This learning module aims to increase the knowledge and understanding of motivation for learning among educators working across settings. It sets out to provide a general overview of academic motivation as well as four motivation theories that have been extensively studied in the field of education. Finally, it presents two models of motivational design that put the theories discussed into practice.

Target learners for this module are individuals who are responsible for the design of learning environments. Because the target learners for this module are anticipated to be working professionally in an educational or instructional field, it is assumed that learners will have a general knowledge and understanding of the major learning theories, including behaviorism, cognitivism/constructivism, and social cognitive/sociocultural learning theory. At the conclusion of this learning module, you will be able to

1. Name four major theories of academic motivation.
2. Describe the key concepts explained in each of the four theories of academic motivation presented in this learning module.
3. Apply motivational learning design models grounded in academic motivation theory.
4. Compare and contrast the key concepts that are described in each of the four motivational theories presented in this learning module.
5. Evaluate your own instructional practice for motivational design.
6. Revise pedagogical practices and curriculum to incorporate motivational theory and motivational design concepts.

The module is divided into six self-paced “Updates,” or lessons, each of which includes reading, short video lectures, and three learning activities that will be assessed throughout the module. Because the majority of the content is delivered and the required learning activities are submitted online, you will need access to an Internet-connected device, preferably a laptop, to complete this module. Your facilitator may schedule virtual class meetings to discuss the module content or may facilitate this course without the expectation of live, virtual participation. This learning module is anticipated to require roughly 3-4 hours per week for approximately 6-8 weeks to complete.

Thank you for enrolling in Motivation for Learning! The purpose of this pre-course survey is to learn more about your current knowledge of academic motivation concepts and theories to give your facilitator additional information with which to support and scaffold all learners in this course. This survey is not a test, and it is not graded. However, completing this survey is a requirement and will contribute to your course Analytics score.

Study of Innovative Motivational Practices in Education

The purpose of this peer-reviewed project is to investigate the application of motivational theories and concepts as applied to education settings. “Case studies are stories that are used as a teaching tool to show the application of a theory or concept to real situations” (Center for Teaching, n.d.) To achieve this, identify a motivational problem or dilemma from your own experience or from scholarly sources and research the scholarly literature for how theories or concepts presented in this course have been applied to address the identified problem or dilemma. In this work, you will analyze instructional interventions based on academic motivation theory.

You will submit a first draft of your project for peer-review. After you have reviewed your peers' feedback and revised your work, you will complete a self-review before submitting your final draft. 

Project Requirements

Your work should clearly connect with the ideas presented in this learning module.

Minimum length is 2,000 words.

Your work should include at least 5 multimedia elements, including videos, illustrations, diagrams, infographics, attached PDFs, or other digital media. Each multimedia elements should be cited and referenced in your reference list, and its relevance to the discussion should be clearly described.

Your work should, at minimum, include the following main section:

• Introduction—In your introduction, you should identify the motivational problem dilemma you’ve chosen to investigate, describe if this is a motivational challenge you’ve experienced in your own setting or if it is a new challenge you’d like to learn more about, and what your study questions are.
• Review of relevant theories and concepts—Citing your scholarly sources, explain how your selected theory or concepts work. Explain the important elements of the theory.
• Application of the theory or concepts studied in the literature—This is the main part of your analysis. Citing scholarly sources, explain how your selected theory or concepts have been applied in educational settings and summarize the conclusions drawn from the literature.
• Critiques and/or limitations—Were there any critiques of the motivational intervention or application of theory described in your sources. If you were to implement the motivational intervention in your classroom, what would you do differently?
• Conclusion—In your conclusion, reflect on your own educational practice and explain how you would implement the motivational intervention in your specific context.

Peer-Review and Self-Review Rubric

Each of the six updates included in this module conclude with specific learning activities. For each update, you will be asked to contribute to the learning community in three ways:

• Post a response to a prompt for each update as a comment (6 total). In addition, you are encouraged to read the responses of other learners and engage in dialogue, reacting to their posts and sharing your own perspectives, experiences, and ideas.
• Create your own update that demonstrates what you have learned in that week’s update (5 total are required). Each update will include a prompt for you to reflect on, but the topic is your choice.
• Post a comment on at least three other learners’ updates for that week that respond to their work and invites a dialogue among learners (15 total are required).

