A Discussion About Student Achievement Motivation: Theoretical

Views and Instructional Considerations

Rayne A. Sperling, PhD

Educational Psychology

rsd7@psu.edu

Agenda

• Brief introductions• Rayne introduction• Discussion of flexible plan for session– What is academic achievement motivation?– Does motivation really matter?

• Competence and motivation• Motivation drives engagement and leads to competence

– Is there such a thing as ‘bad’ motivation?– Participants’ observations, concerns, and issues (What

brought you here today?)

Agenda

– Focus of discussion not only on “motivation”• Student behavior (actual and ideal)• Instructional actions

– Resources and directions• TARGETT model and others

– Overall take-home messages

Approach

To share theoretical approaches to achievement motivation relevant to Engineering instructional contexts– Explain and discuss theories– Explore faculty perceptions/student perceptions– Identify representative and target faculty and student

behaviors– Identify and discuss grounded instructional strategies

to enhance student motivation

Bad Motivation?

• Activity– Self-reported measures of achievement motivation– Actual and ideal

• Theoretically-ideal versus practically-ideal

Academic Achievement Motivation

• Some students are not engaged or are engaged in the ‘wrong’ things or for the ‘wrong’ reasons

• Observing students’ behaviors may not indicate why they are engaged

• Numerous theories and constructs explain students’ motivation for academic tasks– Some recent empirical studies of engineering and

STEM students’ motivation

Theories

• What motivation is NOT: Related constructs and considerations– Interest– Beliefs– Epistemology– Self-regulation– Engagement

Theories

• There are many perspectives, for example: – Humanistic views– Attribution theory—the ‘Why’– Self-determination theory– Self-efficacy– Expectancy x value– Goal orientation– Goal theories– Self-worth perspectives

Overall Considerations

• Locus of control– Belief about whether the outcomes are result of one’s

behaviors (internal) or the result of events outside one’s personal control (external)

• Locus of causality– Belief about whether the reason for the activity is

inside or outside the person

• Views of ability– Entity: Ability is stable and uncontrollable– Incremental: Ability is unstable and controllable

Example Attributions

• High grade– Ability: I am good in math– Effort: I studied hard for the exam– Ability & Effort: I am good in math and I studied

hard for the exam– Task Ease: It was an easy test– Luck: I was lucky; I studied the right material

Example Attributions

• Low grade:– Ability: I am no good in math– Effort: I didn’t study hard enough– Ability and Effort: I’m no good in math and I

didn’t study hard enough– Task difficulty: The test was impossible, nobody

could have done well– Luck: I was unlucky; I studied the wrong material

for the exam

Attributions

Locus of causality

Stability Controllability

Ability Internal Stable Uncontrollable

Effort Internal Unstable Controllable

Luck External Unstable Uncontrollable

Task difficulty External Stable Uncontrollable

Attributions

• Controllable attributions• The fate of ability attributions• Attributional retraining• When NOT to make effort attributions• Teacher attributions for student learning• Modeling accurate attributions

Action items/Reflections

Self-Determination Theory

• Some think of this as the dichotomy of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. – Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation for which

the activities are their own reward, inherent interest, enjoyment

– Extrinsic motivation refers to motivation for doing something for a separable outcome

http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_IntExtDefs.pdf

Some Additional SDT

• Interaction of determination across types of motivation

• Autonomy (Choice, involvement, relevance, feedback, lesson-framing statements)

• Relatedness (Accepting and supportive environment)

• Competence (Ability to function effectively in environment: praise, criticism, attributional modeling, emotional reactions, offers of help)

Some Additional SDT

• Present a challenge• Give learner control--Choice• Evoke curiosity (the role of interest)• Use rewards for tasks that are not already

intrinsic• Base rewards and feedback on quality of work• Use rewards to communicate increasing

competence or determination or engagement

Drawing on Interest

• Personal and situational interest

• Mitchell– Catch (activities) and Hold (meaningfulness and

involvement)

Other Views: Social Cognitive

• Self-Efficacy– A learner’s beliefs about his or her capability of

succeeding on specific tasks

• Expectancy x value– Learners are motivated to engage in tasks when

they expect to succeed and when they value achievement on the task

Self-Efficacy

• Those who are efficacious:–Willing to try on difficult tasks– Believe they will succeed and can monitor and

control affect

• Contributing factors– Past performance –Modeling– Verbal persuasion (depends on the source)– Psychological state (i.e., distraction, anxiety)

