RERE460203.

fm Page 137 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Educational Research,Vol. 46, No. 2, Summer 2004

Understanding student motivation

Timothy L. Seifert*
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Contemporary theories of academic motivation seek to explain students’ behaviours in academic

settings. While each theory seems to possess its own constructs and unique explanations, these
theories are actually closely tied together. In this theoretical study of motivation, several theories of
motivation were described and an underlying theme of the influence of emotions was used to unify
the theories. In these theories, emotions and beliefs are thought to elicit different patterns of
behaviour such as pursuit of mastery, failure avoidance, learned helplessness and passive aggression.
Implications emerged which focused upon creating classroom contexts that foster feelings of
autonomy, competence and meaning as the catalysts for developing adaptive, constructive learning.

Keywords: Motivation; Attributions; Self-efficacy; Self-worth; Goal theory; Emotions

Psychologists have spent considerable effort trying to construct theories of motiva-

tion, particularly in the academic context. Currently, four theories are prominent in
contemporary educational psychology: self-efficacy theory, attribution theory, self-
worth theory and achievement goal theory. While each is most often presented alone,
these theories are more tightly entangled than the literature suggests. In considering
these entanglements and arguing each theory in light of the others, it is possible to
weave them together. In doing so, a coherent view of student motivation emerges
which has students’ emotions and beliefs at its heart.

Self-efficacy theory
Self-efficacy is a construct synonymous with confidence and refers to a person’s
judgement about his/her capability to perform a task at a specified level of perform-
ance. Self-efficacy is the person’s belief that he/she is able (or unable) to perform the
task at hand and is correlated with achievement-related behaviours, including cogni-
tive processing, achievement performance, motivation, self-worth and choice of
activities (Bandura, 1977, 1993). Students who are efficacious (perceive themselves
as capable) are more likely to be self-regulating, strategic and metacognitive than
students who do not feel efficacious.
Students who are not confident or perceive themselves incapable may avoid tasks

*Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, NF A1B

3X8, Canada. Email: tseifert@mun.ca

ISSN 0013-1881 (print)/ISSN 1469-5847 (online)/04/020137-13

© 2004 NFER
DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000222421
RERE460203.fm Page 138 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

138 T. Seifert

that are seen as challenging or difficult, while those who are highly efficacious will be
more willing to face difficult or challenging problems (Schunk, 1984, 1985; Bandura,
1993). Students who see themselves as capable are more likely to display adaptive,
mastery behaviours, while those who are less efficacious are likely to behave in an
ego, performance-oriented manner (Dweck, 1986). It also enables them to exercise
control over stressors that may provoke anxiety (Bandura, 1993).

Attribution theory
An attribution refers to the perceived cause of an outcome; it is a person’s explanation
of why a particular event turned out as it did (e.g. pass or fail a test, win or lose a
game). In an academic setting, typical attributions might include effort, skills and
knowledge, strategies, ability, luck, the teacher’s mood or mistakes by the teacher.
According to Weiner (1984, 1985), attributions give rise to emotions, which, in turn,
have consequences for future behaviours (motivation).
Weiner has specified a particular mechanism to explain how attributions influence
motivation (see Figure 1). This mechanism starts with an outcome which could be
passing or failing a test, do better or worse than expected, winning or losing a game,
or social situations such as being accepted or rejected for a date. Following the
outcome is a general emotional reaction to the outcome, which tends to be positive
or negative according to the outcome. Thus, something happens and we react to it
in a general way. It is after this emotional response that attributions occur. These are
the actual explanations given for the outcome which are formed given particular
casual antecedents.
Causal antecedents refer to factors that may influence which particular attribution
is formed and may include personal characteristics (history of failure or success),
circumstances (e.g. feeling ill, fire-alarm sounded) or comparison to others. For
example, a person who has a history of failure and fails a test may make a different
attribution (such as inability) than a student who has a history of success and fails a
test (such as lack of study). Likewise, being ill or not having a chance to study may
predispose students to explain failures differently than successes, and students who
do well while others do poorly may form attributions that are different than students
who fail when others do well. Bandura (1993) has noted that self-efficacy may
influence the attribution formed. Highly efficacious people will ascribe the outcome
to their own agency, while less confident individuals will attribute the outcome to
inability.
While students may cite specific factors as attributions (e.g. ability or effort), it is
the students’ perceptions of the characteristics of those attributions which actually
influence motivation through emotions. That is, attributions possess characteristics
and those characteristics affect motivation. For example, two students may
attribute an outcome to ability. However, for one student ability may be a fixed
characteristic of the person (I’m smart or I’m stupid), while the second student
may see ability as referring to what he or she knows (I knew my stuff or I need to
learn more) rather than a fixed entity (entity versus incremental/instrumental
theorists; Dweck, 1986).
 Personal characteristics
Circumstances
Comparison to others
RERE460203.fm Page 139 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Causal
Antecedants