In addition, you will complete a peer-reviewed project discussed in a separate update.

This learning module uses the learning analytics available in the CGScholar platform. You can learn more about CGScholar’s Analytics Dashbard in the video below. Your progress in this learning module will be available to you as you complete each of the assignments discussed above, as well as used for assessment and course evaluation purposes. Your achievements in this module will be assessed as follows:

• Completion of the comment, update, and discussion activities for each update—25%
• Completion of the assigned peer-reviews of the final, peer-reviewed project—25%
• Completion of the final peer-reviewed project—50%

As the course progresses, you will be able to track your progress within CGScholar by selecting the Analytics tab. For more information on the CGSCholar Analytics dashboard, please watch the video below. 

Analytics Explained. Source: Olnancy T, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e9Q9UdKaiU

Motivating students in learning environments is a continual challenge for educators, although it is critically important (Koenka, 2020; Schurmann, Gaschler, & Quaiser-Pohl, 2021). “Motivation can broadly be described as what gets people to do what they do. It is a topic of relevance in the school context because processes underlying the initiation and maintenance as well as the quality of people’s actions are crucial for learning and achievement” (Schurmann et al., 2021, p. 740).

Academic motivation is “the process whereby goal-directed [academic] activity is instigated and sustained” (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014, p. 5). However, supporting the motivation of students of any age to expend effort toward learning outcomes remains challenging for educators and learning designers across settings (Koenka, 2020). Koenka (2020) argues that teacher support for learner motivation is critically important for two primary reasons: (a) student motivation is critical for undertaking achievement-related behaviors and (b) it is an important outcome in its own right because educators strive to create learning environments that lead students to enjoy and value learning so they become lifelong learners.

Understanding what factors influence motivation can help educators develop strategies to leverage motivational theories and incorporate practices that support learner motivation in their own classroom practices and curricula.

As an introduction to this learning module, Video 1-1 presents a broad overview of motivational support for learning, and Video 1-2 introduces the concept of mindset, which is relevant for each of the remaining Updates in this module. The essential reading below provides a more comprehensive overview of motivation for learning.

Video 1-1. What Motivates Students? Source: Bryan’s English Club, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfqXbET3nM

Video 1-2. The Power of Yet. Source: TEDx Talks, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-swZaKN2Ic

Essential Reading

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Math. (2018). Motivation to learn. In How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783

Motivation_20to_20Learn_20-_20How_20People_20Learn_20II.pdf

Share Your Thinking (comment on this Update; minimum 50 words): How do the major learning theories of behaviorism, brain developmentalism (cognitivism and constructivism), and social-cognitive learning consider motivation? How do these theories attempt to explain what motivates individuals to learn?

Share Your Learning (create your own Update; minimum 200 words): Search online for an article, video, podcast episode, or other media that discusses academic motivation or motivation to learn. In your Update, describe the concept and discuss how understanding of the concept can be applied in practice. Some suggested topics are listed below, or introduce a new concept and share with your peers. 

• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
• Stereotype Threat
• Self-handicapping
• Procrastination
• Growth vs. Fixed Mindset
• Grit
• Trait vs. State
• Controlled Motivation vs. Autonomous Motivation
• Performance Goals vs. Mastery Goals
• Learned helplessness

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 of your peers' Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ Updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?

Attributional theories of motivation seek to answer the question of “why” an individual behaves a particular way, and thus are retrospective, beginning with an outcome (Graham, 2020). In this way, it is a theory concerned with the causality of behavior. Following an event or outcome, an individual seeks to understand why that outcome occurred (Graham, 2020). Attribution theory was initially described by Fritz Heider (1958), who is credited with describing two orientations to the causal perceptions individuals have following an event:

• Dispositional attribution—the cause of an event or outcome is internal to the self. For example, “I received a bad grade on this assignment because I didn’t work hard enough (or I’m not smart enough).”
• Situational attribution—the cause of an event or outcome is external to the self. For example, “I received a bad grade on this assignment because the instructions weren’t clear (or the teacher doesn’t like me, or the instructor didn’t provide enough time to complete the assignment).”

