Ausencia del término español correspondiente

Motivation is a more frequently sought, however less often found, characteristic of schools, classrooms and students (Middleton & Perks, 2014). For Townsend (2011), motivation “is at the heart of school learning” (p. 133). Schunk et al. (2008) also view motivation as an important quality that permeates all aspects of education. As discussed in the previous sections the nature of learning is very complex, and motivation is no exception. Motivation is a highly complex psychological construct (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) because numerous and different types of factors can account for and affect its origin and sustenance. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) are of the view that any existing single theory is insufficient to explain and predict motivation because motivation deals with the complex and doubtful notion of human behaviour. They further comment that since no single theory can capture the comprehensive nature of all possible human motives, “devising an integrative ‘super-theory’ of motivation will always remain an unrealistic desire” (p. 4).

One of the reasons for this complexity might be because motivation is not directly observed but it is inferred from the actions and behaviours shown by people (Schunk et al., 2008; St. George et al., 2014). Another reason, as contemporary learning theories and their comprehensive picture presents, is the effect of personal, social, emotional and contextual factors and the interplay between them. For example, a behaviour exposed by an individual may be the result of that individual’s needs, drive, will and volition. These

needs and efforts are further affected by internal factors such as interest, fun, enjoyment and curiosity, as well as external rewards such as value and the importance given to an activity. Further, any depicted behaviour has short-term (current, personal importance) goals and long-term (future) goals involved with it. Additionally, expectancy of success in an activity is dependent on the competency, attribution and task-value beliefs, control and regulation of many self-related features, task difficulty and environmental conditions. On top of everything, social, emotional, contextual (cultural) elements mingle with these personal-internal-external factors to make the concept of motivation very complex, interesting and therefore research-worthy (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) for educators.

Another major complexity associated with motivation is the cause-process-effect and the temporal nature of theoretical constructs. Some theories, for example Wigfield and Eccles’s (2000) Expectancy-Value theory, consider motivation in terms of, and generally focus on, causal constructs. Others, such as the Attribution Theory by Weiner (1992) and the Learned Helplessness theory of Peterson, Maier, and Seligman (1995), focus on the affect aspects of the motivational constructs. In contrast, some other theories focus on the process aspects, such as interest, enjoyment, flow and different emotional orientations during the process of an activity. The temporal aspect of motivation suggests that motivation develops gradually and does not remain constant over the course of time, particularly when the task usually takes a long time to accomplish (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). For example, during the course of doing a PhD, individuals experience varying degrees of motivation that can generally differ across days, weeks, months, years and even chapters. However, despite the complexities involved in understanding motivation fully, there is a wealth of important and comprehensive information that can assist understanding many of the processes involved in pursuing different activities and tasks in academic and social life (Middleton & Perks, 2014).

2.2.1.1. Motivation defined

Because of the above-mentioned complexities, it seems difficult to define motivation clearly. Townsend (2011) comments on this inability to define motivation stating motivation is “a word in crisis” because of the “overwhelmingly complex array of loosely connected theories and concepts” (p. 130) that try to define and explain it.

However, many researchers, have tried to define it based on their foci, findings and experiences. Schunk et al. (2008) defines motivation as a “process whereby goal- directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 4). This definition suggests that motivation is a process and not a product, the motive has a goal based on which the activity is chosen, initiated and continued even in the case of difficulties. According to Brophy (2010b), “motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behaviour, especially goal-directed behaviour” (p. 3). From this more comprehensive view, motivation is a state of behaviour which explains why people do what they do. It is a state in which people take the initiative to do something, direct their full energy and persist longer even if problems arise, to achieve whatever they want to. Townsend (2011) defines motivation as “a biological or psychological process, a hedonistic desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain, an unconscious or subconscious process, or a conscious, goal-oriented, strategic process” (p.119). Townsend’s definition points to the self-indulgent (internal) nature of the process of motivation in which a task is chosen to seek enjoyment and to avoid discomfort in any of the conscious, sub-conscious or unconscious states of mind. Townsend also cautions educators about the overly simplistic and mechanical nature and meaning of the concept of motivation and suggests teachers to see motivation as “an internal psychological state that accounts for the initiation, direction and maintenance of behaviour” (p. 120; emphasis in original), instead of “‘giving’ motivation to students” (p. 130) which presents its mechanical nature. However, all of the definitions presented above have some common points of agreement: the choice of a particular task, the perseverance to accomplish it and the energy expended to achieve it. In other words, motivation explains why people do what they do, how long they sustain it and how far they go to accomplish it.

