussion w,ill 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 expecrancy and value components. Vahte refers to the perceived importance of the task, or the belief about u'hy 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 w-ork 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 gui_ tar"). In the opening vignette, Amy expresses negative affect and low l,alue for the task.

The overall value of any task depends on four components. Attainment ualue 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 fulfiIl achievement or social needs. Intrinsic or interest ualue refers to the inherent, immediate enjoyment one derives from the task. This constflrct is roughly synonymous with intrinsic motiuation discussed iater in this chapter. Utility ualue reiates to task importance relative to a future goal (e.g., taking a course because it is necessaly to attain a career goal). Finally, there is a cost belief component, defined as the perceir.,ed negative aspelts of engaging in the task (Vigfield & Eccles, 1992).'When people w.ork on one rask, then they cannot work on others, ancl there may be associated costs (e.g., academic, social).

The expectancy variable refers to individuals, perceptions concerning the likelihood of success on tasksr that is, their perceptions about how well they will do. The expec_ tancy component anssrers 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 1ow expectancy of sLlccess for performing we11. In contrast, Jare<i seems to have high expectancies for suc_ cess, 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 (.i956) olltcome expectation in the sense thar it is for"ward look- ing and reflects the person's perception of doing well. It also contrasts with task_specific

\t $

s

a- Eo

'E)

oos\ EsI

-o

,} o 6 U da

.9 E

E Oo d_ fioo

_q

u 6

5

t.Y ".8 6o

6= E-e9gOJ

.€ g

.9'60 doi>!.p -FJ Ld>

UrS Ft- ;do

d->qiio

qd^ u>: o! ll

>oo

rnQ.dt- oi P€ sorF;E =-:,ibo- s 3 lr\J; \

0) E tr aoo o

0) Oc

otr (E0 o!cfl c!OC E(soo>0)ooEoo-c<o v

o) f, 6 co0) E=>do > -.6 Yqd;6t>yoc>E = =r= 6E!E q):<f,cE 'jAic'i+

(!) f, (U

j og o

o 0) _o f,a

-f

o U'q)

o J

U)

o tr o (u

o C) o.x ut

q) .>E o'u E6A:fco;€ EEotr :6:

occ> r

o ;i-oY-

, X aa e IO Q(E Eaa A OI E o)o) -otr6 Fc a)

.EqtiO6o:EoALETfOUd\oO=rJ--O,= ".1-

o ts F:',(E".r-= O o19-c o: O-oa a-.9 a J ll g) (d - criai+6

a(u E

o9 c-!;fqo 62oS ;. 6) Eo)o(, o

si c)

.Ea= ;ia iilE O- !l

HEs*EH-; o Z o qEOE !9 L tD v 'HfiEeeE ;*;E5c - Ai d

:

o c .9

0)o o) tL ^o

=.Co tU

oo (!)

o x

TU

n: -co u

@ (!) n- ->6 lebEHo aa gE o .o

EggE+E =-- bFF.ESi=b,! 6 =! o E= 9h h= (/)rr (U tr tr U U J., F T R A\ (, iD(, O (d otLE ; oi c.i

fg

E

=J()

.q

ao i: o.9

x5 .qc0 Qo U)6 tri

I EoL E €-o coo q, opE{] o)xf o- - E!2=E < 6()d] ; oi d

o .o

(JE c)(dEEOI at) o

oo Eo.E

{joENoia.^ trlX f OIo>if'<_g€ 6!s!o0)o-<cE ci

357

358 Chapter P

self-concept. which involves cllrrent 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, 19g6, L997; nccles, 1983; Eccles & \7igfie1d, 1985; Trautwein er al.. 2012; \fligfield, t994; Vigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2002; \Xrigfield et al., 2009). Collectively, expectancies for sr_rccess and task values are predicted to affect achievement-related outcomes.

The next motivational components shown in Figure 9.3 are students, goals ancl self_ scbemas and their affective reactions and memories. Affective reactions ancl memories refer to learners' affective experiences with this or similar tasks. presumably these reac_ tions can be activated by anticipation of engaging in the task Nrhen learners reca11 their prior experiences. Negative erperiences can lead to students, avoiding tasks and low perceived va1ue.

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 w-hat kind of person they wanr ro become (possible or ideal selves). The latter include beliefs about personaliry and identiry, as weli as self_concepts about their physical attractiveness, athletic abiiity, acaclemic abiiity, and social .orrrp.- tence (Eccles, 2005).

Goals are cognitive representations of u,hat 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 seif_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' jr-rdgments of the difficulry of the task and other features of the task such as hou,, interesting the task appears. Task difficr.rlty perceptions are relatively task specific such as schooi subject areas (e.g., English, biology).

Another component includes how students perceive their social and cultural environ_ ments. 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, tut these aspects of the social environment are mediated by tl-re students, perceptions of the environment. For example, a minorily student may not perceive a bias against him in a classroom. Even if there is a bias it cannot inJluence his motivational belilfs because he does not perceive it.

Other influential variables arc learners, characteristics anci experiences, as well as their cultural and social environments including the general cultural and societal milieu, gendel and cr.rlturai stereotypes, and family demographics. These external factors set the context fbr iearners 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 motiva_ tional beliefs through social cognitive processing, it is assumed that rheir beliefs are grounded in the larger social and cultural contexts that constitute the learners,worlds.

Research by Eccles, \7igfield, and others demonstrates suppoft for many of the rela_ tions depicted in the model. Studies have used both cross-secrional and longitudinal

N{otivation 319

designs that assess the beliefs and achievement of Llpper elementary and junior high stu- dents over time. A general finding across several stLtdies is that expectancies and task- specific self-concepts are mediators betw-een environmental contexts and achie-u.ement. as proposed by the model. Another finding is that expectancies are closely linked to cogni- tive engagement and achievement and that values a1'e strong predictors of students' choices (Schunk et aI., 2074'). These findings have good generalizability because the studies use students in actual classrooms and follou. them over lengthy periods (Eccies, 1983, 2OO5; \iligfield et a1., 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 w-ith students (e .g., developrnental statr,rs, ability leve1, gender).

Family lnfluences

It is plausible that achievement motivation depends strongly on factors in children's homes. An early investigation studied parents' interactions u'ith 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, llave more rew'ards and punishments, and held higher expectations for their chilclren than parents of boys with low achievement motirration. The authors concluded that parental pressure to per- form well is a more important influence on achievement motivation than parental desire for child independence.

Other research, however, shou,'s that family influences are not automatic. For exam- ple, Stipek and Ryan (.1991) found that whereas economically disadvantaged preschoolers scored lower than advantaged chiidren 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, Gtiay, Larose, & Sen6cal,2004). Children who fbrm insecure artachments with their par- ents are at greater risk for developing perfectionism (Neumeister & Finch, 2006).

Although families can influence children's motivation, atrempts to identify parental behaviors that encourage achievement strivings are complicatecl because parents display many behaviors with their children. Determining wirich behaviors are most influential is difficult. Thus, parents may encoLrrage their children to perform s,e11, convey high expec- tations, give rewards and punishments, respond with positive affect (warmth, permissive- ness), and encourage independence. These behaviors also are displayed by teachers and other significant persons in a child's life, which complicates deterrnining the precise natLlrc of fan-rilial influence. Another point is that although parents influence children, children also influence parents (Meece, 2002). Parents help children develop achieve- ment behaviors when they encourage preexisting tendencies in their children; for exam- ple, 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 ancl fear of failure. This notion is intuitively appealing. Thinking

1

360 Chaprer 9

about beginning a new job or taking a difficult course produces anticipated satisfaction from being successful as well as anxiety over the possibiliry of failing.

Self-wortb tbeory refines this idea by combining the emotions with cognitions (Covington, 7992, 7998, 2004, 2009; Covington & Beery, 1975; Covington & Dray, 2002). This theory assumes that success is valued and that failure, or the belief that one has failed, shor"rld be avoided because it implies 1ow ability. people want to be viewed as able, but failure creates feelings of unwofihiness. To preselve a sense of self-worth, indi- viduals 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 ansu.,ers from Yvonne, but if Yvonne does poorly, then Shannon r-i1l 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 lou,' ability through cleliberate failure. One can pursue a difficult goal, which increases the likelihood of failure (Covington, 1984). Sening high aspirations is valued, and failing to arrain them does not automatically imply low abiliry. A related ractic is to blame failure on low effort: One couid have suc_ ceeded if circumstances had allowed one to work harder. Kay cannot be faulted for fail, ing an exam for which she did not properly study, especiallv if she works at a iob and had inadequate study time.