As it relates to learning, “Attribution theory is concerned with the perceived causes of success and failure” (Graham, 2020). Widely credited to Bernard Weiner (1986), the development of attribution theory toward achievement motivation focused, primarily, on ability versus effort. According to Weiner (1986, p. 159), “some attributions, particularly ability and effort in the achievement area, dominate causal thinking.” Weiner is credited with organizing Heider’s initial ideas into a unified theory of attribution, depicted in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1.1. Attribution Theory. Source: Graham, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861

Process of Attribution

Weiner posited that attribution of success or failure resulted from a three-step process (InstructionalDesign.org, n.d.):

1. Behavior is observed.
2. Behavior is determined to be deliberate.
3. Behavior is attributed to internal or external causes.

Causal Ascriptions

Causal ascriptions are the attributes individuals use to explain the cause of a behavior or outcome. In addition to the primary attributes of ability and effort, there are many more possible causes for an outcome, including “task difficulty, luck, mood, and help or hindrance from others” (Graham, 2020).

Causal Dimensions

Weiner’s elaboration on Heider’s initial concepts identifies three dimensions of attribution: locus, stability, and controllability.

• Locus of control—Similar to Heider’s proposition of attributional orientations and most closely associated with Julian Rotter (1966), locus of control is related to an individual’s perception of whether a particular outcome was due to internal or external factors. “Ability and effort are similar in locus, both being internal to the actor. In addition, they differ from causes such as chance or task difficulty, which are considered to be located in the environment, external to the actor” (Graham, 2020).
• Stability—This dimension of attribution is related to whether a cause is “constant or changing over time. Some causes, including ability, are viewed as stable over time. On the other hand, chance or luck fluctuates over time and is therefore unstable. Effort also is typically regarded as unstable, although labeling oneself or others as lazy or industrious implies stability in effort expenditure” (Graham, 2020).
• Controllability—This dimension relates to volition, or whether an individual is able to control the cause of a particular outcome. For example, the idea of “ability” is commonly perceived to be outside of the control of an individual, while “effort” is perceived to be within the control of an individual (Graham, 2020).

Figure 1-2 presents a matrixed perspective on the three causal dimensions described by Weiner.

Figure 1-2. Achievement Attributions Classified by Locus, Stability, and Controllability Dimensions. Source: Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014, p. 101.

Video 1-1 provides a lecture by Dr. Brett D. Jones of Virginia Commonwealth University discussing Weiner’s attribution theory.

Video 1-1. Attribution Theory Lecture. Source: Jones, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE4uQ0fXy3A

Psychological Consequences/Affective Outcomes

A final dimension of Weiner’s theory of attribution, while not integral to the conceptual structure of the theory, is the affective outcomes attributable to causal beliefs. Weiner (2010, p. 33) writes, “It is intuitively evident that achievement strivings are not merely linked to anticipated pride. Many emotions are elicited in achievement contexts including shame and guilt, gratitude and anger, and on and on.... Among the attribution-emotion linkages that became evident over time ... are the following:

• Internal causes of success (e.g., high aptitude)—pride
• Internal controllable causes of failure (e.g., lack of effort)—guilt and regret
• Internal uncontrollable causes of failure (e.g., low aptitude)—shame and humiliation
• Stable causes of failure (e.g., unfair teacher)—hopelessness
• Unstable causes of failure (e.g., bad luck)—hope.”

Share Your Thinking (comment on this module Update; minimum 50 words): What factors influence an individual’s attributional orientation? Do you think it’s mostly a personal trait, or do you think one’s attributional orientation is socially influenced?

Share Your Learning (create your own Update; minimum 200 words): Please choose a concept related to attribution theory discussed in this Update, find a scholarly article related the concept, and summarize it for your classmates. How does the concept manifest in educational settings? How can educators leverage understanding of the concept in supporting learner motivation?

