Motivation

Draft

Definition

• See also self-efficacy theory, flow theory

Drive theory

Drive theories are behaviorist and/or [[cognitivism|cognitivist] in nature and explain behavior as as response to psychological and social needs. 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 themm at a certain moment in time as a consequece of his actions. [...]

The objective time distance between the aspiring subject here and now and the realization of his motivational goals is dependent not only on the subject himself who wants to reach some goals at a certain moment in life, but often also on the very nature of the goals.

Cognitivist / human information processing

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

According to 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 lifeand 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).

Model	Sociological	Psychological	Interactionist	Modern
Explanations sought from	External causes	Internal causes	Interaction of causes	Individual decision making
Key elements	Work, society, social class, opportunities, obstacles	Motives, traits, personality, interests	Socialisation, experiences, felt needs, relevance, expectancy	Images, values, feelings, stories
References	Lehtonen & Tuomisto 1972; Rinne & al. 1992	Boshier 1973; Garrison 1987	Rubenson 1979; Pintrich & Ruohotie 2000	Manninen 2004; Manninen & al. 2004

In any case, DSchneider believes that motivation has to be conceived as multi-dimensions phenomenon (a construct) influenced by various variables such as:

• Needs and desires
• Perceived utility of an activity. Does the learner think that he could use outcomes ?
• Achievement: did the learner encounter positive experiences in the past, project positive ones in the future (e.g. see self-efficacy theory)
• Recognition by others and feedback provided by the teacher
• Task: Is the task itself interesting.
• Autonomy: Can the student set goals ? (See also: project-based learning

Motivation in education

Motivation ;)

• Motivation always has been a key variable in education:

• "Donnez à l'enfant le désir d'apprendre et... toute méthode lui sera bonne" (Rousseau dans l'Emile en 1762).

• “The success of a training program is largely contingent on the beneficiary\u2019s training motivation.” (Guerrero & Sire, 2000)

• According to Konrad (2005) “The general definition of 'motivation to learn' is 'an individual's desire to work towards a learning goal.' Ruohotie (2000:8)” but such definitions are not very operational and the instructional designer should rely on some model of motivation structure.

Motivation in regular training

to do ...

Motivation in vocational training

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\u2019sexpectancies 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).

In a large-scale empirical study, Konrad (2005) studied the learning motivations of lower qualified workers.

His learning motivation scale was based on the following concepts (categories). Values, i.e Alpha, Neutral, Beta refer to Dynamic concept analysis (Kontinen, 2002).

Concept	Alfa	Neutral	Beta
Individual characteristics:	Supportive	Neutral	Unsupportive
Training format:	Attractive	Neutral	Unattractive
Work complexity:	Complex	Neutral	Simple
Past learning experiences:	Positive	Neutral	Negative
Information & opportunity:	Easily available	Neutral	Unavailable
Attitudes & values:	Positive	Neutral	Negative
Motivation	High	Medium	Low
Current work & future expectations:	Motivating	Neutral	Demotivating
Support & incentives:	Easily available	Neutral	Unavailable
Expectancy & Valence:	Positive	Neutral	Negative

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

1. Climbers: Positive attitude towards training. Key motivation is advancement. There is support from the company.
2. Developers: Similar as climbers, but key motivation is to develop skills needed in current job. Past experiences with learning has been positive.
3. Drop-outs: Attitudes towards training are neutral (or unnessary). Work is simple and there is no possibility of advancement. This concerns most employees.
4. Refusers: Negative attitudes about training. Employees perform complex work and there is no possibility of advancement and support from the company

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.

"Broad exposure to ongoing practice ... is in effect a demonstration of the goals to which 'newcomers' expect and are expected to move. ... This more inclusive process of generating identities is both a result of, and a motivation for participation." (Lave 1991:71)

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.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that where a group has sufficient autonomy to manage their own learning in order to contribute to the achievement of shared goals, motivation is likely to be enhanced. In particular, valuing such situated learning is an important process in promoting engagement in lifelong learning. To put it simply, success at learning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it encourages individuals to shape their identity as successful learners, irrespective of any previous lack of success, such as within formal learning processes at school or college.

(Konrad, 2005: 23)

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

• The amount of autonomy provided.
• The degree to which students can identify with and find interesting a given learning task or set of tasks.
• Type and timing of the feedback provided.

Instructional design models

• ARCS
• Constructivist emotionally-oriented model

Motivation and Emotion

Motivation is linked to emotions, but emotions an related emotional design of instruction are yet another category of interest: Here is a citation from Asleitner (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)"

• FEASP: "According to the F(ear)E(nvy)A(nger)S(ympathy)P(leasure)-approach for designing positive feeling instruction, the instructional designer has to analyze emotional problems before and during instruction (Astleitner, 2000: 175).

References

• Adler (2001). Adler R W et al (2001) 'Situated motivation: An empirical test in an accounting course,' Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, June, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3981/is_200106/ai_n8999210

• Astleitner, Hermann, Designing Emotionally Sound Instruction: The FEASP-Approach, Instructional Science 28 (3): 169-198, May 2000 [ http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1023/A:1003893915778]

• Guerrero, Sylvie & Bruno Sire (2000), Motivation To Train From Workers Perspective :

Example Of French Companies, Les Notes du LIRHE, Université Toulouse I, note n° 318, Juillet 2000.