Expending effort carries risk. High effort that produces success maintains the percep- tion of ability, but high effort that resuks in failure implies that one has low abiliry. 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 exam_ ple. "I would have done better had I been able to study more,,, ,,I didn,t w-ork 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 inflr_rences on motiva- tion. Research shows that perceived ability bears a strong positive relationship to stu_ dents' expectations for success, motivation, and achievement (Eccies & \(rigfieid , l9g5; Vigfield et aI., 2009'). That effect, however, seems most pronounced in 'W'estern 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 abitity is only one of many influences on motivarion. Self-u,ofth predictions depend on students, developmental ler,- els. Older students perceive abilify to be a more important influence on achievement than younger students (Harari & Covington , L98I; Schunk et al., 2Ol4). young children do not clearly differentiate between effort and abiliry (Nicho1ls, 197g, 1979'). At approximately age 8, they begin to distinguish the concepts and realize that their performances do not necessarily reflect their abilities. \flith development, students increasingly value ability while devaluing effort (.}larai & Covington, 1981). In the opening vignette, Matt is ahard worker, and effort does not yet imply lower abiliry to him. Teachers and adolescents will

Motivation 361

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 captllres the ali- too-common preoccupation with ability and its negative consequences.

Task and Ego lnvolvement

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 goa1s, coflceptions of ability, and motivational patterns in achieve- ment 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 aI.,2014').

Task inuoluement sftesses 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 inuoluement 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 abiliry and effort (|agacinski & Nicholls, 1984, L987). 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 efforl. Task-involved students perceive ability as close in meaning to leaming, such that more effort can raise ability. Str-rdents feel more competent if they expend greater effort to succeed, because learning is their goal and implies greater ability. Feelings of compe- tence 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 contex- tual features (Nicho11s, 1979, 7983). Ego involvement is promoted by competition, which fosters self-evaluation of abilities relative to those of others. Students fypicaily compete for teacher attention, privileges, and grades. Elementary and middle-grades students often are grouped for reading and mathematics instruction based on abiliry differences; second- ary 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 Ies- son (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 abiliry as a determinant of out- comes in competitive contexts but stressed effort in noncompetitive (i.e., cooperative or individual) situations.

362 Chaprer 9

ATTRIBUTIONS

Attributions are perceived causes of outcomes. Attribution tbeory explains fi6q. people view the causes of their behaviors and those of others (\[einer, 7985,7992,2000,2004). Attribution theory has been widely applied to the study of motirration (Graham & .J7einer, 2012; Graham & \flilliams, 2009). The theory assumes that people are inclined to seek information to form attributions. The process of assigning causes presumabiy is governecl 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 naiue analysis of action incorporate attributional concepts.

Locus of Control

A central tenet of most cognitive motivation theories is that people seek to control impor- tant aspects of their lives (Schunk & Zimrnerman. 2006). This tenet reflects the idea of locus of control, or a generalized expectancy concerning whether responses influence the attainment of outcomes (Rotter, 1965). People may believe that oLltcomes occur indepen- dently of how they behave (external locus of control) or that outcomes are contingent on their behavior (intental locus of control).

Other investigators have contended that locus of control can vary depending on the sittration (Phares, 1976).Il 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 parlicular 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 aff'ect behavior. Students vnho belier.e they have control over their suc- cesses and failures should be more inclined to engage in academic tasks, expend effort, and persist than students u,ho 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 spe- cific, it reflects outcotne expectations (beliefi about the anticipated olltcomes of one,s actionsi Chapter 4). Outcome expectations can affect achievement behaviors. Students may not work on tasks because they do not expect competent perfor-mances to produce favorable results (negativc outcorrre expectation), as rnight happeir if tlrey believc the teacher dislikes them and will not reward them no matter how well they do. But positive olrtcome expectations do not guarantee high motivation (Bandura,7982b,1997). Students rnay believe that hard work rvill produce a high grade, bur they will not u.ork hard if they doubt their capability to pLlt forth the effort (loq,, self-efficac1).

These points nots,'ithsranding, self-efflcacy and outcome expectations usually are related (Bandura, 7986, 1997). Students w-ho believe they are capable of performing well (high self-efficacy) expect positive reactions from their teachers following successful per- formances (positive outcome expectation). Outcomes, in turn. validate self-efficacy because they convey that one is capable of succeeding (Schunk & pajares. ZOO5,2OO9).

Motivation 363

NaiVe Analysis of Action

The origin of attribution theory generally is ascribed to Heider (1958), who referred to his theory as a naiue analysis of action. Na.|ue means that the average individual is unaware of the objective determinants of behavior. Heider's theory examines what ordinary peo- ple 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 effectiue personalforce and the effectiue enui- ronmental force, as foilows:

Outcome : personal force * environmental force Internal czuses are within the individual: needs, wishes, emotions, abilities, inten-

tions, and effort. The personalforce is allocated to rwo factors: power aod motiuation. Power refers to abilities and motivation (trying) ro intention and exertion:

Outcome : trying -l porr.er * environment Collectively, power and environment constitute the can factor, which, combined

with the tryfactor, is used to explain outcomes. One's power (or ability) reflects the envi- ronment. -Whether Beth can swim across a lake depends on Beth's swimming ability rela- tive to the forces of the lake (current, width, and temperature). Similarly, Jason's success or failure on a test depends on his abiliry relative to the difficulry of the test, along with his intentions and efforts in stLldying. Assuming that ability is sufficient to conquer envi- ronmental forces, then trying (effort) affects outcomes.

Although Heider sketched a framework for how people view significanr events in their iives, 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 qllesrions as, "Why did I do well (poorly) on my social studies resr?" and "\Why did I get an A (D) in bioiogy?,, Studies by \Teiner and his colleagues provided the empirical base for developing an attribution theory of achievement (Graham & \7einer, 2012; \i7einer, 7979, 1,985, 1992, 2000,2004,2005, 2OLO; rilTeiner et aL., 797L; 'Weiner, Graham, Taylor, & Meyer, 1983; S(einer & Kukla, 1970). This section discusses those aspects of \Teiner's theory relevant to motivated lcarning.

Causal Factors. Guided by Heider's work, rWeiner et al. (1971) postulated that students attribute their academic successes and failures largely to abiliry, effort, task difficulty, and luck. These authors assumed that these factors were given general weights, and that for any given outcome one or rwo factors would be judged as primarily responsible. For example, if Kara received an A on a mathematics exam, she might attribute it mostly to abiliry ("I'm good in math") and effort ("I srlrdied hard for the test"), somewhat ro rask difficulty ("The test wasn'r too hard"), and very little to luck ("I guessed right on a couple of questions" ; Table 9.2').

Grade Attribution Example

364 Chapter P

Table 9.2 Samp{e artributions for grade on marhematics exam.

High Ability

Effort

Ability + Effort

Task ease

Luck

Ability

Efforl

Ability + Effort

Task difficulty

Luck

l'm good in math.

I studied hard for the exam.

l'm good in math, and I studied hard for the exam.

It was an easy test.

I was lucky; I studied the right material for the exam.

l'm no good in math.

I didn't study hard enough.

l'm no good in math, and I didn't study hard enough.

The test was impossible; nobody could have done well.

I was unlucky; I studied the wrong material for the exam

\Weiner et al. (L97I) did not imply that abiliry, effort, rask difficulry, and luck are the only attributions students use to explain their successes and failures, but rather that the1, are commonly given by students as callses of achievement outcomes. Researchers have identified other attributions, such as people (e.g., teachers, students), mood, fatigue, i11_ ness, personaiity, and physicai appearance (Frieze,19g0; Frieze, Francis, & Hanusa, 19g3). Of the four arrributions identified by Weiner et. al. (1971'),luck gets relatively less empha_ sis, although it is important in some situations (e.g., games of chance). Frieze et at. (f gAa) showed that task conditions are associated with parlicular attributional patterns. Exams tend to generate effort attributions, whereas art projects are ascribed to atility and effort. In the opening vignetre, we might speculate that Margaret attributes her difficulties to low ability and Matt atrributes his successes to high effort.

Causal Dimensions. Drawing on the work of Heider (195g) and Rotrer (19GO, \Meiner er al. (1971.) originally represented causes along two dimensions: (a) internal or external to the individual, ancl (h) relatively stable or unstable over tirne (Table 9.3). Abiiiry is irrernal and relatively stable. Effort is internal but unstable; one can alternatively woik diligently and lackadaisically. Task difficulty is exrernal and relatively stable because rask.ondi_ tions do not vary much from moment to moment; luck is external and unstable_one can be lucky one moment and unlucky the next.