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 peers' Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?

While the attribution theory of motivation is primarily concerned with retrospective judgment on the causes of a particular outcome (success or failure) and how that judgment of past experience influences future motivation to expend effort on a task, the expectancy-value theory of motivation takes a prospective view on motivation; it includes a similar outcome orientation related to success/failure but introduces an additional concept related to the inherent and subjective value an individual ascribes to the task at hand.

Initially proposed by John William Atkinson (1957), he and others theorized that motivation to achieve (and motivation to avoid failure) was a stable personality characteristic, and that “the strength of the achievement motive (or, as it is alternately labeled, the tendency to achieve) actually aroused in any achievement-oriented situation is determined by the sum of two tendencies with opposing signs:

• The tendency to approach success ..., which is manifested in achievement-oriented activities.
• The tendency to avoid failure ..., which is manifested by not engaging in these activities.

“The strength of each of these opposing tendencies is determined by three components:

• The motive to approach success ... or the motive to avoid failure.
• the expectancy (probability) that an achievement-oriented act will result in success ... or the probability that it will result in failure ....
• The incentive value of success ... or the incentive value of failure....” (Spence & Helmreich, 1983, p. 32).

The theory gets its name from these last two variables. Expectancy-value theory considers two factors as primarily influencing motivation to expend effort toward particular goal, and these two factors are situational and subjective:

• Expectancy of success or failure—“the degree to which individuals believe they will be successful if they try (expectancy of success)” (Cook & Artino, 2016, p. 1000).
• Perceived value of the task—“the degree to which they perceive that there is personal importance, value, or intrinsic interest in doing the task (task value)” (Cook & Artino, 2016, p. 1000)

Greatly developed in an educational context by Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) and Eccles & Wigfield (1995, 2000), expectancy-value theorists “argue that individuals’ choice, persistence, and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will do on the activity and the extent to which they value the activity” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Figure 2-1 presents Eccles’s expectancy-value model of achievement choices; the specific concepts related to expectancy-value theory appear on the right-hand side of this figure, with the other boxes describing the relationship between various cognitive, cultural, and experiential influences on an individual’s expectation of success and subjective task values.

Figure 2-1. Model of Expectancy-Value Theory. Source: Eccles & Wigfield, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 (Note: In this model, “socializers” denotes other individuals who influence a student’s self-perception, including teachers, adult authorities, peers, etc.)

Expectation of Success

Expectation of success is closely related to one’s beliefs about one’s own abilities and one’s perceptions of task difficulty (recall Weiner’s identification as ability and effort as primary causal ascriptions in Update 1). “Ability beliefs are defined as the individual’s perception of his or her current competence at a given activity. Ability beliefs are thus distinguished conceptually from expectancies for success, with ability beliefs focused on present ability and expectancies focused on the future” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, p. 70). Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983, p. 85) suggest that self-concept of ability is much more predictive of expectation of success than perceived task difficulty, but argue that “perceptions of task difficulty...may influence self-concept of ability such that, over time, students who see a subject or task as more difficult develop lower estimates of their own abilities for that subject or task.”

In addition, expectancies can be categorized as efficacy expectancies or outcome expectancies. According to Bandura (1997, as cited in Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, pp. 70-71), efficacy expectation is “the individual’s belief that he or she can accomplish a task” (personal) and outcome expectation is “the belief that a given action will lead to a given outcome” (behavioral). Bandura argued that “efficacy expectations are more predictive of performance and choice than are outcome expectations” (Widfield & Eccles, 2000, p. 71).

Subjective Task Value

In addition to expectancy of success, subjective task value is the second major element in expectancy-value theory. Eccles et al. (1983, pp. 89-90) identified four components of subjective task value:

• Attainment—“the importance of doing well on the task”
• Interest (or intrinsic value)—“the inherent, immediate enjoyment one gets from engaging in an activity”
• Utility—“the importance of the task for some future goal that might itself be somewhat unrelated to the process nature of the task at hand”
• Relative Cost—Eccles et al. (1983, pp. 94-95) identified three potential influences on the cost-value of an activity or task: (a) level of effort needed to succeed (also, “cost of success); (b) loss of time for valued alternatives; and (c) psychological cost of failure.

