This article or chapter is incomplete and its contents need further attention. Some information may be missing or may be wrong, spelling and grammar may have to be improved, use your judgment!

This article should be rewritten. Only use it to grab some ideas and pointers to further reading ... DSchneider

Often, on makes a distinction between intrinsic motivation (desire to do something for personal, internal reasons) and extrinsic motivation (seek recompensation and avoid punishment), but the two are very much linked and difficult to separate.

See also: Affect, self-efficacy theory, flow theory, student satisfaction

Maslow (1954) wrote one of most cited articles on lower-level human motivation and that was based on a synthesis of the state of art. He later expaned it to include higher level needs.

According to Huitt (2001), Maslow's model broke down human motivation into a hierarchy of needs

This hierarchy is a bottom up structure with need (1) being the lowest level. Each lower need must be met before one can move to the next level

Drive theories are behaviorist and/or cognitivist in nature and explain behavior as as response to psychological and social needs. The relation between need and motivation can be described as a feedback system. The bigger the need the bigger motivation and the lesser the need, the lesser the motivation. E.g. We are more motivated to eat when we hungry and less motivated after we have eaten. Regarding instruction, learners in these models are rather passive and the environment (materials, teachers, etc.) in control.

Needs are cognitively elaborated into concrete motivational goals and means-end structures. Being motivated means striving for goals which are by definition not yet realized at the moment that they are formulated or expresses (Nuttin, 1980). The individuals hopes and expects to reach them at a certain moment in time as a consequence of his actions. There are three degrees of activation: (1) passive action to respond to stimulus, (2) respond actively to selected stimuli and (3) change the environment. At levels two and three, goals and the anticipated outcome are the source of motivation. Good goals are: clear, personally relevant, proximal, progress can be seen, interim successes are possible.

One can distinguish between learning goals (desire to be able to master a task) and performance goals (desire to appear competent or at least better than the others).

For Greenwald (1982), the 'self' becomes involved in an activity in three conditions:

Herzberg et al. (1959) identified two main factors of work satisfaction: hygiene needs, which are influenced by the physical and psychological conditions in which people work, and motivator needs, which Herzberg described as being very similar to the higher-order needs in Maslows (1954) hierarchy theory. (Furnham et al., 2009). Fullfillment of hygiene needs only can eliminate dissatisfaction but it can't motivate. So let's let just look at motivation. F. Herzberg's 5 factors motivation/demotivation model is based on the idea that motivation is related to internal satisfaction dependent on external factors:

This model was extracted from fourteen first-level job factors related with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, possibility of advancement, possibility of growth, salary status, the quality of interpersonal relations with superiors, the quality of interpersonal relations with peers, technical supervision, agreement with company policies and administration, pleasant working conditions, external factors from personal life, and job security. The five factor model defines motivation as a result of the job content (or the learning activity if we dare to extrapolate).

In a more recent publication, Furnham et al (1999) relate work motivation to personality. E.g. they found that extraversion can be related to a preference for Herzberg's motivator factors, and neuroticism a preference for hygiene factors.

Warr (????) describes motivation as a cognitive process that concerns future planned actions and that can be based on a set of reasons:

A similar model concerns the characteristics of the task and the job environment (Hackman and Oldman, 1976): Factors influencing motivation are:

These theories had important impact on how work should be designed. In simple terms, work is more motivating if tasks are varied and meaningful, if the worker can exercise control. On the other hand task also should lead to results that are acknowledged by the environment. According to many studies, these models don't work for everyone but best for people who do have "growth needs".

How does the actor/learner explain what happens to him? How does he explain the outcome (e.g. success and failure). Dimensions of causes that learners attribute can be:

Of course the pedagogical design and the teacher can influence these perceptions. In empirical studies these factors also show up in combinations related to given issues and affect. Philipp Dessus (2001) summarizes Crahay, 1999, p. 284 and Archambault & Chouinard, 1996, p. 110):

Motivation equals the degree of perceived control. Influencing factors are: choices, impositions by others through threats or controlling statements or being watched, getting feedback, getting extrinsic rewards

Most authors agree that immediate extrinsic rewards don't contribute much to motivation. Long term extrinsic rewards do play a role. E.g. studies about job satisfaction (e.g. Herzberg et al, 1969) identify recognition for achievement and social progression as critical factors that could be called extrinsic. Achievement, work itself and responsability are rather intrinsic.

The informal management literature often makes similare statements. E.g. Rewards and punishments are not opposites at all; they are two sides of the same coin. And it is a coin that does not buy very much (Kohn, 1999). Or more explicitely Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people's behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery. (Punished by Rewards). Daniel H. Pink's (2010) Drive book makes similar statements.

Konrad (2005) argues that in an educational context we should complete sociological, psychological and interactional models with a decision making approach where learners are seen as decision makers, who more or less consciously analyse their past experiences, current life and work situation, and future expectations, and base their decisions to participate or not on these complex elements which form the motivation structure. (Konrad, 2005:7).

