Motivation Theories

Introduction
Motivation has been defined as a desire or disposition to engage and persist in a task. When a student wants
to read a book on the learning theories, we can say that he or she is motivated to learn about educational
psychology and teaching. Motivation thus refers to a state of being moved to do something, a movement that
drives a person’s behavior. Students without motivation feel no impetus or inspiration to learn a new
behavior and will not engage in any learning activities.
Educational researchers have long recognized the role of motivation in learning and have studied motivation
from various perspectives. Their efforts have produced a rich basis of motivation theories. Early motivation
theories reflected the traditional behaviorism approach, an approach that considered the basis of motivation
to be rewards and punishments. Other theories looked at drives and needs. Over the last 30 years, however,
researchers have studied motivation primarily from a social cognitive approach. This approach focuses on
individuals’ beliefs and contextual factors that influence motivation. This course provides a brief overview
of the major social-cognitive theories of motivation and discusses how the theories have informed the field
of instructional design technology. The course concludes by introducing several technology examples
designed to enhance student motivation.
Theories of Motivation
Expectancy-value Theory
Expectancy-value theory suggests that the two most immediate predictors of achievement behaviors are
expectancies for success and task value beliefs (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Expectancies for success refer to
students’ beliefs of whether they will do well on an upcoming task (Wigfield, 1992). The more students
expect to succeed at a task, the more motivated they are to engage with it. Such beliefs are closely related to
but conceptually distinguished from ability beliefs. Ability beliefs are defined as students’ evaluations of
their current competence at a given task. Ability beliefs are concerned with present ability whereas
expectancies for success are concerned with future potential.
Task value answers the question, “Why should I do this task?” There are four possible answers to the
question: intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and cost (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Intrinsic
value is pure enjoyment a student feels from performing a task. When they are intrinsically interested in it,
students are willing to become involved in a given task. Attainment value refers to the importance of doing
well on a task. Tasks are perceived important when they reflect the important aspects of one’s self. Utility
value is the perception that a task will be useful for meeting future goals, for instance, taking an English
class to travel abroad. The last component of task value, cost, refers to what an individual has to give up to
engage in a task or the effort needed to accomplish the task. If the cost is too high, students will be less
likely to engage in a given task. For instance, students may not decide to take an extra course when they
need to reduce the hours of their part-time job.
Numerous studies have shown that students’ expectancies for success and subjective task values positively
influenced achievement behaviors and outcomes For example, Bong (2001) reported that college students’
perceived competence was a significant predictor of their performance. Also, students’ perceived utility
predicted future enrollment intentions.
Self-efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs in their ability to perform a course of action required to achieve a
specific task (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is one of the strongest factors that drive one’s motivation. When
students believe that they are competent to successfully accomplish a task, they are more motivated to
engage in and complete the task. Numerous studies have shown that, compared to low-efficacy learners,
high-efficacy students choose to engage in more challenging tasks, work harder, persist longer in the face of
difficulties, and perform better (Bandura) The concept of self-efficacy is similar to expectancies for success
in expectancy-value theory. Both refer to the individuals’ judgments of their competence to accomplish an
 upcoming task. One difference is that self-efficacy conceptually represents a task-specific view of perceived
competence, whereas expectancies for success tend to be domain specific (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For
example, self-efficacy would not merely be a self-judgment of being good at mathematics but rather feeling
competent at correctly subtracting fractions. Despite such conceptual differences, self-efficacy and
expectancies for success are often used interchangeably. Bandura (1997) also noted that self-efficacy is
different from self-confidence. Self-confidence is a belief about a person’s general capability that is not
related to a specific subject. In spite of demonstrations of high self-confidence, a person can fail to
accomplish a specific task.
According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy can be gauged through four sources—past performance,
modeling, verbal persuasion, and psychological states. The strongest factor influencing self-efficacy is past
experience with similar tasks. Successful performance on similar tasks enhances self-efficacy while failure
experience lowers it. Self-efficacy can also be increased when one observes similar peers accomplishing
similar tasks. Such experiences develop expectations that one can do the same thing as another person can.
Although limited in its effectiveness, self-efficacy can be enhanced when a trustworthy person, such as a
teacher, persuades or encourages students to try a challenging task. Finally, emotional states, such as
anxiety, and bodily symptoms, such as sweating, can influence self-efficacy by signaling that students are
not capable of accomplishing the task. These four sources of self-efficacy information do not directly
influence individuals’ beliefs of competence. Individuals make their own interpretations of the events, and
these interpretations form the basis for self-efficacy beliefs.