2.2.1.2. Evolving views of motivation

Motivation as a concept has evolved over time, starting from the process of satisfying individual’s needs and desires to recent sociocultural and person-in-context views. Historically, motivation has been conceptualised and understood as an individual’s initiative to fulfil their basic needs (Maslow, 1970, 2013). Maslow (2013) describes the process of satisfying a variety of individual needs in terms of a hierarchy, spanning from the lower level basic needs, such as physiological, safety, belongingness; to the higher level needs, such as self-esteem and self-actualisation. Maslow (1970) also

points to the gratification of cognitive impulses such as curiosity and the desire to know, understand and learn new things and state them as equally important, naming them conative needs. According to Maslow (1970), any human behaviour should be understood as the integration of many impulses, desires and motivations and not in terms of fulfilment of any single need. This suggests that there could be multiple determinants of a single behaviour.

Maslow’s theory of human needs was the first attempt to develop a comprehensive model to explain behaviour. Keeping in view the diversity of many determinants, and recognising the identity crisis (Townsend, 2011) with the meaning and nature of motivation construct, Ford (1992) developed another comprehensive theory of motivation: the Motivational Systems Theory (MST). Ford synthesised 32 theories of motivation and proposed a coherent model/framework of different psychological constructs which can be used to describe motivated or unmotivated behaviour. From this integrated MST framework, Ford derived 17 principles which can be applied to motivate people in different settings, especially enhancing motivation for learning and achievement in schools. In MST, Ford puts an excessive emphasis on the role of emotions along with goals and personal agency beliefs (Schunk et al., 2008) and describes motivation in terms of interactions between these three constructs. Ford explicitly stated that the MST is a comprehensive theory of all human behaviour, not only for school achievement, and is “generally compatible with existing theories of motivation and does not try to replace them” (p. 11). Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) presented another comprehensive motivation framework of motivation in organisational settings. These authors proposed five factors as sources of motivation which affect human behaviour: instrumental motivation such as rewards and punishment; intrinsic motivation such as enjoyment, interest and fun; goal internalisation; internal self-concept-based motivation; and external self-concept-based motivation. Out of these five factors, the first and the last factors (instrumental and external self-concept-based motivation) produce an externally-oriented behaviour, whereas the rest of the three determine more intrinsically-oriented behaviours. These five factors altogether influence a person’s overall behaviour, although, they vary in their strength or degrees.

Conversely, most of the motivational theories to date have focussed on and highlighted a few selected constructs (for example drives, needs, traits, goals and self-beliefs) and thus lack comprehensiveness (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Townsend, 2011). Schunk et al. (2008) present the evolution of earlier motivation theories in terms of the volition/will views of Wilhelm Wundt and William James, instinct based views of William McDougall, the psychic energy view of Freud and the classical and operant conditioning of Ian Pavlov and B.F. Skinner. These earlier, typically behavioural, theories were criticised for their inability to explain and predict all human behaviours (Schunk et al., 2008). Subsequent Humanistic theories of motivation, such as Carl Roger’s client centred therapy and Abraham Maslow’s need hierarchy theory recognised the important roles of cognition and emotion and suggested a need to study the holistic nature of human motivation. More recent views of motivation see it in terms of an individual’s thoughts, goals, beliefs, feelings, and self-representations, and stress the cognitive, social and cultural (contextual) situation of motivation (Schunk et al., 2008). These can be categorised in terms of cognitive, personal-agency beliefs, socio- cognitive, socio-cultural and context specific theories, some of which are discussed in the following sections.