General emotional Behavioural consequences

Outcome Attribution Attribution characteristics Psychological consequences
response (affect)

Ability
Effort Locus of causality
Stability Pride, confidence, satisfaction Choice of tasks
Pass or fail Positive or negative affect Skill and knowledge self -esteem
Controllability Persistence
Win or lose happy or sad Teacher
Quality
Acceptance or rejection relief or dejection Luck Hopefulness, hopelessness, Cognitive Engagement
helplessness

Shame, humiliation

Figure 1. The mechanism underlying the attribution–motivation process

Understanding student motivation 139
RERE460203.fm Page 140 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

140 T. Seifert

Weiner (1984, 1985) defines attributions in terms of three characteristics or

dimensions: locus of causality (does the cause originate within the individual?; e.g.
effort), stability (is the cause stable and enduring or changing?; e.g. illness) and
controllability (is the individual able to affect the cause?; e.g. amount of study). How
students perceive causes in terms of these characteristics gives rise to emotions and
those emotions have behavioural consequences. Failure attributed to stable causes
might lead to expectations of continued failure and thus feelings of hopelessness,
while failure attributed to unstable causes might lead to uncertain expectations for
future outcomes and thus result in feelings of hopefulness. Students who attribute
success and failure to internal, controllable causes are more likely to feel pride,
satisfaction, confidence and have a higher sense of self-esteem. Consequently, these
students will choose to work on more difficult tasks, persist longer in the face of
failure, display higher levels of cognitive engagement and produce work that is of
higher quality. Students who attribute failure to internal, uncontrollable stable factors
(inability) are more likely to feel shame and humiliation and will show little effort or
cognitive engagement. Students who attribute success to external factors are not
going to experience the self-enhancing emotions of pride, satisfaction, confidence or
self-esteem.

Self-worth theory
The self-worth theory of achievement motivation attempts to explain the motivation
of some students as attempts to maintain or enhance self-worth (Covington, 1984)
and students’ behaviours can be understood in terms of protecting self-worth.
Figure 2 depicts the major premises of self-worth theory as an attempt to explain the
thinking of the failure-avoidant student.
The theory begins by postulating that people possess a sense of self-worth, and
that self-worth is a critical dimension of human functioning. Self-worth refers to the
judgement one makes about one’s sense of worth and dignity as a person. A person
who has a sense of self-worth knows that he or she is loved and respected by others
and is valued as a person. On the other hand, a person who feels unworthy is a person

Ability

Self -Worth
Performance

Perceived
effort

Affect

Figure 2. The central premises of self-worth theory

RERE460203.fm Page 141 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Understanding student motivation 141