\X/einer (1979) added a third causal dimension: controllable or unconrroilable by the individual (Table 9.3). Although effor-t is generally viewed as internal and unstable (imme_ diate effort), a general effort factor (typical effort) also seems ro exist: people may be typically lazy ot hardworking. Effort is considered to be controllable; rrlooJ factors (to include fatigue and illness) are not, The classification in Table 9.3 has some problems

Low

Motivation 365

Table 9.3 Weiner's model of causal artribution

lnternal External

Stable Unstable Stable Unstable

Controllable

Uncontrollable

Typicaleffort

Ability

lmmediate effort

Mood

Teacher bias

Task difficulty

Help from others

Luck

(e.g., the usefulness of including both immediate and typical effort; the issue of whether an external factor can be controllable), but it has serwed as a framework to guide research and attribr-rtional interwention programs.

In forming attributions, people use situational cues, the meanings of which they have learned via prior experiences (Weiner et al., 1,971). Salient cues for ability attributions are success attained easiiv or eady in the course of iearning, as well as many successes. \With motor skills, an impofiant effort cue is physical exertion. On cognitive tasks, effort attribu- tions are credible when we expend mental effor-t 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 difficuiry 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 sllccess 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 Conseguences. Attributions affect expectations for subseqllent successes, achievement behaviors, and emotionai reactions (Graham & ,il7einer, 2012; Graham & lViiliams, 2009; Weiner, 1979, 1.985, 1992, 2000). The stabili\) dimension is thought to influence expectancy of success. Assuming that task conditions remain much the same, attribLltions of success to stable causes (high ability, low task difficulry) shoulcl result in higher expectations of fLlture success than attributions to unstable causes (immediate effort, luck). Students may be uncerrain whether they can sustain the effor-t needed to sllcceed or whether they will be lucky in the future. Failure ascribecl ro 1ow ability or high task difficulty is apt to result in lower expectations for future success than failure attrib- uted to insuffrcient effort or bad luck. Studcnts rrray believe that increased effort will pro- duce more favorable outcomes or that their luck may change in the future.

The locus dimension is hypothesized to influence alfectiue reactions. One exper.i- ences greater pride (shame) after succeeding (failing) when outcomes are attributed to internal caltses rather than to external ones. Students experience greater pride in their accomplishrnents when they believe they succeeded on their own (abiliry, effort) than when they beiieve external factors were responsible (teacher assistance, easy task).

The controllability dimension has diverse effects (\7einer, 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 wiro believe thev have

365 Chaprer 9

little control over academic outcomes hoid 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 (Giasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter, 1997).

lndividual Differences. Some research studies indicate that attributions may vary as a func- tion of gender and ethnic background (Graham & Wiliiams, 2009). \fith respect to gen- der, 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, 7999; Meece, 2002; Meece & Courtney, 1!p2; Meece, Parsons, Kaczala, Goff, & Futterman, 7982). Maryaret exemplifies this in the opening classroom scenario. !7hat 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 callses (e.g., good 1uck, low task difficulty) or unsta- bie 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 par- ticipants, instruments, and methodologies.

\Vith respect to ethnic differences, some early research suggested that African American students used information about effoit 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, l9f2;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 sociai class, African American students were overrepresented in lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Vhen 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 partern (Graham & Long, 19g6; Hall, Howe, Merkel, & Lederman, 1986).

Yan 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 investigat- ing ethnic differences in achievement beliefs has not yielded reliable differences (Graham & Taylor, 2002), and these inconsistent results warrant further research before conclu- sions are drawn.

Attribution theory has had a major impact on motivation theory, research, and prac- tice. To ensure an optimal level of motivation, students need to make facilitative attribu- tions concerning the olitcomes of achievement behaviors. Dysfunctional iudgments about abilities, the importance of effort and strategies, and the role of significant others can lead to low levels of motivation and learning.

Motivation 367

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

SOCIAL COGN ITIVE PROCESSES

Although different perspectives on motivation are relevant to learnin g, social cogtxitiue theorists have directed considerable attention to the relation between motivation and Iearning (Bandura, 7986, 1997; Pajares, l))G pajares & Schr-rnk, ZOOL,2002; pintrich, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Schunk, 2012; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Impofiant 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 (Bandr_rra, l9j7b, 19g6, 1991; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Schunk & Pajares, 2OO9; Zimmerman, 2000; Chapter,i). Ttre perceived negative discrepancy between a goal and performance creates an inducement fbr change. As people s,ork toward goals, the1. note their progress and sustain their moti- vation. In the opening classroom \rignette, Rosetta's goal progress should build her self- efficail and su512in her motivation.

Goal setting r,vorks in conjunction with outcome expectations and self-efEcacy. 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). Br-rt she may not volunteer answers if she doubts her capabilities to give cor- rect ones (low self-efficacy).

Unlike conclitioning theorists who believe that reinforcement is a response strength_ ener (Chapter 3), Bandura 1986) contended that reinforcemenr informs people about the likely outcomes of behaviors and motivates them to behave in ways they believe will resr-r1t in positive consequences. People form expectations based on their experiences, but another irnportant source of motivation is social comparison.

Social Comparison

Social comparison is the process of cornparing ourselves with others (lfheeler & Su1s, 2005). Festinger (7954-) hypothesized that when objective srandards of behavior are unclear or unavailable, people evaluate their abilities and opinions through comparisons with oth- ers. He also noted that the lnost accurate self-evaluations derive from comparisons with those similar in the abiiity or characteristic being evaluated. The more alike obsen ers are to models, the greater the probability that similar actions by obserwers are socially appropriate and t ill prodllce comparable results (Schunk, 1987). In the opening classroom scene, Jared uses social comparison as he con-rpares his progress with that of his classmates.

368 Chapter 9

Nlodel-observer similarity in competence can improve learning (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & van den Bergh, 2002). This effect on learning rnay 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 t1y the task because they are apt to beiieve that if others can succeed, they will too. By comparing Derrick to Jason, Kerri hopes that Derrick's behavior will improve. Obserwing simiiar oth- ers fail can lead peopie to believe they also lack the competencies to succeed, which dissuades them from attempting the behavior. Similariry may be especially influential in situations in which individuals have experienced diffrculties and possess self-doubts about performing well (Application !.4).

Deuelopmental status is important in social comparison. The ability to use comparative information depends on higher 1eve1s of cognitive development and on experience in mak- ing comparative evaluations. Festinger's hypothesis may not apply to children younger than 5 or 6, because they tend not to relate fvvo or more elements in thought arlcl arc egocentric

Motivation 369

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 fburth grade they regularly use this infonnation to form self- evaluations of competence (Rr,rble, Boggiano, Feldman, & Loeb1, 1980; Ruble, Feldman, & Boggiano, 1!75).

The meaning and function of comparative information change with deveiopment, 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 dif- ferent from others and competition based on a desire to be better than otl-iers (e.g., Jared) without involving self-evaluation (e.g., "I'm the generai; 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 (Rub1e, 1983). First graders engage in peer comparisons- often to obtain correct answers from peers. Providing comparative infbrmation to young children increases morivation for practical reasons. Direct adult evaluation of children,s capabilities (e.g., "Yor,r 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 ollt areas of improvement. Kerri does this with Jared, Matt, and Roserra.

Self-Concept

Dimensions and Development, Self-concept refers to one,s coilective 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 multidimensionai and comprises elements such as self- confidence, self-esteem, self-concept stability, and self-crystallization (pajares & Schunk, 2007. 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 200D. 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-confiderzce denotes the extent to which one believes one can produce results, accomplish goa1s, or perform tasks competentiy (analogous to self-efficacy). Self'- esteem and self-confidence are related. The belief thar one is capable of performing a task can raise self-esteem. High self-esteem might lead one to attempt difficuit tasks, and subsequent success enhances self-confidence.

Self-concept stability refers ro rhe ease or dithculty of changing the self-concept. Stability depends in part on how crystallized or structLlred beliefs are. Beliefs become crys- tallized with development and repeated similar experiences. By adolescence, individuals have relatively well-structured perceptions of themselves in areas such as intelligence,

370 Chapter 9

sociability, and sports. Brief experiences providing evidence rhat conflicts vnith personai beliefs may not have much effect. Conversely, self-concept is modified more easily when peopie 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. Yor:ng children perceive themselves concretely; they define themselves in terms of their appearance, actions, name, possessions, and so forth. Children do not dis- tinguish among behaviors and underlying abilities or personal characteristics. They also do not have a sense of encluring personaliry because their self-concepts are diffuse and loosely organized. They acquire a rrore abstract view with development and as a function of schooling. As they develop separate conceptions of underlying traits and abiiities, their self-concepts become better organrzed and more complex.

