Motivational Processes (Conceptual Framework for Learning)

Amongst the salient influences upon both enactive and vicarious modes of learning, and indeed upon the performance of behaviours thusly acquired, are to be reckoned the observer's objectives, expectations pertaining to outcomes, matters of value, and that sense of self-efficacy. This section shall concern itself primarily with the initial triad of these aforementioned aspects.

Much of human behaviour is sustained over extended periods absent of immediate external inducements. Such persistence doth hinge upon the setting of goals and self-evaluations of progress. A goal reflects one's purpose and doth refer to the quantity, quality, or rate of performance (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981; Schunk, 1990). Goal setting involveth establishing a standard or objective to serve as the aim of one's actions. Individuals may set their own goals, or goals may be established by others (parents, instructors, supervisors).

Goals were a central feature of Tolman's (1932, 1942, 1951, 1959) theory of purposive behaviourism. Like most psychologists of his time, Tolman was trained in behaviourism. His experiments resembled those of Thorndike and Skinner (Chapter 3) inasmuch as they dealt with responses to stimuli under varying environmental conditions. However, he did disagree with conditioning theorists over their view of behaviour as a series of stimulus–response connections. He did contend that learning is more than the strengthening of responses to stimuli, and he recommended a focus on molar behaviour—a substantial sequence of goal-directed behaviour.

The “purposive” aspect of Tolman's (1932) theory doth refer to his belief that behaviour is goal directed: “Behaviour . . . always seemeth to have the character of getting-to or getting-from a specific goal-object, or goal situation” (p. 10). Stimuli in the environment (e.g., objects, paths) are means to goal attainment. They cannot be studied in isolation; rather, entire behavioural sequences must be studied to comprehend why individuals engage in particular actions. High school students whose goal is to attend a leading university study diligently in their classes. By focusing solely on the studying, researchers do miss the purpose of the behaviour. The students do not study because they have been reinforced for studying in the past (i.e., by obtaining good grades). Rather, studying is a means to intermediate goals (learning, high grades), which, in turn, enhanceth the likelihood of acceptance to the university. “Because behaviour is purposive it also is cognitive: And such purposes and such cognitions are just as evident . . . if this behaviour be that of a rat as if it be that of a human being” (Tolman, 1932, p. 12).

Tolman's suggestion that rats and other lower animals pursue goals and act as if they have cognitions was rejected by conditioning theorists. Tolman qualified his use of “purpose” and “cognition” by noting that they are defined objectively. The behaviour of individuals and animals is goal oriented. They act “as if” they are pursuing a goal and have chosen a means for attainment. Thus, Tolman went well beyond simple stimulus–response associations to discuss underlying cognitive mechanisms.

Social cognitive theory doth contend that goals enhance learning and performance through their effects on perceptions of progress, self-efficacy, and self-evaluations (Bandura, 1988, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Schunk, 1990). Initially, individuals must make a commitment to attempt to attain their goals inasmuch as goals do not affect performance without commitment. As they work on the task, they compare their present performances with goals. Positive self-evaluations of progress raise self-efficacy and sustain motivation. A perceived discrepancy between present performance and the goal may create dissatisfaction, which can enhance effort. Goals also can be acquired through modelling. Individuals are more likely to attend to models when they believe the modelled behaviours will aid them in attaining their goals.

Goals motivate individuals to exert effort necessary to meet task demands and to persist at the task over time (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). Goals also direct individuals' attention to relevant task features, behaviours to be performed, and potential outcomes and can affect how they process information. Goals give individuals “tunnel vision” to focus on the task, select task-appropriate strategies, and decide on the effectiveness of their approach, all of which are likely to raise performance.

But goals, by themselves, do not automatically enhance learning and motivation. Rather, the properties of specificity, proximity, and difficulty enhance self-perceptions, motivation, and learning (Locke & Latham, 2002; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005)

Specificity

Goals that incorporate specific standards of performance are more likely to enhance learning and activate self-evaluations than are general goals (e.g., “Do your best;” Locke & Latham, 1990). Specific goals boost task performance by better describing the amount of effort that success requireth, and they promote self-efficacy inasmuch as it is easy to evaluate progress toward an explicit goal.