Video 2-1. Expectancy-Value Theory. Source: Jones, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De5U-GE4YkE

Share Your Thinking (comment on this Update; minimum 50 words): How is expectancy-value theory similar to and distinct from attribution theory? What concepts or ideas do these two theories share? How do they differ?

Share Your Learning (create your own Update; minimum 200 words): Please choose a concept related to expectancy-value theory discussed in this Update, find a scholarly article related the concept, and summarize it for your classmates. How does the concept manifest in educational settings? How can educators leverage understanding of the concept in supporting learner motivation?

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 peer Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?

Social cognitive theory evolved from Albert Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, which posited that an important contributor to learning was observational (vicarious) learning that occurs by watching others demonstrate a behavior and its consequences and then mimicking (or learning to avoid mimicking) that behavior with the expectation of similar results (i.e., modelling; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). “Bandura postulated that for observational learning to occur, individuals must attend to a model, cognitively retain what the model did, be able to produce the modeled behavior, and be motivated to do so” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). In regard to learning, Bandura suggested that learning wasn’t only achieved by direct experience or instruction, but also could be achieved vicariously.

A second essential assumption of Bandura’s theory is that individuals seek a sense of agency. “A central premise of Bandura’s theory is that individuals strive for a sense of agency, or the belief that they can exert a large degree of influence over important events in their lives. They exercise this sense of agency using their cognitive and self-regulative capabilities such as by setting goals and implementing strategies to attain them” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Self-regulation is an important component of agency. “Social-cognitive theory postulates that individuals use their self-regulatory capabilities to promote their wellbeing and sense of agency. Self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, affects, and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward attainment of one’s goals. Self-regulated learning occurs when those goals involve learning” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Video 4-1 expands on this discussion of self-regulation and self-regulated learning, including Bandura’s concept of human agency.

Video 4-1. Agency and Self-Regulation: Source: Hulbig, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4W17CWuAC8

While motivation can be influenced (increased or decreased) by intrinsic or extrinsic factors, “Motivational processes are personal/internal influences that lead to outcomes such as choice, effort, persistence, achievement, and environmental regulation” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). As such, motivation is by definition an individual, personal factor that drives achievement behaviors.

All learning theories consider effort, and thus motivation to expend that effort, as required for learning to occur. Social cognitive theory, however, “emphasized the importance of motivation and social variables in human behavior. For example, Rotter's (1954) theory included two prominent motivation variables: expectancy, defined as an individual’s belief about the likelihood that a particular reinforcement would occur following a specific behavior, and reinforcement value, or how much individuals desired a particular outcome relative to other potential outcomes” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Bandura expanded and defined two key concepts within his theory that specifically address motivation to achieve.

• Self-efficacy
• Triadic reciprocality (or reciprocal interactions)

Self-Efficacy

Bandura first published his model of self-efficacy in 1977 in relation to clinical psychology and behavior change; in this article, he differentiated between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations (p. 193; defined in Update 2 of this module). “Central to [Bandura’s] agentic perspective is individuals’ self-efficacy, or their perceived capabilities to learn and perform actions at designated levels.... Self-efficacy, which results from self-reflection that is both evaluative and goal oriented, is a key motivational process in social cognitive theory” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). As mentioned in Update 2, Bandura argues that efficacy expectancies are more predictive of performance than are outcome expectancies.

Bandura identified four primary sources of information that affect efficacy expectation: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). As discussed by Schunk and DiBenedetto (2020), “Self-efficacy does not suddenly emerge. Efficacy appraisal is a cognitive process in which individuals use information sources to assess their self-efficacy. These sources are performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, forms of social persuasion, and physicological/emotional indexes.”

Video 4-2 provides a helpful overview of Bandura’s model of self-efficacy, along with practical implications of differences in self-efficacy beliefs.