Development also produces a differentiated self-concept. Although most investi- gators postulate the existence of a general self-concept, evidence indicates that it is hierarchicaliy organized (Malsh & Shavelson, 1985; Pajares & Schunk, 2001,,2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009; Shavelson & Bo1us, 7982). A general self-concept tops the hierarchy and specific subarea self-concepts fall be1ow. Self-perceptions of spe- cific behaviors influence subarea self-concepts (e.g., mathematics, sociai studies), which in turn combine to form the academic self-concept. For example, Chapman and Tunmer (7995) found that chiidren's reading self-concept comprised perceived competence in reading, perceived difficulty with reading, and attitudes tow.ard read- ing. General self-concept comprises self-perceptions in the academic, social, emo- tional, and physical domains. Vispoel (1995) examined artistic domains and found evidence for the multifaceted nature of self-concept but less support for the hierarchi- cal frames'ork.

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-Jisb-little-pond elfect (Marsh & Hau, 2003): Siudenrs in selective schools (who have intelligent peers) may have lower self-concepts than those in less selective schools. Marsh and Hau found evidence fbr 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, Ltidtke, Marsh, & Nagy, 200D.

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 & !7urf, 1987) hypothesized that the self-concept is made up of self-schemas or generaiizations formed through experiences. These schemas process personal and social information much as academic schemas process cognitive information. The multidimensional natllre of self- concept is captured by the notion of ruorking self-concept, or seif-schemas that are men- tally 2g1ir. 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.

Motivation 371

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 ancl 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. N7ylie 0979) reviewed many t'esearch studies. The generai correlation between academic achievement measures (grade point averages) and measures of self-concept was r:-1.30, wi-rich 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, achievernent influences self-concept, each inflr-rences the other, or each is influenced by other variables (e.g., fhctors in the home). \Wylie found somewhat higher correlations when standardized measures of self- concept were employed and lower correlations with researcher-developed meastires. That higher correlations were obtained between achievement and acadernic 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 lnathelnatics; Schunk & Pajares, 200D.

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-leveI self-concepts.

The research literature supports this proposition. The moderate relation betw.een self- concept and achievement found in research studies may result because general self- concept measlrres were used. Conversely, when domain-specific self-concept measures are compared with achievement in that domain, tl-re relation is strong and positive (pajares & Schtrnk, 2007, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2OO9). As self-concept is defined more speciflcally, 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 interyentions, O,Mara, Marsh, Craven, and Debus (2005) found that domain-specific interventions had stronger effects on self- concept than did interwentions designed to raise g1oba1 self-concept. Teachers who show students they are capable of learning and have made academic progress in specific con- tent areas, provide positive feedback, use rnodels effectively, and minimize negative sociai comparisons can help develop students' self-concepts (see Chapter 4 for \\.ays io enhance self-effi cacy).

In summary, with its emphasis on goals, expectations, social comparisons, and self- concept, social cognitive theory offers a useful perspective on motivation. Application p.5 gives some classroorn applications of social cognitive processes. 'We now discuss goal orientations, which are relevant to social cognitive processes.

GOAL ORIENTATIONS

Goal orientations are learners' reasons for engaging in academic tasks (Anderman, Austin, & Jol-rnson, 2002). Goal orientations are central motivational variables in goal tbeory, which incorporates many variables hypothesized to be important by other theories (Schunk et al., 2074'). This theorv postr:1ates that important relations exist among goals

372 Chapter 9

Motivation 373

ancl goal orientations, expectations, attributions, conceptions of ability, social and self comparisons, and achievement behaviors (Anderman & NTolters, 2006; Elliot, 2005; Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Meece, Andennan, & Anderman, Z}OG; pintrich, 2OOOa,2000b: pintrich & Zusho, 2002; S7einer, 1990).

Although goal rheory bears some similarity to goal_setting theory (Bandura, 19gg; Locke & Latham, 7990, 2OO2; Chapter 4), important clifferences exist. Eclucational and developmental psychologists developed goal theory to explain ancl predict students, achievement behaviors. Goal-setting theory, in contrast, has drawn from various disci_ plines, including social psychology, rtanagement, and clinical and health psychology. Goal-setting theory is more concerned with how goals are established and-altered an-d with the role of their properries (e.g., specificity, difficulty, and proximiry) in instigating and directing behavior. Goal theory also considers a wide n..uy oi variables in explfinin[ goal-direcred behavior, some of nhich may not directly involve goais (e.g., comiariso.rl with others). Goal-setting theory typically consiclers a more restriited set of influences on behavior.

Types of Goal Orientations

Goal theory emphasizes that different types of goals can influence behavior in achieve_ ment situations (Anderman & \(/olters, 2006; Elliot, 2005; Maehr & Zusho, 200!; Meece et al., 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Researchers have identifiecl different orienrations (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Ellior & Thrash, 2001).

One distinction is between iearning and performance goal orientations (Dweck, 1991, 1999,2002; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 198g; Schunk, t996; Schunk & Ss..artz, 1.993a,7993b; Figure 9.4). A leanting goal refers ro whar 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 literatr_rre that are conceptr-rally simiiar to learning goals include mastety, task-inuoluecl, anc), task-focutsed goals (Ames d Archer. 1988; Butler, 1992;Meece, l99I; Nicholls, 19g4); synony,r, fo. pe.fl.munc. gouls include ego-inuolued and ability-focusecl goals. In the opening scenario, Matt seems to hold a learning goal orientation, whereas Jared is more performan.e_goal oriented.

Although these goal orientations at times may be related (e.g., Iearning prodr-rces faster performance), the impor-tance of these 51oa1s for achievement Lehavior ,=rrj l.".rrir.g stems from the effects they can have on learners, beliefs and cognitive processes (pintrich,

'THin-------> serr-erricacy -=-* ,#:Uil:il. _____--__> i::"r",,#S_____> o"n;?;f",

Figure 9.4a Effects of learning goals on motivarion.

Performance Goal

Figure 9,4b Effects of performance goals on morivation.

Task_--) ------____> Social comparisons _______-___> Ability assessmentengagernent

374 Chapter !

2000a). A learning goal orientation focuses students' attention on processes and strategies that heip them acquire capabilities and improve rheir 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 (\7entzel, 1992). Perceived progress in skill acquisition and self-efficacy for continued learning sustain motivation and enhance skillful performance (Schunk, 1995; Figure 9.4a). Leaning goals positively predict intrin- sic motivation (Spinath & Steinmayr,201.2'). From a related perspective, students who pursue learning goals are apt to hold a growtb 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 compieting tasks (Figure 9.4b). Such goals may not highlight the importance of rhe processes and srraregies r-rnderlying task completion or raise self-efficacy for acquiring ski1ls (Schunk & Swartz, 7993a, 7993b). 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 str-rdents who experience difficulties, which adversely affect task motivation (Schr-rnk, 1996). Not surprisingly, competition can promote adop- tion of performance goals (Murayama & Elliot, 2012). Students who pursue performance goals may hold a fi.xed ntindsef, reflecting the idea that one's qualities and abilities are limited and cannot change very much (Dweck, 2006).

Research results suppol't these ideas (Rolland, 2012). During science lessons. Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988) found that studenrs who emphasized task-mastery goals reported more active cognitive engagement characterized by self-regulatory activities (e.9., reviewing material not understood). Intrinsic motivation (discussed later in this chapter) related positively to goals stressing learning and understanding.

Elliott and Dweck (1988) gave chiidren feedback indicating they had high or 1ow ability, along with instructions highlighting a learning goai of developing competence or a performance goal of appearing competent. Learning-goal children sought to increase competence by choosing challenging tasks and using problem-solr,ing strategies. Performance-goal children who received high-ability feedback persisted at the rask but also avoided challenging tasks that might have entailed public errors. performance-goa1 children given low-ability feedback selected easier tasks, did not persist to overcome mis- takes, 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) lecl 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 Llse 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 n'ith reading problems.

Motivation 375

Schunk and Swartz (1993a, 7993b) provided children in regular and gifted classes w-ith a process goal of learning to Llse a paragraph-writing strategy or a product (perfor- mance) goal of w-riting paragraphs. Half of the process-goa1 students periodically received feedback on their progress in learning the strategy. Schunk and Swartz for,rnd that the process goal with feedback was the rnost effective and that the process goal with or with- out f'eedback led to higher achievement outcomes than did the product goa1.