Manninen (2004:4) also points out that different stages of the learning process may engage different motivations. Motives activate, direct and maintain the learning activity (Ruohotie 2000, 8). Therefore motivation and its factors should be defined keeping in mind in which part of the process they belong. For example, activating elements are more general factors which are more or less stable personality elements (like curiosity, learner self-image), while directing factors (like outcome beliefs, task value) focus the persons interest on a specific target (learning activity). Elements maintaining the motivation, on the other hand, influence learning activity while it is taking place (during the training programme; test anxiety, expectancy for success) or as feedback loop after the learning experience (like achievements) influencing therefore future motivation to participate or not.

The following table lists some non exclusive models of explanation. It is based on Manninen (2004) and was also found in Konrad (2005):

In any case, DSchneider believes that motivation in relation to teaching and learning has to be conceived as multi-dimensional phenomenon (construct) influenced by various variables such as:

Motivation always has been a key variable in education:

In general, explanations regarding the source(s) of motivation can be categorized as either extrinsic (outside the person) or intrinsic (internal to the person). Intrinsic sources and corresponding theories can be further subcategorized as either body/physical, mind/mental (i.e., cognitive, affective, conative) or transpersonal/spiritual. (Huitt, 2001).

Motivation to learn according to Huitt, 2001 (reproduced without asking permission)

According to Marilla Svinicki, teachers, in order to increase student motivation, should:

How theories are used to design for motivation

Guerrero & Sire (2000:3-4) again point out the complexity of motivation and single out self-efficacy and instrumentality as two key dimensions to study training motivation of french workers.

One of the definitions widely used in recent studies of training motivation (Baldwin et al., 1991; Facteau et al., 1995; Quinones, 1995) is that introduced by Noe in 1986 in the Academy of Management Review. It is inspired by American research on motivation at work (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Training motivation is described as "a specific desire of the trainee to learn the content of the training program". Other definitions refer to the effort exerted in training to learn the course contents (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987), along with Vroom's expectancies theory (1964). Accordingly, Mathieu et al. (1992) describe training motivation as "trainees' perceptions that doing well in a program would lead to better job performance and consequently to valued outcomes." Furthermore, several concepts have been used to describe training motivation. In addition to expectancies theories (Vroom 1964, Porter and Lawler 1968), authors have built upon the studies of Bandura (1977) on self-efficacy and Adams on equity (1965).

Manninen (2004:3) points out that The key question (why adults engage themselves in learning activities and why not?) can be analysed using two different but overlapping theoretical frameworks, which are theories of motivation and theories of participation. Participation [...] deals with the processes which make people to participate in organised training situations. In addition to psychological explanations (cf. Boshier, see Garrison 1987), there has been more sociologically oriented (Lehtonen & Tuomisto 1972) and interaction models (Rubenson 1979) which take into account the wider context and individual life situations.

In a large-scale empirical studies Manninen & Birke (2005) and Konrad (2005) studied the learning motivations of lower qualified workers using a multi-dimensional learning motivation scale that was based on the following concepts (categories). Values, i.e Alpha, Neutral, Beta refer to Dynamic concept analysis (Kontinen, 2002).

Results let to a typology of motivation according to 2 dimensions: Simple work/complex work situation and low/high motivation.

An important finding from this study was that Learning preferences identified by lower qualified workers across the countries (like learning by doing & learning from others) indicate that theoretical models such as shared expertise and cognitive apprenticeship (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1993; Lave & Wenger 1991) are suitable for this target group. (Konrad, 2005:22). The author also makes a connection to constructivism, i.e. knowledge as direct and social experience, and citing Resnik (1991) social processes as cognition.

Thus, when an individual joins an existing group of competent practitioners, they are motivated by membership of that group both to strengthen their identity as learners and, at least as importantly, to promote the success of the group. This process of mastering the virtuous circle of learning to learn is a central part of the process of successful adult learning. In a structured workplace, the role of the competent members is crucial, whether those with formal status (such as supervisors) or as informal leaders.

In practical terms this means that situated motivation will be enhanced by the motivating potential of the instructional design. Adler (2001) suggests:

Motivation is linked to emotions, but emotions an related emotional design of instruction are yet another category of interest: Here is a citation from Astleitner (2000:169): "It is well known in the field of basic and applied research on education and psychology that cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes are related to the world in different ways. Cognitive processes concern the acquisition and representation of knowledge and have a representative relation to the world of objects and facts. Motivational processes refer to goal states of the organism and have an actional relation to the world. Emotional processes are based on the acceptance or rejection of objects and facts and have an evaluational relation to the world (Kuhl, 1986)"

(To do)

Jean-Louis Berger, Stuart A. Karabenick, Motivation and students use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms, Learning and Instruction, Volume 21, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 416-428, ISSN 0959-4752, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886998002025)

Read the original:
Motivation - EduTech Wiki