who does not feel respected or valued by others and may feel unloved. A person
experiencing major depression may feel that he or she is utterly loathsome and
repugnant as a person, that he or she is unlovable, and may be filled with self-
contempt. A sense of self-worth is positively correlated with well-being and is essential
to the functioning of the human. Many behaviour and personality disorders are
related to loss of self-worth and most teenage suicides are precipitated by a perceived
loss in self-worth.
According to Covington (1984), there is a belief in Western culture that self-worth
is inherently connected to performance. That is, the worth of the individual is
connected to his or her ability to do something well. People who are good at
something are people who are worthy; people who are valued by others are good at
tasks that are important. In the context of school, students who can get top grades
(are smart) are deemed more worthy than those who do not do well. What counts is
being able to do really well.
In the mind of the failure-avoidant student, performance is a source of self-worth
and ability is the source of performance. High-ability students do well, low-ability
students do not. Often, the failure-avoidant student is not able to perform (that is,
do well). In the absence of actual performance, perceived ability becomes linked to
self-worth. Thus, while performance leads to self-worth and performance results from
ability, looking like one has the capability to perform becomes the means of protecting
self-worth if successful performance is not forthcoming. Perceived ability results in
self-worth and perceived inability is a threat to self-worth. In other words, the failure-
avoidant student will strive to look competent or avoid looking competent as a means
of protecting self-worth. Perceived effort becomes important because the failure-
avoidant student believes that effort is an index of ability. Smart people do not have
to try hard and people who try hard are not smart. Therefore, like ability perceptions,
effort perceptions are important.
Yet, while these perceptions are important, it is the resulting affect that is the key
to understanding motivation. Success which comes from high ability will result in
feelings of pride and self-esteem. Success which comes from low effort implies high
ability and will result in feelings of pride and self-esteem. Failure that is the result of
low effort may lead to feelings of guilt. Failure that is the result of low ability may
lead to feelings of shame and humiliation. Consequently, in self-worth theory the
critical affect mechanism is that: high effort which results in failure implies low ability
leading to feelings of shame and humiliation. According to Covington (1984), given the
choice between feeling guilty by not working and feeling shamed by working hard
and failing, students would rather feel guilty than feel shamed.
The result of this mechanism is that failure avoiding students expend a great deal
of effort trying not to look stupid by engaging in failure avoiding strategies. A failure
avoiding strategy is not, as the name suggests, a strategy designed to avoid failure.
Rather, it is a strategy designed to avoid the implication of failure, namely inability.
Failure avoiding strategies are excuses students use to protect ability perceptions in
the event of failure. They are defence mechanisms students use to protect their self-
worth (Seifert, 1997) and include such behaviours as effort withdrawal (not trying),
procrastination, maintaining a state of disorganization, setting goals too high, setting
RERE460203.fm Page 142 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

142 T. Seifert

goals too low, cheating or asking for help. By engaging in these behaviours, students
have a ready excuse to explain poor performance should it occur, an excuse other
than inability (e.g. I could have done better if I had more time to study).

Achievement goal theory

Achievement goal theory posits that students’ academic motivation can be under-
stood as attempts to achieve goals (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls
et al., 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). The premise of goal theory is that students’
behaviours are a function of desires to achieve particular goals, and research has
focused primarily upon the two dominant goals of learning (also called mastery, task)
and performance (also called ego-oriented, see Figure 3). Students pursuing mastery
goals have been described as self-regulating and self-determining (Seifert, 1997) and
their dispositions foster cognitive development. They believe that effort (or more
importantly, some internal, controllable factor) is the cause of success or failure and
intelligence is malleable (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
They also indicate a greater preference for challenge (Seifert, 1995a), engage in
more strategy use, especially deep strategy processing (Meece et al., 1988; Pintrich
& de Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Seifert, 1995b), make more positive self-
statements (Diener & Dweck, 1978), report more positive affect and less negative
affect, and are more likely to take responsibility for success and less likely to deny
responsibility for failure (Seifert, 1995b). The learning goal student is task and

Intelligence is a fixed
entity

Avoid task

Performance Maladaptive Negative self -talk

Goal Pursuit Behaviours

Negative affect Anxiety

Boredom
Desire to prove ability Dislike task
Desire to avoid looking
incompetent
Failure is a threat

Intelligence is malleable

Task-focused, problem-oriented self -talk

Learning Adaptive
Goal Pursuit Behaviours Pride
Positive affect
Satisfaction
Confidence
Self -worth

Desire to acquire knowledge Optimism

Difficult problems are a challenge
Failure means knowledge is insufficient
Effort is a means of manifesting knowledge