Schr-rnk (7996) provided fourth graders with instruction and practicre 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 str-rdents in each p;oa1 condition evaluated their problem-solving capabilities. The learning goal with or w-ithout self- evaiuation and the perfolmance goal w-ith self-evaluation led to higher self-efficaq,, skill, motivation, and task orientation. than did the pelfbrmance goal without self-evah-ration. In the seconcl study, '.i11 students in each goal condition evaluated their progress in skill acquisition. The le:rrning goal 1ed to higher n-iotivation and achievement outcomes than did the performance goal. These findings were replicated with college str-rdents by Schunk and Ertmer (799r, who for-Lnd that seif-efficacy for applying compurer ski11s 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, 2005r E11iot & NlcGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Linnenbrink and Pintrich Q002) proposed classifying mastery and perfor- lnance goals according to whether they involve approach or avoidance and hypothesized that goals have diff-erent emotional consequences. Approach mastery goals are predicted to lead to positir.e affect. whereas both rypes of avoidance goals are expected to result in negative :rffect. The role of affect in goal choice and outcomes often is not addressed, yet the emotional consequences of motivation fbr schooling are imporlant (Meyer & Turner, 2002). Murayama and E11iot (2012) fbund that competition promoted both performance- approach and perfbrmance-avoidance goais, whlch hacl conflicting eff-ects on achieve- ment: The lbnner raised it whereas the latter undermined it. Other evidence, hou.ever, indicates that performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals are highlv related (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012).

Goal orientations play a key role in self:regr-rlatecl learning (Chapter 10), because they provicle a fian-rework w-ithin which learners interpret ancl react to events (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, 1991). Str-rclents w,ho develop and rnainrain high self-efficacy fbr learning have higher erpectancies for success, greater perceived control over learning, and more intrinsic interest in learning (Covington. 1992; Eccles, 1983t Harter & Connell, 198,1). Harackiew-icz, Barron, Tauer, Czirler, and Elliot (2000) found that lnastery goals predicted imrnediate and long-term interest in the discipline among college students, whereas performance goals preclicted grades better. StLidents are more likely to adopt. a task4earning-goal orientation r,vhen they believe they can improve their abi1iry through erpending effort (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, 1991; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Purdie, Hattie, and Dougias 1996) found al-rong Australian and Japanese students that a conception of learning as understand- ing was related to greater use of learning strategies. In contrast to this incremental concep- tion oJ'ability, students with a fixed conception believe that effort u,il1 improve ability only to a set limit. Elfort becomes less irnportant when ability is fixed.

376 Chapter 9

Achievement goal patterns also can motivate self-regulated learning (Ztnmerman & Cleary, 2009). Providing students with feedback stressing a learning-goal orientation can enhance self-efficacy, motivation, self-reguiatoly activities, and achievement more than providing feedback emphasizing performance goals (Schunk & Swarrz, 1993a, 1.993b). 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, 7994); however, this pattern is not found among iearning-oriented children regardless of perceived ability and among performance-oriented students with high per- ceived abiliry. Ames and Archer (1988) found that classroom masrery (learning) goal ori- entation 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 & Go1an, 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-goa1 orientation in self- regulation. Learning situations that emphasize self-improvement, discovery of new infor- mation, and usefulness of learning material can promote a learning-goal orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Graham & Golan, 7))l; Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984). In conrrasr, 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 achieve- ment motivation, beliefs, and skill acquisition better than a performance-goal orientation, although performance goals bear a relation to grades. \7e now consider a mechanism that may explain such effects.

Conceptions of Ability

Dweck and her colleagues hypothesize that goal orientarion is intimately related ro one,s theory about the narure of intelligence or ability (Dweck, l9gl, 1999,2006; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Masrer, 2008; Dweck & Moiden, 2005). Dweck (1991,2006) pro- posed two theories of intelligence or ability: entity and incremental. people who hold an entity tbeo?y (or fixed ru.indset) 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 ao incremental tbeory (or grotutb nindset) roughly equate intelligence or ability vr'ith learning. Students believe that intelligence can change and increase with experience, effort, and learning. An upper limit of intelligence-if it

Motivation 377

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 studenrs mobilize effort, persist at the task, and use effective strategies.

rWith some exceptions, students who hold a growth (incremental) rnindset 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 nor aclopt Iearning goals because they believe that learning will not raise their overail ievel of abil- ity. These predictions have received research suppoft (Dweck, 1.991, L999,2006; 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 manage- rial 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). Incrernenral deci- sion makers maintained high self-efficacy, ser challenging goals, applied rules efficiently, and performed better; entity participants showed a deciine 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 ski11 acquisition and task interest; those 1ed to believe that performance reflected inher.ent aptitude showed no gain in self-efficacy, little increase in skill and interest, and negative self-reactions.

lmplicit 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 learn- ing and motivation, and one that fits nicely with constructivist assumptions, is that people hold itnplicit theories about issues, such as how they learn, what contriblltes to school achievement, and how motivation aflects 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; Mo]], 2001).

Research shows that impiicit theories about such processes as learning, thinking, and ability influence how students engage in learning, their achievement, and their views about what leads to sllccess in and outside of the classroom (Di-rda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 7999, 2006; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).The preceding sec- tion discussed how fixed and growth mindsets can affect students, motivation differ- ently. Evidence also shows that implicit theories and mindsets can affect the way that iearners process information (Graham & Golan, 1991). Students who believe that learn- ing outcomes are under their control (growth mindset) may expend greater mental effort, rehearse more, Ltse organizational strategies, and employ other tactics to improve learning. In contrast, students who hold a fixed view may not expend the same type of effbrt.

378 Chapter 9

Students differ in how they view kinds of classroom learning. Nicholls and Thorkildsen (1989) found that elementary school students perceived learning subsrantive matters (e.g., mathematical 1ogic, facts about nature) as more impofiant than learning intellectual con- ventions (e.g., spe11ing, methods of representing addition). Students also saw didactic teaching as more appropriate for teaching of conventions than for matrers of logic and fact. Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen (1985) found that high school stuclenrs held definite beliefs about s'hat rypes 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 encounrer socialization influences. Dweck (.1999) found evidence for implicit theories in children as young as 3yz years. Early on, children are socialized by significant others about right and wrong, good ancl bad. Through what they are told and what thev observe. they form implicit rheories abotrt rightness, badness, and the like. At achievement tasks, praise and criticism from others influence what they believe produce good and poor olltcomes (e.g., "you worked hard and EJot it right," "You don't have w,hat 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, thev hold a wide range of implicit theories that they have constructed ancl that cover most situations. Stressing to learners that effort, good strateg;y 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 netw'orks with academic content. Also impor-tant are how- children refine, mod- ify, cornbine, and elaborate their conceptual understandingas as a fr-rnction of experience. Those understandings are situated in a personal belief system and include beliefs about the usefulness and imporlance of knowledge, how it relates to what else one knows, ancl in what situations it may be appropriate.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Intrinsic tnotiuation refers to a desire to engage in an activity for no obvious reward except task engagemenr itself (Deci, 1975). Intrinsic motivation contrasts with extrinsic motiuation, 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 1ow on the other, and so forth.

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

Motivation 371)

Early Views

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

Effectance Motivation. In a seminal paper, White (1959) defined elfectance motiuation as:

Fitness or ability, and the suggested synonyms capability, capacity, efficiency, proficiency, and ski11. It is therefore a suitable n'ord 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 environ- ment. The behavior . . . is directed, seiective, and persistent, and it is continued not because it serves primary drives, which indeed it cannot sen/e until it is almost perfected, but because it satisfies an intrinsic need to deal with the environment. (pp. 377-378)

Effectance motivation is seen in young children when they interact with environmen- tal features that catch their attention. A youngster may reach out and grab an obiect, turn it over, and push it away in an effort to control it. Effectance motivation is undifferenti- ated in young children; it is directed toward ali aspects of the environment. \7ith develop- ment, 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 satisfir hunger.

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

Harter (7978, 1981) attempted to specify the antecedents and consequences of effectance motivation in a developmental model of mastery motiuation. \Thereas \7hite focused on success, Harler took success and failure into accoLlnt. 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 elfectance moti- vation (e.g., perceived competence and control).

The part of the model dealing with success is similar to W'hite's formulation. Effectance motivation can trigger mastery attempts. lVhite considered the motive generic, but Harter differentiated it according to dornain (school, peers, athletics). Most behaviors involve optimally challenging tasks. Sllccesses produce intrinsic pleasure and perceptions of com- petence and control, which in turn strengthen effectance motivation.