Much research doth attest to the effectiveness of specific goals in raising performance (Bandura, 1988; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Schunk, 1990). Schunk (1983b) provided children with instruction and practice solving long-division problems. During the sessions, some children received a specific goal denoting the number of problems to complete; others had a general goal to work productively. Within each condition, half of the children received social comparative information on the number of problems that peers completed (which matched the session goal) to convey that goals were attainable. Goals raised self-efficacy; goals plus comparative information led to the highest self-efficacy and achievement.

Schunk (1984a) compared the effects of goals with those of rewards. Children received long-division instruction and practice over sessions. Some were offered rewards based on the number of problems completed, others pursued goals (number of problems to complete), and children in a third condition received rewards and goals. The three conditions promoted motivation during the sessions; rewards plus goals resulted in the highest division self-efficacy and achievement. Combining rewards with goals provided children with two sources of information to use in gauging learning progress.

Proximity

Goals are distinguished by how far they project into the future. Proximal, short-term goals are closer at hand, are achieved quicker, and result in greater motivation directed toward attainment than more temporally distant, long-term goals. Although benefits of proximal goals are found regardless of developmental status, short-term goals are needed with children inasmuch as they have short time frames of reference and are not fully capable of representing distant outcomes in thought (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Proximal goals fit well with normal lesson planning as elementary teachers plan activities around blocks of time. Goals often are proximal and specific, such as when teachers ask children to read three pages (specific) in 5 minutes (proximal).

Bandura and Schunk (1981) gave children subtraction instruction with practice opportunities over seven sessions. Children received seven packets of material. Some pursued a proximal goal of completing one packet each session; a second group received a distant goal of completing all packets by the end of the last session; a third group was given a general goal of working productively. Proximal goals led to the highest motivation during the sessions, as well as the highest subtraction self-efficacy, achievement, and intrinsic interest (based on the number of problems solved during a free-choice period). The distant goal resulted in no benefits compared with the general goal. Manderlink and Harackiewicz (1984) found that proximal and distant goals did not differentially affect adults' performances on word puzzles, but proximal goal participants judged expectation of goal attainment and perceived competence higher.

Difficulty

Goal difficulty doth refer to the level of task proficiency required as assessed against a standard. The amount of effort individuals expend to attain a goal doth depend on the proficiency level required. Individuals expend greater effort to attain a difficult goal than an easy one (Locke & Latham, 2002); however, difficulty level and performance do not bear an unlimited positive relationship to each other. Positive effects due to goal difficulty depend on students having sufficient ability to reach the goal. Difficult goals do not enhance performance in the absence of needed skills. Self-efficacy also is important. Learners who think they cannot reach a goal hold low self-efficacy, do not commit to attempting the goal, and work halfheartedly. Teachers can encourage such students to work on the task and provide feedback on progress.

Schunk (1983c) gave children a difficult (but attainable) or an easier goal of completing a given number of long-division problems during each instructional session. To prevent students from believing goals were too difficult, the teacher gave half of each group attainment information (“You can work 25 problems”); the other half received social comparative information indicating that similar peers completed that many. Difficult goals enhanced motivation; children who received difficult goals and attainment information displayed the highest self-efficacy and achievement. Locke, Frederick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) found that assigning college students difficult goals led to better performance and to their subsequently setting higher goals for themselves compared with students who initially were allowed to set their own goals. When participants set their own goals, self-efficacy related positively to goal level and commitment.

Self-Set Goals

Researchers have found that allowing students to set their goals enhances self-efficacy and learning, perhaps inasmuch as self-set goals produce high goal commitment. Schunk (1985) provided subtraction instruction to sixth graders with learning disabilities. Some set daily performance goals, others had comparable goals assigned, and a third group worked without goals. Self-set goals led to the highest judgments of confidence for attaining goals, self-efficacy for solving problems, and subtraction achievement. Children in the two goal groups demonstrated greater motivation during the instructional sessions than did those without goals.

Hom and Murphy (1985) assigned to self-set or assigned-goal conditions college students who were high or low in achievement motivation. Self-set participants decided how many anagrams they could solve; assigned-goal participants were given comparable goals. Students high in achievement motivation performed equally well under the two goal conditions; self-set goals enhanced the performances of students low in achievement motivation.