Goals and Goal Orientations
Goal setting is a key motivational process (Locke & Latham, 1984). Goals are the outcome that a person is
trying to accomplish. People engage in activities that are believed to lead to goal attainment. As learners
pursue multiple goals such as academic goals and social goals, goal choice and the level at which learners
commit to attaining the goals influence their motivation to learn (Locke & Latham, 2006).
Besides goal content (i.e., what a person wants to achieve), the reason that a person tries to achieve a certain
goal also has a significant influence on learning and performance. Goal orientations refer to the reasons or
purposes for engaging in learning activities and explain individuals’ different ways of approaching and
responding to achievement situations (Ames & Archer, 1988. The two most basic goal orientations are
mastery and performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1988).
In addition to the basic distinction between mastery and performance goals, performance goal orientations
have been further differentiated into performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot &
Church, 1997). Performance-approach goals represent individuals motivated to outperform others and
demonstrate their superiority, whereas a performance-avoidance goal orientation refers to those who are
motivated to avoid negative judgments and appearing inferior to others.
Table 1. The model of goal orientations
Mastery Goal Performance Goal
Focus on mastery of learning Focus on outperforming others

Approach
Learn from errors Errors indicative of failure
Focus
Judge performance based on standards of self- Judge performance based on normative standar
improvement and progress performer
Focus on avoiding failure
Focus on avoiding not mastering task

Avoidance
Errors indicative of failure
Focus Errors indicative of failure
Judge performance based on normative standa
Judge performance based on standards of not being wrong
worst performer
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory considers the source of people’s motivation to be their perception of why they succeeded
or failed. The theory assumes that people try to understand causal determinants of their own success and
failures (Weiner, 1986). For example, people may attribute their success (or failure) to ability, effort, luck,
task difficulty, mood, fatigue, and so on. These perceived causes of outcomes are called attributions
(Weiner, 1986). Attributions may or may not be actual causes, and regardless of actual causes of the event,
the perceived causes are what drive individuals’ motivation and behaviors.
The conceptual classification of causes for success and failure based on the three dimensions is central to the
attribution theory of motivation because each dimension is related to a set of motivational, affective, and
behavioral consequences. Locus of causality, for example, influences learners’ self-esteem and esteem-
related emotions (Weiner, 1986). When a successful outcome is attributed to internal causes (e.g., ability,
effort) and not external causes (e.g., luck), the students are more likely to take pride in the success and their
self-esteem tends to be heightened. On the other hand, failure attributed to internal causes usually results in
feelings of shame or guilt and a lowering of self-esteem.
The stability dimension influences individuals’ expectancy for future success (Weiner, 1986). If success is
attributed to a stable cause, one will expect to have the same outcome in the future. Failure attributed to a
stable cause (e.g., low ability) will lower one’s expectancy for future success unless he or she believes the
ability can and will increase. Attribution for failure to an unstable cause (e.g., “I did not try hard enough”)
allows students to expect the outcome could change—as long as they put forth enough effort, they could
succeed next time.
The controllability dimension is also related to self-directed emotions (Weiner, 1986). When failure is
attributed to a controllable cause (e.g., effort), one is likely to experience guilt and the desire to alter the
situation. One will experience a feeling of shame or humiliation when failure is attributed to causes that are
internal and uncontrollable (e.g., low ability). When attribution for failure is made to the causes that are
external and uncontrollable, one is likely to feel helpless and depressed because he or she believes that
nothing can change the situation. Thus, failure attribution to uncontrollable causes tends to decrease
motivation and engagement.
Self-determination Theory
Self-determination theory focuses on different orientations of motivation that influence the quality of
engagement (Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to the theory, motivation can differ not only in strength but
also in orientation. The orientations of motivation refer to the different reasons that give rise to an
inclination for an individual to do something. Students can be motivated to learn a new skill because they
gain their parents’ approval or because learning the skills is necessary for their dream job. Based on the
orientations of motivation, the theory categorizes motivation into several types.
The two basic types of motivation are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation refers to a disposition to engage in a task for one’s inner pleasure. An example of
intrinsic motivation is a student reading a history textbook for fun. It is human nature for people to engage in
activities that they are intrinsically interested in. Intrinsic motivation often leads to high levels of
engagement and performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
). Relatedness refers to the inherent desire to experience a feeling of being connected to others. The need for
relatedness is satisfied by feeling respected and cared for.