Also importaflt ate socializing agents. Some positive reinforcement for mastery attempts is necessary to develop and rnaintain motivation. Much of this reinforcement comes from primary caregivers, and eventually a self-rer,vard system is internalized, which allows children to reinforce themselves for mastery attempts. Children acquire mastery goals by observing others, and internalization becomes more compiete with develop- ment. In support of these points, research shows that children from homes in which

380 Chapter 9

learning opportlinities and activities are emphasized display higher intrinsic motivation for learning (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998).

Positive olltcomes resuit when social environments satisfy children,s natural desires. Unsuccessftil 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 suppolts many of the propositions of the model. For example. intrinsic moti_ vation relates positively to perceived competence and internal control (Harter, 19g1; Har"ter & Connell, 1984). Social models are important sources of mastery behavior and learning (Bandura, 1985, 1997; Schunk, 1987). Perceived competence relates positively to intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1985, 1990). Although socializing agents are important, researchers have identified other ways ro foster mastery behavior, inciuding setting learning goals, providing attributional feedback, and teaching self-regulatory strategies (Ames, 1992a; Pintrich & Schrauben,7992; Schunk, 7995; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). Relatively little attention has been paid to educational implications of the model; for exam- ple, how students can be taught to adopt an intrinsic orientation toward school.

lncongruity and Arousal, Some investigators have postulated that intrinsic motivation reflects an inherent need for a moderate amount of environmental stimulation. Hunt (196, argued that exploratory behaviors and curiosity are intrinsically motivated and result from incon- gruiry berween prior experiences and new information. people extract information from the environment and compare it to internal representations. N7hen incongruity exists between the input and internal knowledge or expectation, people become intrinsically motivated to reduce the incongruiry. 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 "optimai level of incongruity,, is r.ague and how much incongruiry is required to trigger motivation is not clear (Deci, 1975).

Beriyne (1960, 195, similarly hypothesized that an oprimal level of physiological incongruity (stimulation to the neryous 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. Bedyne,s "arousal potential,, may be interpreted as being approximately equivalent on a physiological level to Hunr,s psychological incon_ gruity. Properties of stimuli involving their novelty, ambiguicy, 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 perceiued control over task engagement and outcomes is a critical influence (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006).

N{otivation 381

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 ,1) distinguished self-efficacy from oLrtcome 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 conseqllences of their actions, have a sense of agency. They are more apt to initiate and sustain behav- iors 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 belief's that con- tribute to perceived control. Strateg) 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 1uck. 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 belief; 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 con- sistent guidelines and feedback) and inuoluement (interest in and dedication of resources to students).

Evidence also indicates that when people think they have control over their environ- ment, they tolerate aversive stimtili better and perform at a higher level. In an early study, Glass and Singer (1972) periodically exposed adults to a 1oud, 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 toid perceived inclirect- 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) ied to significantly longer persistence and fewer errors compared with no perceived control. Perceived-control indi- viduals judged the noise as less aversive than did no,control participants. These results sllggest that students holding a sense of agency or control may deal with difficulties better and eventually achieve.

Learned Helplessness. Leamecl helplessness refers to a psychological state involving a distur- bance in motivation, cognitive processes, and emotions due to previously experienced uncontrollability (Maier & Seligman, 1976; Peterson, 2000; Seiigman. 7975, 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.

382 Chapter !

Helplessness was identified in laboratory studies in which dogs given inescapable shocks were moved to another location, where they could avoid shoiks by lumping a hurdle. The prior inescapable shocks conditioned the dogs; they made litrie atrempr"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 passiviry. people may do norhing when they believe they have no control over a situation. Helplessness also retards leaming. eeopll and animals exposed to uncontroilable situations may never learn adaptive ..rfo.rr., o. may learn rhem more slowly than those not exposed to uncontrollabiliry, Helpleisness has emotional manifestations. Prior uncontrollable situations may initiaily make

-one respond

more aggressively, but eventually behavior becomes less assertive. A sense of helplesiness undermines intrinsic motivation, which is heavily dependent on perceptions of ctntrol.

Seligman's original model of learned heiplessness was reformulited to incorporate attributions (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 197g). The reformulated model poriulrtes that expianations (attributions) for oLltcomes influence future expectancies of outcomes and reactions to them. Explanations vary along three dimensions: stable_unstable, global_ specific, and intental-extenzal. One who attributes negative outcomes to stable causes (e.g., "I always arrive late for everything,,) is more iikely to expect bacl events in the future and may acquire helplessness than is one who makes attributions to unstable causes (e.9., "I arrived late when the weather was bad,,). Causes can affect many areas of one's life (global) or only one area (specific). Studenrs may believe they lack abiliry in all school subjects or only in one subject. Global atrributions are more likely to pioduce helplessness. Causes for negative events may be internal to the person (1ow inteliigence) or externai (the teacher gives unfair tests), Internal attributions are apt to result in fretp- lessness. Collectively, people most prone to helplessness are those w-ho typically erplain negative events with internal, global, and stable attributions (e.g., ,,I cio poorly in school because I'm not very smafi").

Learned heiplessness and low intrinsic motivation characterize many students with learning problems who enter a vicious cycle in which negative beliefs reciprocally inter_ act with academic failures (Licht * Kistner, 1986). For various reasons, students faii, begin to doubt their learning capabilities, and view academic successes as uncontroilable. These beiiefs produce frustration and giving up readily on tasks. Lack of effort and persistence contribute to further failures, which reinforce negative beliefs. Eventually, students inter_ pret their successes as externally caused; for example, the task was easy, they were 1ucky, or the teacher helped them. They attribure failures to low abiliry, which is internal, gt"nl, and stable, and which negatively affccts 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 lov,er expec_ tations 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 (Pear1, Bryan, & Donohue, 1980). They give up readily when they encounter difficulties, cite uncontrollable causes for successes and failures, and holcl low perceptions of control over outcomes (Licht & Kistner, 1986).

Motivation 383

Dweck integrated learned helplessness into a rnodel of achievemenr rnotir.ation (Dweck, 1986. 799c); Du.eck & Leggett, 1988). Ego involvemenr characrerizes helpiess students. Their school goals are to complete tasks and avoid negative judgrnents of their competence. They may hold a fixed mindset and believe that intelligence is a stahle quantity (Dweck, 2006). They avoid challenges, clisplay 1ow persistence in the face of dif- ficulty, hold low perceptions of their capabilities, and may experience anxiety while engaged in tasks (Diener & Dweck, 1978). In contrast, mastery-oriented students are more iikely to hold a growth mindset and dispiay 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 inrrinsically motivated to learn, seek challenges, and persist at difficult tasks.

Variables associated w.ith the instructional environment can prevent stlldents with learning problems from entering this cycle and can help them overcome it (Friedman & Medway, 1987). Attributional feedback can alter students' maladaptive achievemenr beliefs and behaviors. Teachers also need to give students tasks they can accomplish and f-eedback highlighting progress toq,ard learning goals (Schunk. 1995; Stipek, 2002). Stipek and Kowalski (.1,98, found that teaching task strategies to children u..ho de-emphasized the role of effort raised their academic performance.

Self-Determination

Deci and colleagues (Deci, 1980; Deci & Moller. 2005; Deci & Ryan. 1991r Grolnick, Gurland, -|acob, & Decourcey, 2002; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Rvan & Deci, 2000, 2009) postulated that intrinsic motivation is an innate human need ancl origi- nates in infants as an undifferentiated need for competence and seU'-cletermination, or "the process of using one's wi1l" (Deci, 1980, p. 25). As children develop, intrinsic morivarion diff-erentiates into specific areas (e.g., athletics, academics), and environmental interactions influence the direction of differentiation.

Self-determination theory postulates that intrinsic nrorivarion is influenced by three basic innate psychological needs: competence, aLltonomy, and relatedness. The need for competence is similar to \(/hite's (.795D need for mastery of the environment (efTectance motivation). People have a need to feel competent and interact successfully w.ith 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), n'hich is akin to an internal locus of control. Relatedness refers to the need to belong tcr a group; it also is referred to as a need lor belongingness.

Intrinsic motivation is "the human need to be competent and self-determining in rela- tion to the environment" (Deci, 1980, p. 21).The need for intrinsic motirration energizes people's wi1ls, and the will uses the energy of intrinsic motivation to satisfy needs, resolve conflicts r,'ith competing needs, and hold needs in check. Intrinsic motivation is satisfied when individuals act wi1lfu11y. It is the process of self-determination rhat is intrinsicallv 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 v,eb- sites. Intrinsic motivation is satisfied w-hen that person decides which books or websites to read and when to read them, although the actual reading may provide further satisfaction.