2.2.1.3. Cognitive theories of motivation

Cognitive theories of motivation and motivational constructs became prevalent during the second half of the 20th century as a response to the behaviourist theories (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Cognitive theories put emphasis on the central role of cognitive structures and mental processes such as information processing, thoughts, self-related beliefs and goals as determinants of motivated behaviour and action (Schunk et al., 2008). From a cognitive point of view of motivation, a person’s desire to learn, to achieve, to satisfy curiosity, to resolve cognitive dissonance and establish a balance between ideas, thoughts, values and beliefs over time serve as important motives to take action and sustain those actions. Key cognitive theories which inform teaching and learning, and find numerous applications in education are: Goal theories (goal setting, goal orientation, and goal content and multiplicity); expectancy-value theories (achievement motivation, attribution, self-efficacy, self-worth, and task value theories); social-cognitive, self-determination and sociocultural theories. Brief discussion about these follows.

Goal theories

Goal theorists assumes that individuals perceive, choose, instigate and persist in an activity to achieve something (Schunk et al., 2008). Goals can provide the direction in which individuals want to act and can guide them to approach and avoid something in relation to achieving their goals. According to Townsend (2011), “goals are the cognitive representations of the force or energy that initiates arousal in motivation” (p. 121) and thus plays an important role in motivation. These goals can either be short- term (proximal; of immediate importance) or long-term (distal; such as career or life). Different types of goals can be classified on the basis of the temporal or process nature of motivation. For instance, Ford’s (1992) taxonomy suggested 24 types of human goals; 11 of the desired within-person consequences divided into three broad categories (affective, cognitive and subjective organisation goals) and 13 types of desired person- environment consequences goals, similarly divided into three broad categories: self- assertive social relationship goals, integrative social relationship goals and task goals. Ford asserted that a single behaviour may be guided by a number of goals at a given time and also commented that behaviour steered by many goals usually results in powerful motivation. Goal theories typically cover three types of varieties: goal setting, goal orientation, and goal content and multiplicity.

The goal setting theory of Locke (1996) places emphasis on the process of setting goals for enhancing motivation. According to Locke (1996), difficulty, specificity and commitment towards achieving a goal play an important role in determining individuals’ motivation. A higher level of motivation may be ascribed to a person who sets an achievable but challenging goal and believes that achieving the goal is likely (expectancy) and is personally important (value). In this respect, Locke’s goal setting theory is compatible with the Wigfield’s (1994) expectancy-value theory. Motivation levels also depend upon the nature of short-term and long-term goals. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) make the distinction between proximal and distal goals clear and caution that goals should not be considered as “outcomes to shoot for” (p. 21) but they also can serve as standards by which performance can be monitored and evaluated. For instance, in the case of long lasting tasks such as completing a PhD, there is the main goal of writing a better thesis and passing the examination. However, setting of proximal goals such as mastering academic writing skills, knowledge of the research

process (methods, methodology and tools), knowledge of important theoretical frameworks, writing an interesting research proposal, managing study and life, managing supervisors, satisfying examiners’ expectations etcetera, may also impact motivation during the programme. These sub-goals may provide information and feedback about performance, and achieving these sub-goals generally may help to achieve the distal goal of completing a doctorate. Although most of the goal setting theories were developed in work and organisational settings, they are equally applicable in the educational context (Schunk et al., 2008). In relation to motivating students to learn something, Schunk et al. (2008) suggest that proximal goal setting, which is setting short-term, achievable but challenging goals, may boost motivation by improving self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation and self-regulation of learning.

The goal orientation theory, proposed by Carol Dweck (1986), Carole Ames (1992) and a few other researchers such as Duda and Nicholls (1992) identified two major goal orientations: performance goals and mastery (learning) goals. Much of the research in education related to goals is devoted to the difference between these goal orientations (Schunk et al., 2008). According to Elliot (2005), the main purpose of behaviour embracing a performance orientation is to establish superiority over others, demonstrating competence, to achieve high scores/grades and avoid displaying incompetence, whereas students who adopt a mastery approach focus on personal improvement, understanding, and developing skills, competence and task mastery. Mastery-oriented students believe that the efforts they put into any task will lead to success and therefore, they focus on self-improvement and growth (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). In contrast, performance-oriented students view learning as a way to achieve the goal and social appreciation (ibid.). An extensive body of research has confirmed that mastery-oriented students show higher motivation and better learning in comparison to performance-oriented students (Schunk et al., 2008). For example, Townsend (2011) notes that the mastery-oriented students, generally demonstrate better self-efficacy, maintain interest and effort, show greater appreciation of value, persist longer in case of difficulties, adopt effective learning strategies, set achievable and challenging goals and monitor their progress towards achieving their goals. To ensure students’ enhanced motivation and learning, Linnenbrink (2005) argues that it is essential to consider interaction between students’ personal goal orientations and the goal orientations which a pedagogical environment of the classroom focus at. Therefore, it is important to co-