Video 4-2. Self-Efficacy. Source: Miss B, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnACsrdGZAI&t=213s

Triadic Reciprocality

Figure 4-1 presents Bandura’s model of triadic reciprocality. Bandura postulated that individual functioning is influenced by three interrelated and interacting factors: personal processes, behavioral processes, and environmental processes. “In this dynamic conceptualization, motivational processes are personal influences that are ever changing, affect behaviors and environments, and are affected by them” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Figure 4-1. Social Cognitive Motivation: Triadic Reciprocality. Source: Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Video 4-3 presents a high-level overview of the concept of reciprocal interaction, which is further discussed below.

Video 4-3. Reciprocal Causation. Source: Ng, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBgqun-vnHs&t=39s

Personal (Internal) Motivational Processes

According to Schunk & DiBenedetto (2020), “personal influences include cognitions, beliefs, perceptions, and emotions...that help instigate and sustain motivational outcomes” and include the following:

• Goals and self-evaluation of progress—According to social cognitive theory, setting goals stimulates and directs motivated behavior.
• Self-efficacy—As discussed above, self-efficacy is a key personal factor in Bandura’s model of reciprocal processes involved in motivation. “The hypothesized mechanism whereby self-efficacy affects motivational outcomes is as follows... As learners work on tasks they acquire self-feedback and feedback from others on their progress. The belief that they are making progress substantiates their self-efficacy, which enhances motivational outcomes” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
• Social comparisons—In observational learning, social comparison can support motivation. When learners observe others being successful at a task or activity (especially when they perceive they are similar to the model), they are more likely to believe they, too, can be successful (increased self-efficacy). Research has shown, however, that “perceived similarity can also lower self-efficacy. Learners who observe others fail whom they believe are similar to themselves may experience lower self-efficacy” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
• Values—Similar to expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory considers subjective task value as an important motivational driver. “Together, expectancies and values predict a range of motivational outcomes including choices, effort, persistence, and achievement” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
• Outcome expectations—Outcome expectations differ from efficacy expectations (self-efficacy). Self-efficacy refers to a more immediate evaluation of one’s ability, while “outcome expectations can sustain motivational outcomes over long periods when people believe their actions eventually will produce success” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020)
• Attributions—According to social cognitive theory, “learners who believe they are largely responsible for their positive outcomes may experience high self-efficacy and continue their efforts” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Research has studied the effectiveness of a strategy called attributional feedback, or “providing feedback to learners that stresses one or more attributes (e.g., 'You did well because you worked hard’)” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Behavioral Processes

Behavioral processes are the specific behaviors individuals demonstrate that influence their motivation; behavioral processes are closely linked to self-efficacy (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). “Key behavioral influences on motivational outcomes are choice of activities, effort, persistence, achievement, and environmental regulation. In the model of reciprocal interactions, these are both motivational outcomes and influences on motivation” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulation skills are closely related to motivational behavioral processes. For example, research has demonstrated that learners with higher self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to choose to engage in challenging activities, show greater effort, and demonstrate greater persistence to achieve goals, and “students who feel more efficacious about learning are more likely to establish effective environments for learning to include mechanisms for productive management of time.... These behavioral outcomes of motivation help learners sustain their goal-directed activity” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Environmental Processes

Tying Bandura’s theory of reciprocal interactions back to his primary theory of observational learning, a key environmental motivational process is socially modeled influences. “People form expectations about the anticipated outcomes of different actions...based on their observations of models and other experiences” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Bandura (1986, as cited in Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020), suggested that characteristics of the model can lead to increased motivation of the observer. These model characteristics include

• perceived competence of the model
• perceived similarities between the observer and the model (see social comparison above)

Teachers and learning designers also can affect environmental influences on motivation. For example, “the manner in which teachers present instruction can confuse or enlighten learners, which in turn can affect their motivational processes and learning. Feedback that highlights student progress in learning is apt to build self-efficacy” (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Additional strategies include

• helping students identify achievable goals
• rewarding achievement
• enabling students to self-evaluate their progress.

Share Your Thinking (comment on this module Update; minimum 50 words): How is social cognitive theory similar to and distinct from attribution theory and expectancy-value theory? Does Bandura introduce new concepts related to motivation to learn, or is social cognitive theory a reframing of concepts presented in the earlier theories studied?