• J. Keller, Motivational Design of Instruction, in C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 383-434, 1983.

• J. Keller and T. Kopp, An Application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design, in C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories in Action, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 289-320, 1987.

• Konrad, John (2005), Learning Motivation Of Lower Qualified Workers, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia. PDF, retrieved 15:51, 7 September 2006 (MEST).

• Korman A K , J H Greenhaus, and I J Badin, Personnel Attitudes and Motivation, Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 28: 175-196 [ Abstract]

• Kuhl, J. (1986). Motivation and information. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins, eds, Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, pp. 404-434. Chichester: Wiley

• Lens, Willy & Antoine Gailly, Extension of Future Time Perspective in Motivational Goals of Different Age Groups, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-17 (1980) DOI: 10.1177/016502548000300102 Abstract / PDF (Access restricted)

• Nuttin, J., 1980. Theorie de la motivation humaine: du besoin au projet d'action. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

• Malone T.W. and M. R. Lepper, Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivation for Learning, in Aptitude, Learning and instruction, 3, R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 223-253, 1987.

• Warr, P. B. (1990).Decision latitude, job demands and employee well-being. Work & Stress, 4,285-294.[ISI]

• Warr, P. B., & Routledge, T. (1969).An opinion scale for the study of managers'job satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 43,95-109.[ISI]

• Warr, P.B., Bartram, D., and Brown, A. (2006). Big Five validity: Aggregation method matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 377-386.

Article cited in citations

• Adams, J. 1963. \u201cToward an understanding of inequity,\u201d Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67/5: 422-436

• Baldwin, T. Magjuka, R. et Loher, B. 1991. « The perils of participation: effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning », Personnel Psychology, 44: 51-65.

• Boshier R (1973), Educational participation and dropout. A theoretical model. Adult Education 23,4, 255 - 282.

• Campbell, J & Pritchard, R. 1976. « Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology », Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3: 63-130, Rand McNally, Chicago.

• Facteau, J Dobbins, G Russell, J Ladd, R & Kudish, J. 1995. « The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer », Journal of Management, 21/1: 1-25T

• Garrison, D. (1987), Dropout Prediction within a Broad Psychosocial Context: an Analysis of Boshier's Congruence Model. Adult Education Quarterly 37, 4, 212-222.

• Hicks, W & Klimoski, R. 1987. « Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: a field experiment », Academy of Management Journal, 30/3: 542-552.

• Kontiainen, S. (ed.) 2002. Dynamic Concept Analysis (DCA). Integrating Information in Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

• Lave J, 'Situating Learning in Communities of Practice,' in Resnick L et al ., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 63 - 82.

• Lehtonen, H. & Tuomisto, J. 1972. Aikuiskoulutukseen osallistuminen. Teoreettinen prosessimalli. Tampereen Yliopisto, Aikuiskasvatuksen laitos, tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 1.

• Manninen, J. 2002. Affective experience of unemployment. A dynamic analysis. In: Seppo Kontiainen (ed.), Dynamic Concept Analysis (DCA). Integrating Information in Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

• Manninen, J. 2003. Adult participation in dream society - images of education as motivational barriers. In: Marco Radovan & Neda Dordevic (eds.). Current Issues in Adult Learning and Motivation. Ljubljana: Slovenian Institute for Adult Education.

• Mathieu, J Martineau, J & Tannenbaum, S. 1993. « Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness », Personnel Psychology, 46: 125-147.

• Mathieu, J Tannenbaum, S & Salas, E. 1992. « Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness », Academy of Management Journal,

35/4: 828-839.

• Noe, R & Wilk, S. 1993. « Investigation of the factors that influence employees participation in development activities », Journal of Applied Psychology, 78/2: 291-302.

• Noe, R. & Schmitt, S. 1986. « Trainee's attributes and attitudes: neglected influence on training effectiveness », Academy of Management Review, 11/4: 736-749.

• Porter, L. Lawler, E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, Illinois, Irwin.

• Quinones, M. 1995. « Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback », Journal of Applied Psychology, 80/2: 226-238.

• Resnick L, 'Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social Practice,' in Resnick L et al ., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1-20.

• Rinne, R., Kivinen, O. & Ahola, S. 1992. Aikuisten kouluttautuminen Suomessa. Osallistuminen, kasautuminen ja preferenssit. Turun yliopisto, Koulutussosiologian tutkimusyksikkö, Tutkimusraportteja 10.

• Rubenson, K. 1979. Recruitment to Adult Education in the Nordic Countries - Research and Outreaching Activities. Stockholm Institute of Education, Department of Educational Research, Reports on Education and Psychology nr. 3. Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

• Ruohotie, P. 2000. Conative constructs in learning. In: Pintrich & Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative constructs and selfregulated learning. Hameenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Education.

• Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation, John Wiley & Sons