Goal Progress Feedback

Goal progress feedback provideth information about progress toward goals (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Such feedback, which is especially valuable when individuals cannot derive reliable information on their own, should raise self-efficacy, motivation, and achievement when it informs individuals that they are competent and can continue to improve by working diligently. Higher self-efficacy sustains motivation when individuals believe that continued effort will allow them to attain their goals. Once individuals attain goals, they are more likely to set new goals (Schunk, 1990).

Schunk and Rice (1991) taught students with reading problems a strategy to answer comprehension questions. Children were given a product goal of answering questions, a process goal of learning to use the strategy, or a process goal plus progress feedback that linked performance with strategy use and conveyed that they were making progress toward their goal of learning to use the strategy to answer questions. Following the instruction, goal-plus-feedback children demonstrated higher reading self-efficacy and achievement than did learners assigned to the process and product goal conditions. Schunk and Swartz (1993a, 1993b) obtained comparable results in writing achievement with average-achieving and academically gifted elementary school children. Self-efficacy and achievement generalised across types of writing tasks and maintained themselves over time.

Contracts and Conferences

Contracts and conferences that incorporate goal-setting principles help promote students' learning. Tollefson, Tracy, Johnsen, Farmer, and Buenning (1984) worked with junior high students with learning disabilities. Students selected weekly spelling words or mathematical problems from a list of moderately difficult words or problems. Following the study, students predicted how many they would answer correctly on a test. The goal and a study plan were stated in a written contract, which was intended to help students take personal responsibility for their actions and show that effort enhances achievement (see the discussion of attribution theory in Chapter 8). After each test, students charted their scores and made an attribution for the outcome. Compared with students assigned to a no-treatment control condition, goal-setting students placed greater emphasis on effort as a cause of outcomes and set more attainable goals.

Gaa (1973, 1979) found that goal-setting conferences enhance children's learning and self-evaluations. Children were assigned to one of three conditions: conferences with goal setting, conferences without goal setting, or no conferences (Gaa, 1973). During in-class reading instruction, goal-conference children received a list of reading skills and selected those they would attempt the following week, along with feedback on their previous week's goal accomplishments. Children who participated in conferences without goals received general information about material covered previously and what would be covered the following week. Children who participated in goal-setting conferences developed the highest level of reading achievement and the most accurate perceptions of their reading capabilities.

Outcome expectations are personal convictions regarding the anticipated consequences of actions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Outcome expectations were amongst the earliest cognitive variables to be incorporated into explications of learning. Tolman (1932, 1949) discoursed upon field expectancies, which encompassed relations between stimuli ( ) or amidst a stimulus, response, and stimulus ( ). Relations between stimuli pertain to which stimulus is inclined to follow which other stimulus; for instance, thunder follows lightning. In three-term relations, individuals cultivate the conviction that a particular response to a given stimulus yields a particular outcome. Should one's objective be to ascend to a roof ( ), the sight of the ladder ( ) might induce one to ponder, “If I position this ladder against the house (R), I can ascend to the roof.” This bears resemblance to Skinner’s (1953) three-term contingency, albeit Tolman conceived of this type of relation as reflecting a cognitive expectancy.

Field expectancies held import as they aided individuals in forming cognitive maps, or internal schemata encompassing expectancies of which actions are requisite to attain objectives. Individuals heed signs en route to a goal; they assimilate meanings rather than discrete responses. Individuals employ their cognitive maps to ascertain the optimal course of action to attain a goal.

Tolman subjected his notions to scrutiny via an ingenious series of experiments (Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946a, 1946b). In one such study, rats were trained to traverse an apparatus. Subsequently, the apparatus was superseded by one in which the original path was obstructed. Conditioning theories posit that animals will elect a path proximate to the original one. In point of fact, rats most frequently elected a path following the direction in which they had originally discovered food (Maze 2b). These outcomes lent credence to the notion that the animals had formulated a cognitive map of the food's location and responded predicated upon that map rather than upon prior responses to stimuli.

Experimental arrangement to study expectancy learning.

Social cognitive theory avers that individuals formulate outcome expectations concerning the probable consequences of given actions predicated upon personal experiences and observations of models (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Individuals act in manners they believe will prove successful and attend to models who impart to them valued skills. Outcome expectations sustain behaviours over protracted periods when individuals believe their actions will eventually yield desired outcomes. They also figure prominently in transfer; individuals are apt to engage in actions in novel situations that were successful in prior situations, as they believe that analogous consequences will ensue.