Share Your Learning (create your own Update; minimum 200 words): Please choose a concept related to social cognitive theory of motivation discussed in this update, find a scholarly article related the concept, and summarize it for your classmates. How does the concept manifest in educational settings? How can educators leverage understanding of the concept in supporting learner motivation?

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 peer Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?

Self-determination theory grew out of earlier research into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which remain integral concepts of this theory and in motivational understandings in education, generally. First described in the 1970s by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, self-determination theory “assumes that people are inherently prone toward psychological growth and integration, and thus toward learning, mastery and connection with others” (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Video 5-1 breaks down intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and discusses early studies into these concepts, and Video 5-2 extends to consideration of motivational effects of punishment in the context of behaviorist theories.

Video 5-1. Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivations. Source: PsychExamReview, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUXbSJdSmc

Video 5-2. Delay of Gratification & Ironic Effects of Punishment. Source: PsychExamReview, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFXit8pygs

Ryan and Deci sought to distinguish between behavioristic approaches to motivation, “which attempt to shape and control motivation from the outside,” and individuals’ intrinsic or inherent motivational processes that support learning (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Ryan and Deci have called intrinsic motivation “autonomous motivation” and extrinsic motivation “controlled motivation” (Video 5-3; The Brainwaves Video Anthology, 2017 [0:55–3:06]). Figure 5-1 illustrates this taxonomy of motivation derived from self-determination theory.

Figure 5-1. Self-Determination Theory Taxonomy of Motivation. Source: Ryan & Deci, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Ryan & Deci do not suggest that these intrinsic motivational processes are automatic; rather, “they require supportive conditions to be robust” (Ryan & Deci, 2020). These authors argue that healthy development and motivation to achieve require meeting three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competency, and relatedness (see Video 5-4 for a fuller explanation of these concepts).

• Autonomy—Similar to the concept of agency in social cognitive theory, autonomy is “initiative and ownership in one’s actions. It is supported by experiences of interest and value and undermined by experiences of being externally controlled, whether by rewards or punishments” (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
• Competence—Similar to the concept of self-efficacy in social cognitive theory, competence is “the feeling of mastery, a sense that one can succeed and grow. The need for competence is best satisfied within well-structured environments that afford optimal challenges, positive feedback, and opportunities for growth” (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
• Relatedness—Within self-determination theory, relatedness refers to an individuals’ sense of inclusion, belonging, and connection (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

According to Ryan & Deci (2020), the “varied forms of motivation or regulatory styles are arranged in [Figure 5-1] along a continuum reflecting their relative autonomy.”

Essential Reading

Ryan & Deci (2020) include a robust discussion on the research related to application of self-determination theory concepts in classroom environments in sections 3-6 (pp. 3-7) of their article, linked below.

Intrinsic_20and_20Extrinsic_20Motivation_20from_20a_20Self-Determination_20Theory_20Perspective_20-_20Ryan_20and_20Deci_2C_202020.pdf

Video 5-3. Edward Deci – Self-Determination Theory. Source: The Brainwaves Video Anthology, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fm1gt5YAM

Video 5-4. Self-Determination Theory: 3 Basic Needs That Drive Our Behavior. Source: Sprouts, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_juPDoa3GBY

Share Your Thinking (comment on this Update; minimum 50 words): Ryan and Deci propose that people require that three fundamental psychological needs be met in order to be motivated to exert effort toward a particular goal or outcome: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. How do these three concepts relate to the concepts covered in earlier Updates of this learning module?

Share Your Learning (create your own update; minimum 200 words): Please choose a concept related to self-determination theory of motivation discussed in this update, find a scholarly article related the concept, and summarize it for your classmates. How does the concept manifest in educational settings? How can educators leverage understanding of the concept in supporting learner motivation?

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 peer Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?

Motivational theories describe personal, intrinsic factors and processes that cause individuals to behave in goal-directed ways. However, educators and learning designers can draw on these theories to support motivational designs for learning and pedagogy.