384 Chapter 9

This self-determination view emphasizes the intenalization of social values and mores. Sociefy contains many extrinsic rewards and controls that may not fit with chil- dren's quest for self-determination but may produce good behavior and social function- ing. \7ith development, these external motivators can become ao 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 originaily were extrinsically motivated but have become internalized and now are seif-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 com- petent, 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 Iearning. Some points in the model are not clearly specified, but research continues to test its ideas (Reeve et a1.,2004).

Rewards and lntrinsic Motivation

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

\X/e 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, 1.999,2001; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras,1999). This finding has important edu- cational implications given the prevalence of rewards.

lVhen people are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity for reasons intrin- sic to the activiry. 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 motiuation stemming from the discovery of new goals and rewards as a consequence of interacting with the enwiron- ment (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 gtade, 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.

'W'e 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

Motivation 385

motivating. Deci (1975) contended that rewards have an informational and a controlling aspect. Reward systems may be primarily stftlctured 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 suc- cessful performance should promote feelings of competence, whereas a salient control- ling 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 informa- tion 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 out- put, 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 dinrinish 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 suffi- cient 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 per- sonal dispositions.

In a classic experiment (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), preschoolers were observed during fiee 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 p1ay.

The expected-award children engaged in drawing for a significantly shorter time fol- lowing the experiment than they had prior to the study, whereas the other rwo conditions sl-rowed no significant change. Expected-award children spent less time drawing follow- ing the study compared u'ith the other conditions. It was not the reward itself that was important br,rt rather the contingency.

Lepper et a|. (t97j) postulated the oue(ustif.cation bypotbesis: Engaging in an intrin- srcally interesting activity under conditions that make it salient as a nleans to an end (reward) decreases subsequent interest in that activity. The overjustification hypothesis has been supported in experimentai investigations with different tasks and participants of all ages (Lepper et a|.,1.999; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).

Rewards need not have detrirnental effects on performance. Rewards can help develop

skills, self-efficacy, and interest when they are linked to one's actual performance and con-

vey that one is making progress in learning. Offering children rewards based on the amollnt of work they accomplish during learning activities increases self-efficacy, motiva- tion, and skill acquisition compared with offering rewards merely for task participation or not offering rewards (Schunk, 1983e). During a subtraction instruction program, Bandura

385 Chapter !

and Schunk (1981) found that higher self-efhcacy relared positively ro the amount of intrin_ sic interest children subsequently showed in solving arithrnetic problerns.

Thus, when rewards convey that one has learned, they 6,2n increase self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, As a form of reu,.ard, grades can fnnction in the same u,,ay, A grade that improves shows that one is performing better in the subject, which promotes-se1f_ efficacy and motivation for further learning. Unfbrtunateiy, r.esearch shows that children,sintrinsic rrroriyarion in learning cleclines u,-ith development (Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, & Drake, 1997), although other research shows that intlrest and ielf_efficacy are related positively in elernenrary and middle-grades sruclenrs (Tracey, 2002). Application 9.6 dem_ onstrates ways to enhance and sustain intrinsic motivation.

INTEREST AND AFFECT

Intercst refers ro the liking of and willful engagement in an activity (Schraw & Lehman. 2001). Alfect is a general term that includes both general moods and specific emotions (Forgas, 2000). Studenrs, inreresrs and affects are linked with motivation and learning in various w_ays.

Motivation 387

Personal and Situational lnterest

Researchers generally distinguish personal frorn 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 activi- ties, personal interest is more diffuse and enduring than situational interest. Thus, one student may have a personal interest in dance, n'hereas another student might have a situational interest in a particular dance lesson 01'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., 20ll). College students' initial interest in coLtrse content positively predicts their adoption of mastery goals and continued interest several semesters later (Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008).

Interest also contribr"rtes to learning. Researchers have shown that both personal and situzrtional interest relate positively to measures of learning such as attention, memory, comprehension, deeper cognitive processing, and achievement (Hidi, 2000; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Trautwein, LLidtke, Marsh, Koller, & Baumert, 2006). This is t1'Lre even among preschoolers, whose interest in different activities predicts their attention, lecognition, and recall memory for these activities later on (Renninger & \7ozniak, 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 devel- opment of interest: triggered situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging personal interest, and weli-developed personal interest. f'his model implies that teachers should try to create situational interest in content or topics and that over time this situa- tional 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 technol- ogy. Creating situational interest is much easier than attempting to determine the personal interests of all students and then trying to st1-LlctLlre the unit to fit all the different personal interests (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).

There also is a difference between creating situational interest and sr-rstaining it. Mitchell (1993) founcl that in high school mathematics ciasses group work, puzzles, and compllter technologies helped to activate interest but did not necessarily sustain it. Rather, sitr-rational interest was maintainecl by the use of meaningful activities and the active involvement of students in learning tasks. The sustaining of interest is imperative for situ- ational interest to develop into personai interest.

Emotions

Alfect conprises 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 emotionaily upset when he received a D on his physics test.

Pekrun 0992) proposed a classification of achievernent-related emotions that has relevance to motivation. Emotions can be either positive (e.g., pride) or negative

388 Chapter !

(e.g., disappointment). \(rithin each of these fwo categories, emotions can occur while engaged in the task (process-related; e.g., enjoyment or boredom), be prospective (forq,.ard- looking; e.g., hope or arxieff), or be retrospective (backwardJooking; 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 a1., 2011-). 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 iearning (Rolland, 2012). Research shows that frfth- ancj sixth-grade students' achievement is predicted by classroom emotional climate and that this relation is mediated by students' engagement in learning (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, \flhite, & Saiovey, 2012).

A topic of much educational interest is test anxiety. Test anxiety is a normal reaction by individuals to evaluative situations. Test anxiery becomes a problem when it becomes over-whelming and interferes with srlrdenrs' thinking and performance (Zeidner,l99g),

A large body of research shows that test anxiety has negative effects on learning and achievement (Zeidner, 1,998). 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 weil or know how to take a test. Thus, their anxiety compounds the problem by contribi_rting 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 anxiery. Stlldents also can be taught effective learning and test-taking strategies, u,hich are com_ monly incorporated into learning skills courses at the midclle school, high school, and college levels. Teaching students relaxation techniqties 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).

I NSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS

The material in this chapter slrggests 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 acbieuement motiuation training is for students to develop thoughts and behaviors typical of learners high in achievement motivarion (de Charms, 196g, l9g4). de Charms (7976) initially prepared teachers, who then worked with students to help them acquire personal responsibility for their iearning outcomes.

Motivation 389

The teacher preparation inciuded self-study of academic motivation, realistic goal set- ting, 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 activily 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 achiev- ers to fall increasingly behind their peers in achievement, and reduced student absentee- ism and tardiness.

Integrating instruction on achievement motivation with academic content, rather than including it as an add-on activity with special content, seems irnperative. The danger of the latter approach is that students may not understand how to apply achievement moti- vation 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 exam- ine 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.9., 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 biaming others when they fail or believing they were lucky when they succeed. As students experience sllccesses, they should develop increased self-efficacy for continued learning and assune 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 fit- ness 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 ! weeks and kept a record of practices. Following the final exam, studcnts com- pleted a self-evaluation of what they had learned. Alderman noted: "To the instructor, the most striking comment rnade by students on the final self-evaiuation was, 'I learned to set a goal and accomplish it"' (p. 51).

Attribution Change Programs

Attribution change pro€yams attempt to enhance motivation by altering students' attribu- tions for successes and failures. Students commonly have some difficulties when leaming new material. Some learners attribute these problems to low abiliW (e.9., Margaret in the

390 Chapter'!

opening scenario). Students who believe they lack the requisite ability to perform well may vu-ork at tasks in a lackadaisical fashion, which retards skill development. Researchers have identified students who fit this attributional pattern and have trained rhem to attri_ bute failure to controllable factors (e.g., iow effor-t, improper strategy use) rather than to low ability. Effbrt has received special artenrion; srudenrs who believe that rhey 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 n-ray lead them to work harder with the expectation that it will produce better outcomes tApplrcauon 9. /).