Figure 3. Characteristics of performance and learning goal-pursuit students

RERE460203.fm Page 143 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Understanding student motivation 143

learning orientated, processing tasks and situations in terms of challenges to be

overcome, demonstrating competence and learning new skills and knowledge.
Students pursuing performance goals, on the other hand, have been described as
being preoccupied with ability concerns. They are more concerned about how well
they perform relative to others and how others will perceive them. They are more
likely to believe that ability is the cause of success and failure, that intelligence is a
fixed entity, view difficulty problems as failure (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), engage in
less sophisticated strategy use (Nolen, 1988; Seifert, 1995b), make more negative
self-statements, attribute success to uncontrollable factors (Seifert, 1995b) and are
less likely to process information relative to previous success (Diener & Dweck,
1978). In other words, the performance goal student is self, other and failure focused,
processing information in terms of self and others. Specifically, pursuit of a perform-
ance goal is a self-protective process in which the student seeks to gain a favourable
judgement of competence or avoid an unfavourable judgement of competence
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001) and to be, or appear to be,
superior to others (Nicholls et al., 1990) or achieve an extrinsic reward such as a high
grade (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). However, what is worth noting is that the perform-
ance goal student will display adaptive behaviours if confidence is high, but will
display maladaptive behaviours if confidence is low (Dweck, 1986).
Sporadically, researchers have suggested the possibility of a work avoidance goal as
distinct from learning and performance goals (Nicholls et al., 1990; Elliot & Harac-
kiewicz, 1996; Seifert et al., 1996; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001; Jarvis & Seifert, 2002).
Students pursuing a work avoidance goal have been described as those who consis-
tently avoid putting in effort to do well, do only the minimum necessary to get by
and avoid challenging tasks. Recent research suggests that students pursuing work
avoidance goals tend to perceive their work as lacking meaning, may feel less compe-
tent than students pursuing learning goals and may have a greater tendency to make
external attributions than learning goal students (Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001).
Several reasons why students may be work avoidant have been suggested (Jarvis &
Seifert, 2002). One reason students may engage in work avoidance is that they are
failure-avoidant or learned-helplessness students (Covington, 1984; Jarvis & Seifert,
2002). Failure-avoidant students do not do the work because the work is a threat to
ability perceptions or self-worth. Students who are learned helpless do not do the
work because they do not feel capable of doing the work.
Students may also be work avoidant if they feel capable of doing the work but see
no reason for doing it. They find little challenge, stimulation, satisfaction or meaning
in the work they do and, consequently, only do enough work to get by.
Work avoidance may also emerge as a passive-aggressive mechanism (Jarvis &
Seifert, 2002). In this mechanism, students do not perform the work for the teacher
because the student is withholding effort as a means of seeking revenge. The student
is harbouring feelings of resentment and hostility towards the teacher because he/she
feels embarrassed by the teacher or has been treated unfairly by the teacher, or for
some other reason the student does not like the teacher. Consequently, the student
withholds effort as an attempt to either seek revenge or otherwise exert some sort of
control over the teacher by foiling the teacher’s plans by not cooperating.
RERE460203.fm Page 144 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

144 T. Seifert

Reconstructing motivation theory

Self-efficacy theory posits that students who believe themselves to be capable are
more likely to be motivated; those who believe themselves incapable will not be
motivated. This explanation is apparent when we witness a child exclaim ‘I can do
that!’ and readily attack the task at hand, or when we witness a child proclaim ‘I can’t
do that’ and refuse to attempt the task.
Yet, we must also admit that the self-efficacy explanation is unsatisfactory on two
accounts. First, while it may seem sensible enough to say that students who perceive
themselves incapable will not be motivated to learn, it is not necessarily the case that
students who are not motivated to learn see themselves as incapable. This point is
evidenced by the bright but bored underachieving student who does the minimum
amount of work necessary to achieve some minimally acceptable standard. Such a
student may feel capable but attaches no value to effort beyond the minimum.
Second, we may have witnessed children proclaim ‘I can’t do that’, but proceed to
attempt the problem anyway. A child may state that they do not know how to do
something, but that perception of incapability may not necessarily hinder the child,
perhaps because that child is using the claim as a self-protective mechanism or sees
the problem as a challenge to be tackled.
However, if we view motivation as an attempt to protect self-worth, then we can
provide a more powerful explanation than self-efficacy theory. Self-worth is intimately
connected with performance for many students and doing well is important to one’s
sense of worth and dignity. Yet, if students cannot perform well, they seek ways to
make it appear as though they could have succeeded. In other words, no matter what
else occurs, they do not wish to look incompetent. Consequently, if students perceive
themselves incapable of performing well (low self-efficacy), they may become moti-
vated to protect perceptions of competency, for if they can convince themselves and
others they could do well, they will be able to maintain some sense of worth or dignity.
For example, imagine the situation in which a student has been given a test to
complete. After reading the questions, the student realizes that the test is difficult.
Instead of trying to answer the questions, the student fools around, failing the test.
Afterwards, the teacher admonishes the student by saying that with some effort the
student could have passed. This is a highly desirable outcome because the student
and the teacher have blamed the failure on lack of effort, leaving the student’s
perception of competency and self-worth unthreatened (for now). Thus, rather than
exert a direct influence, self-efficacy interacts with other characteristics to influence
motivation.
Yet, if some students are acting to protect self-worth, are they also pursuing
performance goals? The definitions and descriptions of performance goal pursuit
suggest that students pursuing performance goals (e.g. Dweck, 1986) are essentially
the same as the failure-avoidant student, described by Covington (1984). The student
is motivated by a desire to protect ability perceptions by proving one’s self or avoiding
appearances of incompetence, and both types of students engage in similar behav-
iours to achieve those ends.
What underlies performance goal pursuit and failure-avoidant behaviour is the
RERE460203.fm Page 145 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Understanding student motivation 145

