de 29 Clave: DPES/CG/003/C

I agree with Eccles, who suggests that when individuals make choices, their expectations of achievement relate to their personally held ‘subjective values’ and these ‘subjective values’ can be influenced by others, for example, parents who influence children’s choices (Eccles, 2008, p. 233).

Bandura (2004) also argues that a person’s self-belief is influenced by social situations, in his social cognitive theory when he links motivation to the notion of self-efficacy. He argues that self-efficacy can be developed in four possible ways, by: ‘Mastery experience; social

modelling; social persuasion and construal of physical or emotional states’ (Bandura, 2004, p. 79). Mastery, he posits, is when people learn through personal experience. This can either accommodate success or failure but learning is influenced through both positive and negative responses. He links this to the notion of resilience, where people develop strategies to keep learning despite such failures. The second way to develop self-efficacy is through social modelling, when a person observes others either benefiting, or being prejudiced by certain acts. The third avenue is by social persuasion, this goes beyond verbal persuasion alone because getting someone to attend a mathematics class would not be enough to develop their self-efficacy. They would also need to feel supported in order to achieve and to develop their own self-belief in their abilities. So in my research context Union Learning Representatives would have to go beyond persuading members to join a mathematics class; they would have to ensure the classes are accessible and

provide a supportive environment, which would hopefully lead to positive learning

experiences. The fourth way is by about how people read emotional arousal or tension in themselves as negative, especially when remembering negative emotions about learning mathematics, which might inhibit their current attempts (Bandura, 2004, p. 80). Bandura’s notion of self -efficacy reinforces my understanding of how motivation associates cognitive aspects of learning to social contexts, histories and support that link to emotions. Research into trade union education (Rees, 2007; Ross et al., 2011) also suggests that a mixture of social modelling and social persuasion is used to try to motivate adult learners in the workplace.

However the notion of self-efficacy has come in for some criticism. While recent research in the US points to self-efficacy as a good predictor of success when learning mathematics (Safford, not yet published), others such as Mcleod (1994) question this relationship, pointing to it being more about a good predictor of choosing to do mathematics because individuals already believe they are proficient at it, rather than being successful once they have chosen to do it. Hannula (2006) also suggests that research into self-efficacy is often related more to trying to measure achievement rather than to describing the quality of motivation. While both of these criticisms have validity, I considered the links Bandura (2004) made between motivation, cognition, and emotion in relation to social actions as

valuable when developing my own analysis and utilised his notions of social modelling and persuasion in concepts as described in chapter seven.

Even more interestingly, in his later work Bandura describes the notion of collective- efficacy, which he sees as being something that groups of people develop to overcome power relations or traditional societal practices. I interpret the notion of ‘collective’ action as something not normally associated with the learning of mathematics, which is more often seen as an individual activity following procedures to gain recognised qualifications (Swan, 2012) that improve the individual’s own social status. Nevertheless collective-efficacy is an interesting concept to consider when reflecting on learning mathematics in a trade union context. For me, it relates the development of efficacy to the social group and reinforces the social context as important as cognition in the form of self-belief, something Bandura may not have initially intended.

Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest motivation has both intrinsic and extrinsic sources. They define intrinsic motivation as ‘doing something for the inherent satisfactions rather than from separable consequence’ (p. 56). Whereas extrinsic ‘pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome…it contrasts to intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of doing the activity itself’ (p. 60). They theorise intrinsic motivation as being made up of three needs related to: a sense of

autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy is about self- belief and about being in control, or having the freedom to make choices. Competence is about having the ability or skills to do the job or the mathematics. Relatedness is about a sense of social belonging, or connectedness to a person’s group or culture (ibid, p.229).

I interpret a commonality between Ryan and Deci’s notions of intrinsic needs and Bandura’s ideas. Both recognise the role of self-belief in motivation, Bandura through remembered experiences and Ryan and Deci through feelings of being in control. Both also see the importance of recognition of achievement, Bandura through the notion of mastery and Ryan and Deci through competence. Importantly they also recognise the influence of the social group, Bandura through notions of social modelling and social

belief, recognition of achievement and influence of the social group all inform the

development of the concepts and categories in chapters seven and eight, when addressing my research questions.

