LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

needs, such as sleep, must be met before higher level needs, such as a sense of belonging, can be met. Alderfer, building on Maslow, suggests that needs for basic existence must be met before striving for growth needs occurs. According to Herzberg, what an individual does (i.e., motivation factors) has the capacity to gratify needs, but it doesn't have the capacity to lead to dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction results from unfavorable environmental conditions (i.e., hygiene factors), which cannot on their own lead to satisfaction. Thus, attending to both hygiene and motivation factors is critical to individual satisfaction.

TABLE 2.1. Selected Content Theories: What Motivates Human Behavior?

Maslow (1943)	Alderfer (1969)	Herzberg (1959)
PhysiologicalSafety and securitySocial needsSelf-esteemSelf-actualization	Existence- Physiological- Safety and securityRelatedness- Social needs- Self-esteemGrowth- Self-esteem- Self-actualization	Hygiene: factors that can lead to dissatisfaction, such as security, status, working conditions, payMotivators: factors that can lead to satisfaction, such as:- Achievement- Recognition- Work itself- Responsibility- Advancement

      In terms of the classroom, content theories of motivation intimate that before students can focus on college-level learning, lower-level needs must first be met. In other words, students who are hungry because they're rushing between classes and didn't eat or are food insecure, or they are tired because they worked late at their part-time jobs or studied all night for an exam, will be distracted by these fundamental needs and not be able to concentrate as fully on the coursework at hand. Or as another example, basic safety will discourage students from participating in a discussion and saying what they truly think or feel if they are anxious about rejection from their peers or criticism by their professor. Satisfied students are most likely to be learning in favorable conditions that not only provide safety and security but also allow them to do good work while learning.

How Are Students Motivated?

While content theories focus on what motivates individuals, process theories focus on how individuals are motivated. What these process theories illustrate are the internal factors that energize and direct humans to act in certain ways. These theories attempt to explain how a person's needs will drive their behavior so that they can achieve a relevant goal. Common process theories are Adams's equity theory, Locke's goal-setting theory, and Vroom's expectancy theory. In Table 2.2, we share selected process theories and a summary of what the authors see as main processes involved in motivation.

      Process theories of motivation, then, tend to focus on cognitive rational processes that drive behavior. Adams suggests that people need to believe they are being treated fairly. Locke suggests that they need goals in order to be prompted to action; studies by goal theorists and other motivational researchers contributed a great deal of information about the situational characteristics that predict students' tendencies to adopt different goals in achievement situations. And Vroom suggests that individuals need to believe that their effort will lead to the desired outcome.

These process theories also can inform our thinking about student motivation for learning. Equity theory suggests that students are motivated by a system with both inputs and outputs. The inputs are factors that a person has accomplished (i.e., past experience, education, work) and perceives to be worthy of some return. The outputs are the return on the individual's investment. For example, a student who has done well in high school views this work as an input when entering a college classroom for the first time. Outputs would be how the instructor treats the student as well as the grades the student receives. Goal theories suggest students are motivated, for example, by performance goals (preserving self-perception or public reputation as capable individuals), learning goals (trying to learn whatever the instructor's task is designed to teach them), and even work-avoidant goals (refusing to accept the challenges inherent in the task and instead focusing on minimizing the time and effort required to complete the task). Expectancy theory involves the notions of expectancy/effort (can the student reach the goal if the student works hard?), instrumentality/performance (will hitting the effort goal lead to rewards?), and valence/rewards (are the rewards desirable?).

TABLE 2.2. Selected Process Theories: How Are Humans Motivated?

Adams's Equity Theory (1963)	Locke's Goal-Setting Theory (1968)	Vroom's Expectancy Theory (1964)
Individuals are motivated when they perceive they are treated equitably in comparison to others within the organization.	Individuals are motivated by establishing goals; they then take action to achieve those goals.	Individuals are motivated by performance and the expected outcomes of their own behaviors.

      To apply process theories to the college classroom, teachers would try to (a) establish supportive relationships and cooperative/collaborative learning arrangements that encourage students to adopt learning goals as opposed to performance goals, (b) minimize the sorts of pressures that dispose students toward performance goals or work-avoidant goals, and (c) work to ensure an equitable and inclusive classroom environment. When these conditions are created in a classroom, “students are able to focus their energies on learning without becoming distracted by fear of embarrassment or failure, or by resentment of tasks that they view as pointless or inappropriate” (Brophy, 2004, p. 9).

Expectancy-Value Theory

      Brophy (2004) and Cross (2001) observe that much of what researchers have found can be organized within an expectancy × value model, which has much to offer our understanding of student motivation. This model holds that the effort that people are willing to expend on a task is the product of the degree to which they expect to be able to perform the task successfully (expectancy) and the degree to which they value the rewards as well as the opportunity to engage in the processes involved in performing the task itself (value). Effort is viewed as the product rather than the sum: it is assumed that people will expend no effort if either element (expectancy or value) is missing entirely. People will not willingly invest effort in tasks that they do not enjoy and that do not lead to something they value even if they know that they can perform the tasks successfully, nor do they willingly invest effort in even highly valued tasks if they believe that they cannot succeed no matter how hard they try.

      Expectancy

Students' expectations are inextricably linked with their self-perceptions. Students must have confidence that, with appropriate effort, they can succeed. If there is no hope, there is no motivation. Cross and Steadman (1996) discuss three motivational theories that address student expectations: self-efficacy theories, attribution theory, and self-worth models. Self-efficacy theories (Bandura, 1977, 1982; Corno & Mandinach, 1983) suggest that students' beliefs about their ability to succeed at a learning task are more important than their actual skill levels or the difficulty of the task. If a student is confident in her ability to perform a task successfully, she will be motivated to engage in it.

      Attribution theory (Weiner, 1974, 1985, 1986) suggests that students attribute success or failure to a variety of factors such as ability, effort, luck, fatigue, the ease or difficulty of the exam, and so forth, and that their belief is shaped by their perceptions of why they have succeeded or failed in the past. For example, if success is dependent on attributes over which they have control (effort), students are more likely to have confidence than when success is dependent on external conditions over which they have no control (difficulty of the exam). Three important dimensions of attributions include locus (whether failure or success is attributed to causes internal or external to the learner);

Скачать книгу