In an early study, Dweck (.1975D identified children who had lou. expectations for success and u,hose achievement behaviors deteriorated after they experiencecl failure (e.g., low effbrt, lack of persistence). Dweck presented the children u,ith arithmetic

Motirration 391

problems (some of which were insolvable) to assess the extent of performance decline follou.ing failure. Chiidren largely attributed their failures ro low ability. Dr-rring train- ing, chiidren solved problems with a criterion number set for eacir trial. For some (success-c-tnly) children, the criterion was set at or below their capabilities as deter- mined by the pretest. A similar criterion applied on most trials for attribution retrairt- lrzg children, but on some trials the criterion \&.as set beyoncl their capabilities. \flhen 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 fail- ure, whereas attribrltion-retraining children showed less impairment. Success-only children continued to stress low ability; attribution-retraining sruclents emphasized low- effort.

Dweck did not assess self-efficacy or expectancies for success, so the effect of attri- butions on expectancies could not be determined. Other investigations have shown that teaching students to attribute failures to 1ow effort enhances effort attributions, expectancies, and achievement bel-raviors (Horner & Gaither, 2004; Robertson, 2000; Schunk, 2008).

Providing effort-attributional feedback to stlldents for their sr.rccesses also promotes achievement expectancies and behaviors (Schr-rnk. 1.982a; Schunk & Cox, 19861 Schunk & Rice, 1986). In the context of subtraction instruction, Schunk (1982a) found that linking children's prior achievements witil effort (e.g., "You've been working hard") enhanced task motivation, perceived competence, and sklll acquisition better than linking their future achievement with effort (e.g., "You need to work hard") or not provicling eff,ort feedback. For effort feedback to be effective, students rnust believe that it is credible. Feedback is credible when students realistically have to work hard to succeed, as in the eaily stages of learning. Notice in the opening vignette how Kerri provides eflort f-eed- back to Derrick, Amy, and Matt.

Effort feedback may be especially useful for students with learning problems. Schunk and Cox (i986) provided subtraction instrr"rction and practice opportuniries ro midclle 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, morivarion, and ski1l acquisition better than no feedback. Feedback during the first half of the program enhanced students' effort attributions for sllccesses. Given students' learning disabilities, effort feedback for early or later successes may have seemed credible.

Attribr,rtion preferences charrge with dcvek;prrrenr (Sigehnan, 2Ol2). yoLrng children attribute sLlccesses to effort, but by age 8 they begin to fbrm a clistinct conception of abil- iry ancl continue to differentiate the concepts up to about age 72 (Nicholls, 1978, lc)79; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Ability attribr-rtions become increasingly imporrant, s,hereas the influence of ef'fort as a causal factor declines (Harari & Covington, 1981). During arithme- tic instruction and practice, Schr-rnk (1983a) found that providing children with ability feedback for prior successes (e.g., "You're good at this") enhanced perceived compe- tence and ski1l better than providing effort feedback or ability-plus-efforr (combined) feedback. Children in the latter condition judged effort expenditure greater rhan ability- only children and apparently discounted some of the ability information in favor of effbrt.

392 Chapter 9

In a follow-up study using a similar methodology (Schunk, 1984b), abiliry feedback given when children succeeded early in the course of learning raised achievement outcomes better than early effort feedback regardless of whether the abiliry f'eedback was continued or discontinued during the later stages of iearning.

The stntcture of classroom activities conveys attributional information (Ames, 7992a, 1992b; see Chapter 11). Students who compete for grades and other rewards are more 1ike1y to compare their abiliry among one another. Students who succeed tinder competi- tiue conditions are more likely to emphasize their abilities as contributing to their suc- cesses; 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 smartT" (Ames, 1985).

Cooperatiue, or incliuidualistic, reward stlalctures, on the other hand, minimize ability differences. Cooperative strLlctures 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 stmctures, students compare their current work with their prior performances. Students in individualistic stmctures focus on their efforts ("em I trying hard enough?") and on learn- ing 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 learn- ing 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 stu- dents 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 learn- ing, 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 (1,992) found for both sport and schoolwork that task orientation (growth mindset) related to high school students' beliefs that success depends on effort and coliaboration with peers, whereas ego orientation (fixed mindset) was associated with beliefs that success is due to high ability and atternpting 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, Iearning 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 ski11s, 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, incrernental ability conception, and focus on learning goals in students.

Motivation 393

SUMMARY

Motivation is the process of instigating and sustaining goal-directed behavior. Some early views on motivation were drive theory, conditioning theory, cognitive consistencv theory, and humanistic theory. Each of these contribr.ltecl to t1-re understanding of rnotivation, but none was aclequate to explain human motivated behavior. Current theories view- motiva- tion as reflecting cognitive processes, although these theories differ in the importance ascribed to various cognitions. Nlodels of motivated learning assume that motivation operates before, during, and after learning.

Achievement motivation thcory postulates that need for achicvcrnent is a general motive leading individuals to perform their best in achievement contexts. Achievement behavior represents an emotional conflict betlveen hope fbr success and fear of faih_rre. 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 presefl/e the perception of high ability among themselves and others. Other researchers have focused on motivational states sLlch as task and ego involvement.

Attribution theory incorporates Rotter's locus of control and many elements of Heider's nair.e analysis of action. \ileiner's attribution theory, vr,hicl-r is relevant to

394 Chapter !

achievement settings, categorizes attributions along three dimensions: internai_external, stable-unstable, and controllable-uncontroliable. Attributions are important because they affect achievement beliefs, emotions, and behaviors.

Key social cognitive proccsses ar-e goals and expectations, social comparison, ancl self-concept. People set goals and acr in u,'avs they believe will help them attain their goals. By comparing present performance to the goal and noting plogress. people experi- ence a sense of self-efficacy for improvement. Motivation depends on belier.ing 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-efficac1). Social comparison with others is an irnportant source of information to form outcome and effi_ cacy expectations. Research sugplests that self-concept is hierarchically organized and multifaceted. It develops from a concrete to a more abstract self-view. Self-concept and learning apper 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 neecled for learning, and as .trd.r-rt, perceive progress, their self-efficacy and motivation are enhanced. In contrast, perfbr_ mance goals may not lead to the same focus on progress, but rather result in sociai com_ parison, which may not raise motivation. Goal orientations are linked with conceptions of abiliry that reflect an entity (fixed mindset) or incremental (growth mindset) perspective.

Intrinsically motivated activities are ends in themselves, in contrast to extrinsically motivated actions thar are means to ends. Investigators have hypothesized that young chil_ dren have intrinsic motivation to understand and control their environments, which becomes more specialized with development ancl progression in school. Hafier,s theory highlights the roie of socializing agents and perceived comperence. Other rheorisrs hypoth- esize that intrinsic motivation depends on the needs for optimal levels of psychological or physiological incongruity. Many theories stress people,s desire to exefi control o,r.. i-po._ tant aspects of their lives. 'When people perceive independence betw-een responses and olltcomes, learned helplessness manifests itself in motivational, learning, and emotional deficits. Self-determination theory postulates thar intrinsic motivation is influenced by three basic innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relateclness.

Much research has addressed the effect of res,arcls on intrinsic motivation. Offering rewards for task engagement decreases intrinsic motivation w-hen rewards are seen as controlling behavior. Rew-ards given contingent on one,s level of performance are infor_ mative of capabilities and foster students' self-efficacy, interest, ancl skil1 acquisition.

Interest, or the liking and rvillful engagement in an arctiwity, can affect moti\.ation and Iearning. Personai interest is a stable personality -u.ariable directed toward specific activi_ ties or topics, whereas situational interest is temporary interest generateci by specific fea_ tures of the environment. A model of interest development postulates that personal interest can develop from initial situational interest. Affect comprises moods and emo_ tions. Moocls 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.

i I

Motivation 395

Achievement motivation, attributions, and goal orientations have important educa- tional 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 attribr-rtions for failure, such as from low ability to insufficient effort. Attributional feedback for prior successes improves self-efficacy, moti- vation, and skill acquisition. Teachers can foster productive goal orientations in students by teaching them to set learning goals and providing feedback on iheir goal progress.

FURTHER READING

Dweck, C. S. (2005). Minclset; 7he new psycbologt 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 motiuation (pp. 105-i21). New York, NY: Gr-rilford 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 motiuation (.pp. 52-72). New Yolk, NY: Guilford Press.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase rnodel of inreresr development. Educational Psycbologist, 41, 177-127.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of str-rdent motivation in learn- ing and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psycbologt, 95, 667-685.

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. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Alg tbeories reuisited (pp. 31-60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

!7einer, B. (2005). Motivation from an arriburional perspecrive and the social psychology of per- ceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (.Eds.), Handbook of competence and motiuation @p.73-84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.