However I want to return to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) notions of competence, and

relatedness in relation to intrinsic motivation, as I also use these ideas later in my analysis. They argue that relatedness is about connecting to face-to-face social groups such as families or classmates and the comparable persons in my research would be fellow trade union learners, ULRs or family members. However, I also understand the notion of

relatedness as something that is culturally related or meaningful to the individual and for a subject as abstract as mathematics this may be just relating topics to practical applications, thereby making the subject relevant to everyday life.

Competency, according to Ryan and Deci, is about feeling able to do something, but in an educational context it is often discussed in relation to its purpose argued in terms of

mastery or performance. Mastery is about learning mathematical skills or becoming expert at mathematics. Performance on the other hand is related to extrinsic motivation that is demonstrating skills for an external purpose … relating motivation to a social purpose. Many researchers in mathematics education appear to value mastery over performance (Dornyei and Ushioda, 2011) but in so doing fail to recognise the effort and the emotional commitment made by adults who are re-engaging with learning perhaps for the purpose of gaining a good mathematics grade to improve their life opportunities. Indeed Ryan and Deci argue intrinsic motivation is important in education because it results in ‘high quality results and creativity’ (ibid. 55). However I disagree with prioritising mastery over

performance as a motivational factor because it fails to recognise the perceived social and economic gains of achieving a qualification that motivates many adults to overcome

personal and social barriers to return to learning. Far from creating a hierarchy of

importance, Kathryn Wetzel (1992) argues that it is possible to fulfil more than one goal at the same time. For example learners in my research may wish to get a good grade

(performance) to get promotion and at the same time ‘learn how to do fractions’ (mastery). In fact this need to prioritise mastery over performance seems to relate more to Ahl’s

(2006) argument about the notion of motivation, which she argues is most often related to who identifies the problem. Is it the mathematics teacher wanting the student to learn in the classroom, or is it the adult learner wanting to re-engage with mathematics to secure a better economic future?

One final point about Ryan and Deci’s (2000) research, is their notion of ‘internalisation’, where they argue the possibility of motivation changing from an extrinsic ‘externally propelled into action’ to an ’active personal commitment’, where the person develops ‘greater persistence’ and a more positive self- assessment’ (p.60). This idea informed my understanding of motivation as something that can change, which I discuss in chapter seven when separating motivation into two categories and also when discussing my idea of an adult’s ‘Affective Mathematical Journey’ in chapter eight.

Concluding remarks on motivation

Having a perception of what motivation is helped me to analyse the interview data and to identify what it actually does. This literature helped me to better understand motivation and through this research I see a convincing case for the notion of the ‘self’ in relation to it, whether described as self-concept, self-efficacy or even self-confidence, that reinforces my understanding of the concept and how it links cognitive aspects of the self to social

contexts and emotions.

Using these ideas and the ones I developed earlier in chapters two and three, where I discussed motivation in relation to empowerment, the self and others in face-to-face social groups, has enabled me to interpret motivation as a complex combination of how people feel, think and form intentions to act in different social situations.

I think how an individual feels about starting to learn is as important as the initial social reasons they may give for attending mathematics classes. So I see motivation as a function of an individual’s domain of affect, which develops and is developed, by social face-to-face groups acting within a wider social context. Some may argue this is the definition of attitude but I understand attitude as problematic in that it is often used in

motivation as more cognitive than attitude because it is about forming an individual’s intentions to act, rather than simply displaying behaviour.

Being motivated to do something is about action and change within a social space, so an individual must want (or desire) to make that change, which therefore links motivation with self-evaluation. On the other hand they may decide not to act. Indeed remembered

negative emotions may obstruct a person’s motivation. So I see motivation as inextricably linked to emotions, separate but connected. I now move on to consider research in this area.