belief that success and failure are the result of ability as a fixed entity. In other words,
students believe that academic outcomes are the result of an internal, stable, uncon-
trollable entity and their own judgements of that entity give rise to emotions and
behaviours. Thus, while many see attributions as occurring after the outcome and are
products of tasks and circumstances, it is constructive also to consider attributions
as beliefs students hold about the causes of success and failure prior to commencing
a task. Beliefs about ability, both its nature (Dweck, 1986) and levels of competence
(Bandura, 1993), influence goal pursuit.
From the preceding argument, it would appear that self-perceptions of competence
and a sense of agency (attribution patterns) are central to understanding motivation,
and self-assuredness and agency are the cornerstones of students’ behaviour (Seifert,
1996, 1997). Recent work has shown that perceptions of competence and control are
predictive of learning goal, performance goal and work-avoidant pursuit (Seifert,
1996, 1997; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001). Students who feel confident, have a sense of
agency and perceive meaning in their academic work will pursue learning goals. As
confidence and sense of agency begin to wane, students may begin to engage in failure
or work-avoidant behaviours (Seifert, 1997; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001). If perceived
meaning drops, work avoidance behaviours may increase (Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001;
Jarvis & Seifert, 2002).
This line of work is based upon the premise that students’ behaviours are, in part,
guided by emotional responses to tasks and task conditions. Given a particular task
in some situation, students generate an affective response prompting them to engage
in certain behaviours. In other words, students exhibit patterns of beliefs and
emotions which serve to direct behaviour. When presented with a task, students make
judgements about the task and respond emotionally based upon task and personal
characteristics. It is those emotions which dictate subsequent behaviour or motivation
(Boekarts, 1993; Seifert, 1997; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001).
Emotions have played an important role in major, contemporary cognitive psycho-
logical theories of motivation. Weiner (1984, 1985) argued that emotions are moti-
vational catalysts—feelings of helplessness, hopefulness, pride, guilt—which arise
from attributions and influence subsequent behaviour. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory
(1977) postulates that feelings of competency or agency determine the quality of task
engagement—i.e. high levels of self-efficacy lead to high-quality task engagement,
while threats to perceived competence give rise to failure-avoidant behaviour
(Covington, 1984). Dweck (1986) pointed out that students who feel confident will
engage in mastery-like behaviour, while a perceived threat to competency will lead
to performance-oriented, helpless behaviours.
While research suggests that affect may, in part, drive students’ behaviours,
research has also consistently described recurring patterns of beliefs, affect and
behaviours. In trying to understand motivation, these patterns of behaviour may be
central to advancing our understanding of human behaviour in the academic context,
and it seems that affect does play a central role in these patterns. For most of these
patterns, perceptions of competence, agency and perceived meaning are critical.
The first pattern evident from research is the mastery pattern. This pattern is
synonymous with Dweck’s (1986) mastery goal-pursuit pattern and Covington’s
RERE460203.fm Page 146 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