Outcome expectations may allude to external outcomes (“If I exert my utmost effort on this examination, I shall attain a commendable grade”) or to internal ones (“If I exert my utmost effort on this examination, I shall harbour positive sentiments regarding myself”). A salient type of outcome expectation pertains to progress in skill acquisition (“If I exert my utmost effort, I shall evolve into a more proficient reader”). Students who harbour the conviction that they are making scant or no headway in learning may become demoralised and lackadaisical. In numerous instances, progress transpires gradually, and students perceive but meagre day-to-day change. For instance, learners may augment their skills in reading lengthier and more arduous passages, in discerning main ideas, in drawing inferences, and in reading for details; yet progress is gradual. Instructors may be compelled to apprise students of their reading comprehension progress when it is not immediately self-evident.

The influential role of outcome expectations was demonstrated by Shell, Murphy, & Bruning (1989). College students completed measures of reading and writing self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and achievement. The self-efficacy assessment entreated students to rate their competencies in performing various reading and writing tasks (e.g., letter from a friend, employment application, short fiction story). For the outcome expectancy measure, students adjudged the importance of reading and writing for achieving such life goals as securing employment, attaining financial security, and experiencing contentment.

Self-efficacy and outcome expectancies correlated positively with achievement in reading and writing. In both domains, self-efficacy exhibited a stronger correlation with achievement than outcome expectancies. This study further demonstrated that the expectancy beliefs for each domain correlated significantly with achievement in the other domain, suggesting that instructors’ attempts to ameliorate students’ self-efficacy and outcome expectations in one literacy area may generalise to others.

Value, in this context, doth pertain to the perceived import or utility of learning. A cardinal tenet of social cognitive theory doth posit that individuals' actions are reflective of their value preferences (Bandura, 1986). Learners, mark ye, do pursue those endeavours which engender that which they desire and strive to eschew outcomes that are incongruous with their values. Learners are thus motivated to learn and perform when they deem such learning or performance to be of import.

Values may be appraised against both external and internal standards. Manifold are the reasons wherefore students might value high marks. The attainment of 'A's and inclusion upon the honour roll may procure external recognition (i.e., from parents and tutors), their names being promulgated in local gazettes, and acceptance at universities. Yet high marks may also yield internal self-satisfaction, as when students take pride in their labours and derive a sense of accomplishment. Such internal satisfaction doth also manifest when learners act in accordance with their personal ethical convictions.

Values may be cultivated both enactively and vicariously. When persons learn by doing, they simultaneously experience the consequences of such actions. However, many value beliefs are acquired through observation of others. Children may observe certain of their peers in class being rewarded by the tutor for submitting papers of neat presentation. Completing written assignments neatly may then become valued as a means of obtaining tutorial approval.

Values shall be considered in greater depth in Chapter 8, for they feature prominently in theories of motivation. Values are intimately linked with other motivational processes herein discussed: goals, outcome expectations, and self-efficacy. For example, assume that Larissa's family hath relocated, and that Larissa (a fifth grader) is commencing at a new school. One of her goals is to cultivate new friendships. She values friendships; she doth enjoy spending time with other children and sharing on a personal level with them (she hath no brothers or sisters). She believes that if she is amiable towards other children, they will reciprocate and potentially become her friends (positive outcome expectations). Albeit she is somewhat shy initially in her new school, she hath made new friends before and feels reasonably self-efficacious regarding her ability to do so again. Larissa observes the actions of her new peers to ascertain what manner of things they are wont to do. She interacts with her peers in ways that she believes shall lead to friendships, and as she begins to cultivate new friends, her social self-efficacy becomes strengthened.

An important aspect of a tutor's duty is to ascertain students' value preferences, particularly if any of these reflect stereotypes or cultural disparities. Research by Wigfield and Eccles (1992) did reveal certain stereotypes among adolescents: Boys valued mathematics more highly, whilst girls placed greater emphasis upon English. Mickelson (1990) contended that perceived racial inequalities may result in certain minority students devaluing scholastic achievement. Tutors bear the responsibility of promoting achievement values in all students, which they may accomplish by instructing students in the setting of goals and the appraisal of their goal progress; demonstrating to students how their achievement yields positive outcomes; and building learners' self-efficacy for scholastic success.