Essential Reading

The_20Theory_20and_20Practice_20of_20Student_20Motivation_20Handout.pdf

Morelock, J. (2021). The theory and practice of student motivation. Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Georgia. https://ctl.uga.edu/_resources/documents/flc-engagement-project-motivation-handout.pdf

ARCS Model

Developed by John Keller (1984), the ARCS model of motivational design integrates many concepts of motivational theory into a model that can be used to support learner motivation. Keller defines motivational design as “the process of arranging resources and procedures to bring about changes in motivation” (Keller, n.d.a).

The ARCS model proposes that teachers and other learning designers can design learning experiences in ways that support motivation among learners. Keller describes the model as “a problem solving approach to designing the motivational aspects of learning environments to stimulate and sustain students’ motivation to learn” (Keller, n.d.). The model includes four primary categories related to components of motivation described in earlier updates of module, depicted in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1. Keller’s ARCS Model Categories. Source: Keller, 2010, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3.pdf?pdf=button

Within each of these categories, Keller also suggests more specific subcategories that can help direct strategies to support learner motivation:

Attention

• “Perceptual arousal: What can I do to capture their interest?”
• “Inquiry arousal: How can I stimulate an attitude of inquiry?”
• “Variability: How can I maintain their attention?” (Keller, 2010, p. 47)

Relevance

• “Goal orientation: How can I best meet my learner’s needs? (Do I know their needs?)”
• “Motive matching: How and when can I provide my learners with appropriate choices, responsibilities, and influences?”
• “Familiarity: How can I tie the instruction to the learners’ experiences?” (Keller, 2010, p. 48)

Confidence

• “Learning requirements: How can I assist in building a positive expectation of success?”
• “Success opportunities: How will the learning experience support or enhance the students’ beliefs in their competence?”
• “Personal control: How will the learners clearly know their success is based upon their efforts and abilities?” (Keller, 2010, p. 50-51)

Satisfaction

• “Natural consequences: How can I provide meaningful opportunities for learners to use their newly acquired knowledge/skill?”
• “Positive consequences: What will provide reinforcement to the learners’ successes?”
• “Equity: How can I assist the students in anchoring a positive feeling about their accomplishments?” (Keller, 2010, p. 53)

Keller’s full model of motivational design is depicted in Figure 6-2. Video 6-1 presents an overview of this model.

Figure 6-2. Keller’s Macro Model of Motivation and Performance. Source: Keller, 2010, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3.pdf?pdf=button

Video 6-1. ARCS in Under Three Minutes. Source: Fortin, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH-cFg5NuNc&t=2s

MUSIC Model

A newer model of motivational design for learning, the MUSIC Model, has been developed by Brett D. Jones (2009, 2018) “as a research-based model to explain factors in the motivational climate that affect people’s motivation to engage in activities, such as courses and class assignments” (The MUSIC Model of Motivation, n.d.).

Similar to Keller, Jones’s model identifies five “perceptions” that, according to Jones, “work together synergistically to create a motivating climate” (The MUSIC Model of Motivation, n.d.b). These five perceptions are presented in Figure 6-3, and Figure 6-4 depicts the complete model. Video 6-2 presents Jones describing an overview of his motivational model.

Figure 6-3. The Key Principles of the MUSIC Model. Source: The MUSIC Model of Motivation, n.d.b, https://www.themusicmodel.com/music_model/

Figure 6-4. The MUSIC Model of Motivation. Source: The MUSIC Model of Motivation, n.d., https://www.themusicmodel.com/music_model/

Video 6-2. MUSIC Model of Motivation. Source: Jones, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_1MzVFDov8

Share Your Thinking (comment on this module Update; minimum 50 words): What do you think? Do you think motivational design can effectively support learner motivation? What are some barriers to implementing motivational design in practice?

Share Your Learning (create your own Update; minimum 200 words): Please search for a scholarly article discussing the application of one of these motivational design models in practice. What does the study conclude? How was the model used to support learner motivation?

Share Your Feedback (comment on at least 3 peer Updates; minimum 50 words each comment): Read your peers’ updates and comment on at least three of them. What about their Update stood out to you?