146 T. Seifert

(1984) success orientation or intrinsic motivation. Students characterized by this

pattern tend to display positive affect, flexible and adaptive strategy use, and deep
cognitive engagement in the task. They will tend to persist at difficult problems and
learn from their mistakes.
What drives the mastery pattern is a strong sense of self. Mastery students have a
sense of competence and self-determination that gives rise to mastery goal pursuit
(Bandura, 1993; Seifert, 1997; Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001). These students are confi-
dent in their capabilities to do the work (high self-efficacy) and believe that they are
‘masters of their fate’. That is, they have a strong sense of control and tend to make
internal, controllable attributions for success and failure and are unlikely to make
external attributions for success or failure.
A second pattern of behaviour is that of failure avoidance. This pattern, synonymous
with Dweck’s (1986) performance orientation, is characterized by less sophisticated
strategy use, a tendency not to process information related to success and to make
more negative self-statements.
What drives the failure avoidance behaviour appears to be a desire to maintain
ability perceptions and protect self-worth. These students are self, other and failure
focused as they try to maintain ability perceptions. Also, these students tend to make
internal, stable, uncontrollable attributions for success and failure. Consequently,
they tend to believe that outcomes are beyond their control. As students experience
a decline in confidence and agency they begin to adopt failure avoiding behaviours
in an attempt to minimize threats to self-worth.
A third pattern is that of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is characterized
by an unwillingness on the part of the student to engage in tasks because he or she
believes that effort is futile and failure is imminent. The student believes that the
outcomes are beyond his or her control, and, regardless of one’s actions, the outcome
is the same. Helpless students tend to make internal, stable, uncontrollable attribu-
tions for failure but tend to make external attributions for success. They blame
themselves for failure but do not take credit for success. They experience much shame
and humiliation, boredom and hopelessness.
At the heart of learned helplessness is a conviction that one is totally incompetent,
and a loss of any sense of agency. The learned helpless person is convinced that he/
she is utterly useless and incapable of effecting any positive change. Unlike the
mastery student who sees himself or herself as an agent, life just happens to the
learned helpless student.
Students who are work avoidant because they are bright but bored constitute a
fourth pattern. While students who are failure avoidant or learned helpless may find
their work boring, students who are in the bright but bored group tend to believe
themselves capable of doing the work. However, these students perceive their work
to have little meaning. Consequently, the bright but bored student is work avoidant
and will do only the work necessary to get by.
Compared to mastery students, students who are bright but bored feel themselves
capable of doing the work but exhibit greater externality. That is, while they are
confident they take less control over their learning. This could, in part, be one reason
why they are bored. The mastery student might seek out ways to make academic
RERE460203.fm Page 147 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Understanding student motivation 147

content meaningful, while the bright but bored work-avoidant student expects the
content to be made meaningful for them.
A fifth pattern of behaviour could be called the passive-aggressive or hostile
work-avoidant patterns. This pattern has received little or no attention in the moti-
vational literature, but some evidence has emerged which suggests that it does exist
(Jarvis & Seifert, 2002). The hostile work-avoidant student is characterized by
minimal or no effort as an attempt to seek revenge on the teacher. For some
reason, the student is angry with the teacher and is withholding effort as a means
of expressing that wrath. While little is understood about this type of student in the
academic context, literature from clinical studies of passive aggression suggest that
these students may tend to make external attributions and, therefore, feel they have
little control.

Conclusion
It is suggested that students’ motivation may be thought of as patterns of behaviour
and affect. Although five patterns have been described, undoubtedly more exist.
However, these five patterns would probably describe most students and address the
concerns of many teachers. It should also be pointed out that these patterns are in
addition to, and do not take account of, problems that may arise because of person-
ality or behaviour disorders.
Of interest to teachers and researchers would be the pivotal role that feelings of
competence and control play. The patterns of behaviour described in this paper may
be characterized in terms of those feelings, or loss of those feelings. While it is
reasonable to expect that other emotions may influence behaviour, competence and
autonomy (control, self-determination) are critical. For students to develop into
healthy, adaptive and constructive individuals, it is imperative to foster feelings of
competence and control. Previous research has suggested that the teacher–student
interaction is the critical factor in fostering a sense of competence and autonomy
(Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Perceived meaning is important in motivated behaviour. The mastery student is
able to find meaning in the work. If students do not find the work meaningful and
tend to make external attributions, then work avoidance may develop. To this point,
however, little attention has been paid to meaning in studies of academic motivation.
Yet, we can make a couple of claims about meaning. If students do not understand
what it is they are supposed to do, then they may not be able to find meaning in their
work. If the topic does not make sense, they may not be able to discern the relevance
of the topic. Likewise, if students do not feel capable of understanding the topic, they
may not find the work meaningful.
Consequently, there are a number of implications for teachers. First, teachers need
to communicate to students the objectives of the lesson—what it is the students
should learn. Doing so may enhance the students’ self-efficacy for the task at hand
by helping students feel confident in their work (Schunk, 1982; Ames, 1994).
Teachers may also consider how to promote autonomy and self-direction in the
classroom because how teachers construct classroom environments may impact on
RERE460203.fm Page 148 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