Although it is clear that intrinsic motivation promotes learning, most learning activities are not intrinsically
interesting to students. Students are often motivated to engage in an activity because it is instrumental to
some outcomes separated from the activity itself, which indicates extrinsic motivation. An example of
extrinsic motivation is a student who reads psychopedagogy handouts for the exam in order to get good
grades. In general, it is understood that because an action enacted by extrinsic motivation is controlled by an
external factor, it leads to less productive learning.

Self-determination theory is unique in that it differentiates the construct of extrinsic motivation. The theory
explains how to motivate students to carry out learning tasks that are not inherently interesting. The theory
specifies three psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—as the basis for sustaining
intrinsic motivation and more self-determined extrinsic motivation. To the extent that students internalize
and integrate external regulations and values, they experience greater autonomy and demonstrate high-
quality engagement in learning activities.
Individual and Situational Interest
The most well-known antecedent of motivation is probably interest. We often see students saying that they
do not learn because classes are boring and they are not interested in the topic. While we generally refer to
“feeling of enjoyment” as interest in everyday language, researchers have differentiated interest into two
types—individual (personal) and situational. Individual interest is a relatively enduring and internally driven
disposition of the person that involves enjoyment and willingness to reengage with a certain object over time
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006); conceptualized individual interest as including both positive feelings (e.g.,
enjoyment) and the value-related belief that the object is personally important. Situational interest, on the
other hand, refers to a temporary psychological state aroused by contextual features in the learning situation
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Schiefele, 2009). When a student is lured by a catchy title to a news article, his or
her interest is triggered by the environmental stimuli. Individual interest can also be supported by a
particular situation, but it continues to be present without the situational cues.
Keller’s Arcs Model
The shared attributes of the different motivational concepts constitute the acronym
ARCS, attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction, representing Keller’s four categories of learner
motivation (Keller, 2010). The ARCS model describes strategies for stimulating and sustaining motivation
in each of the four categories as well as a systematic process of motivational design.
The first category, attention, is related to stimulating and maintaining learners’ interests. Learner’s attention
is required before any learning can take place. This attention should also be sustained in order to keep
learners focused and engaged. Keller (2010) describes three categories of attention-getting strategies:
perceptual arousal, inquiry arousal, and variability. Perceptual arousal refers to capturing interest by
arousing learners’ senses and emotions. This construct is conceptually similar to triggered situational interest
in Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) development of interest. Likewise, perceptual arousal is usually transitory.
One of the most common ways to provoke perceptual arousal is making an unexpected change in the
environment. Example tactics include a change in light, a sudden pause, and presenting a video after text-
based information in an online learning environment. Inquiry arousal, similar to the construct of maintained
situational interest, refers to a cognitive level of curiosity. Students are cognitively attracted to learning
materials, for instance, when they contain paradoxical facts. Variability concerns variation in instructional
methods. No matter how effective motivational tactics are, they lose their potency when used unvaryingly.
The second category, relevance, refers to making the learning experience personally relevant or meaningful.
According to the goal theory, students engage in learning activities that help to attain their goals (Locke &
Latham, 1984). Also, as described in expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory, the perceived
value of task is a critical antecedent of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). One way
to establish the perceived relevance of the learning materials is to use authentic or real-world examples and
assignments. Simply relating the instruction to what is familiar to learners (e.g., prior knowledge) can also
help learners to perceive its relevance.
The confidence category is pertinent to self-efficacy and expectancies for success of the expectancy-value
theory. According to self-determination theory, the feeling of competence is one of the basic human needs
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). If the learners’ need for competence is not satisfied during learning, they would
develop low expectancies for success and demonstrate low self-efficacy, which results in poor motivation to
learn (Bandura, 1997; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Strategies to enhance self-efficacy, such as experience of
success, can be applied in order to build confidence in instruction. Another way to enhance confidence is to
foster learners’ belief that they have control over their performance. Autonomy support such as providing
choices and making internal, controllable attributions are a few examples.
The last category, satisfaction, concerns learner’s continued motivation to learn. If they experience
satisfying outcomes, students are likely to develop a persistent desire to learn (Skinner, 1963). Satisfying or
positive consequences of instruction can result from both extrinsic and intrinsic matters (Ryan & Deci,
2000). High grades, certificates, and other tangible rewards are the most common extrinsic outcomes.
However, these extrinsic rewards may not always result in feelings of satisfaction. For example, a student is
not pleased at the high score that he or she received on a final exam because the test was extremely easy and
most students did well. If the extrinsic rewards fail to fulfill learners’ inner needs, students won’t be
satisfied. Such intrinsic consequences that lead to satisfaction include a feeling of mastery and the pleasure
of accomplishing a challenging task.