Increasing Efficacy

• One instructional strategy for increasing efficacy is the use of worked examples– Product versus Process worked examples– Scaffolded presentation of worked examples

• Success on related tasks• Collaborative tasks• Peer-guided tutoring groups

Expectancy x Value

• Expectancy for success– Perception of task difficulty– Self-schema

• Task value– Intrinsic interest– Importance– Utility value– Cost

The equation…

Addressing Value

• Lesson-framing statements• Meaningfulness• Nature of problems• Utility• Payoff for depth of engagement and

understanding

Students in Context

• One motivation for a person’s behavior is to protect self-worth.

• Major source of self-worth information is performance on public tasks.

• In competitive academic settings, only a few students will succeed.

• To try hard and fail is a threat to self-worth.

Defensive Strategies

• Don’t participate• False effort: make yourself appear as though you are

working on the task when you’re not• Self-handicapping: doing something to put yourself

at a disadvantage

Defensive Strategies

• Set goals too high: failure provides no information about your own ability

• Set goals too low: same as above only now success provides no information

• Procrastinate: (publicly) put off working on the project, look like you don’t care…hey, you did well given that you only worked on it for a day…

• Underachieving: Setting (public) standards low

Goals

• Learning (Mastery) goals: Goals to learn, to improve. This produces task-involved learners– Example behaviors:

• Work hard for understanding• Perseverance

• Performance goals: Goals that focus on perception of others. This produces ego-involved learners

Are performance goals always ‘bad’?

Performance Goals

• Likely to cheat• Sloppy work• Attention seeking for good performance• Work for the grade• Compare grades• Choose tasks that will likely result in positive evaluations• Need clear evaluation criteria

Instructor behaviors that promote performance orientation

Goal Orientations

Learning/Mastery Focused Performance focused

Success Improvement; mastery; Progress

High grades; Comparison

Effort To get better/to learn something new

To beat others/to demonstrate ability

Satisfaction Progress/challenge/mastery Doing better than others/ success with minimum effort

Evaluation Evidence of progress Social comparison

Interpretation of errors

Part of learning process Failure of ability

Ability Incremental/improves with effort

Fixed/entity

Need for achievement

Goal set Attributions View of ability

Strategies

Mastery (Learning)

High Need for achievement low fear of failure

Learning goals of moderate difficulty to challenging

Effort, good strategy choice

Incremental Try another way, adaptive

Failure avoiding

Fear Failure

Performance goals, tries very hard or very easy goals

Lack of ability

Entity

Pretend not to care, don’t try hard

Failure accepting

Expects failure and depression

No goals, performance as a default

Lack of ability

Entity

Give up

Goals

• Approach and Avoidance• Other goal considerations and theories– Social goals– Pleasing others• Parents, teachers, peers

– Future goals–Work-avoidance goals

The TARGETT model

• Task• Autonomy/responsibility• Recognition• Grouping• Evaluation• Time• Teacher expectations

Ames (1992), Maehr & Anderson (1993), Todorovich & Model (2005), Woolfolk(2001)

Goal Structures

• Cooperative: Students believe their goal is attainable only if other students will also reach the goal

• Competitive: Students believe that their goal is attainable only if others don’t reach the goal

• Individualistic: Students believe that their own attempt to reach a goal is not related to other students’ attempts to reach the goal.

Teacher Expectations

• Beliefs and predictions about student abilities– Objectives: make clear you expect growth,

appropriate but high expectations

Teacher Expectations

• More capable students are given:– More opportunity for public performance on

meaningful tasks– More opportunity to think– Higher level assignments (taxonomy)– More autonomy (less interruption, more choice)– More opportunity for self-evaluation– More honest feedback and contingent feedback– More respect for the individual learner– Meaningful time

Avoiding the Expectation Trap...

• Use information from tests and prior experiences carefully

• Context may change behavior and cognition• Be careful in discussion with low ability students– Body language, wait time, ample and appropriate

praise, call on frequently, prompts and cues too

• Variety of instructional materials• Diversity-background experiences• Gender and ethnicity and race cautions

Conclusion

• Things you currently do ‘right’• Things you knew• Things that surprised you• Action items• Resource requests