ordinate these personal and multiple goals of classrooms as they may overlap at one time or exist in conflict at another (Townsend, 2011; Wentzel, 2005a).

Contrary to goal-setting and goal-orientation theories of motivation, which essentially focus on individual motivation and performance, goal content and goal multiplicity theories focus on the actual goal content of an individual’s social and multiple goals (Wentzel, 2000). Goal content theory, proposed by Wentzel (2000), which was initially drafted by Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) is an extension of Ford’s work on goal content (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). According to Wentzel (2000) the goal content refers to the specific cognitive representations of what people try to achieve. Research by Wentzel (2000; 2005) and Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) suggests that in a single classroom activity, students may actively pursue multiple goals at a given time. For example, a group activity may serve personally important, cognitive, social, emotional and collective goal satisfaction through enhancing their knowledge, understanding, and skills; satisfying curiosity; establishing relationships; feeling included, accepted, and excited; and displaying responsibility. Similarly, research by Urdan and Maehr (1995) examines the specific impact of social academic goals and social motives on academic achievement motivation and suggests goal theorists should include social goals. From this point of view, it seems that social goals such as social responsibility, social relationships and social interaction can affect individual motivation in a group or classroom situation. Moreover, as Wentzel (2000) argues, goals are “socially derived constructs that cannot be studied in isolation of the rules and conventions of culture and context” (p. 106), the emphasis on social context of goal development is growing. This growing emphasis on socio-cultural aspects of motivation has encouraged researchers such as Elliot (2005) Horst, Finney, and Barron (2007), Walker (2010) and colleagues (R. Walker, Pressick-Kilborn, Arnold, & Sainsbury, 2004; R. Walker, Pressick-Kilborn, Sainsbury, & MacCallum, 2010) and Wentzel and her colleagues (Wentzel, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2009; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2014; Wentzel & Brophy, 2014) to examine and better understand various dimensions of social and contextual effects on motivation and achievement. These sociocultural views are discussed in subsection 2.2.1.5.

Expectancy-value theory

Expectancy-value theory is perhaps the most influential and long-standing cognitive motivation theory (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), which can be expressed by a simple

equation: expectancy x value = motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This equation suggests that an individual’s motivation to accomplish a task (or willingness to expend effort on a task) is a multiplicative function of the expectancy of success and the value that the individual ascribes to the task. The greater the perceived probability of the task completion and the greater the value that a person assigns to the activity, the higher the motivation to achieve. On the other hand, the motivation to achieve diminishes if either of the parts is perceived to be at a low level. Further, the motivation to achieve is severely affected if either of the factors is missing and it is unlikely that an individual will choose such an activity and invest effort in it (Schunk et al., 2008; Wigfield, 1994). For example, if a person is convinced that he/she cannot succeed in an activity no matter how hard he/she tries and if the carrying out of that activity does not result to a valued outcome, the person will not plan to carry out that activity. The expectancy of success is future oriented (Schunk et al., 2008) in the sense that it refers to the belief a person has in relation to an upcoming or future task. The expectancy further depends upon many factors, such as self-perceptions of ability or competence (self-efficacy), self-related beliefs (self-worth and self-concept) and perceived causes of outcomes (attributions). Many researchers such as Albert Bandura, Martin Covington, Elliot and Dweck, and Bernard Weiner have extensively discussed the important roles played by these constructs in determining an individual’s motivation and proposed their respective theories. These constructs, except self-efficacy, while important are beyond the scope of this discussion.

According to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), an individual’s judgement of their skills, capabilities and competence largely determines the choice of an activity, level of aspiration, amount of effort employed and level of persistence to successfully