148 T. Seifert

students’ perceptions of competence and autonomy in the classroom (Boggianno &

Katz, 1991; Ames, 1993; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Ultimately, though, the critical factor in the learning process may be how the
teacher and students interact. Teachers who are perceived as being nurturing,
supportive and helpful will be developing in students a sense of confidence and self-
determination which will be translated into the learning-oriented behaviours of the
intrinsically motivated student (Seifert & O’Keefe, 2001).

References
Ames, C. (1993) Classrooms: goals, structures and student motivation, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning, Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Boekarts, M. (1993) Being concerned with well-being and with learning, Educational Psychologists,
28, 149–167.
Boggianno, A. & Katz, P. (1991) Maladaptive achievement patterns in students: the role of teachers’
controlling strategies, Journal of Social Issues, 47, 35–51.
Covington, M. (1984) The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: findings and implications,
Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.
Diener, C. & Dweck, C. (1978) An analysis of learned helplessness: continuous changes in
performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 451–462.
Dweck, C. (1986) Motivation processes affecting learning, American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. & Leggett, E. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality,
Psychological Review, 95, 265–273.
Elliott, A. & Harackiewicz, J. (1966) Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: a mediational analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Jarvis, S. & Seifert, T. (2002) Work avoidance as a manifestation of hostility, helplessness or
boredom, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48, 174–187.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Hoyle, R. (1988) Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement
in classroom activities, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Nicholls, J., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. & Patashnick, M. (1990) Assessing students’ theories of
success in mathematics: individual and classroom differences, Journal of Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 21, 109–122.
Nicholls, J., Patashnick, M. & Nolen, S. B. (1985) Adolescents’ theories of education, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692.
Nolen, S. (1988) Reasons for studying: motivational orientations and study strategies, Cognition
and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Pintrich, P. & De Groot, E. (1990) Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. & Garcia, T. (1991) Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college class-
room, in: M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds) Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 7
(Greenwich, CT, JAI Press).
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000) When rewards compete with nature: the undermining of intrinsic
motivation and self-regulation, in: C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz (Eds) Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: the search for optimal performance (New York, Academic Press).
Schunk, D. (1984) Self-efficacy perspective on achievement, Educational Psychologist, 19, 48–58.
Schunk, D. (1985) Self-efficacy and classroom learning, Psychology in Schools, 22, 208–223.
RERE460203.fm Page 149 Tuesday, June 1, 2004 9:50 AM

Understanding student motivation 149

Seifert, T. L. (1995a) Characteristics of ego- and task-oriented students: a comparison of two

methodologies, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 125–138.
Seifert, T. (1995b) Academic goals and emotions: a test of two models, Journal of Psychology, 129,
543–552.
Seifert, T. L. (1996) Considerations on motivation: self-assuredness and agency, New Morning
Watch, 24, 1–2.
Seifert, T. L. (1997) Academic goals and emotions: results of a structural equation model and
cluster analysis, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 323–338.
Seifert, T. & O’Keefe, B. (2001) The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals to perceived
competency, externality and meaning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 81–92.
Seifert, T., Schulz, H. & Davis, M. (1996) Defining student goal orientations: a factor analysis. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Educational Researchers’ Association of the
Canadian Society for the Study of Education, St Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada, May.
Weiner, B. (1984) Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application with an
attributional framework, Research on Motivation in Education: Student Motivation, 6, 15–38.
Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion, Psychological
Review, 92, 548–573.