Motivation is the concept used to describe the forces acting on or within an organism to initiate or direct behaviours (Petri, 1986, p. 3). Based on this definition, when it comes to academic performance motivation can be used to describe forces that can initiate and direct students to perform better. The absence of these forces may lead to low performance.
Students in higher education are assumed to be independent learners (Moore, 1973). According to Kesten (1987), independent learners are expected to be self-motivated and have the ability to use the resources available to them and make appropriate decisions regarding their own learning. That is, they are required to have the ability to control and manage their studies rather than depending entirely on their teachers. In previous studies, it has been suggested that self-regulation could be useful to assist students’ learning process and increase their performance (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings and behaviours that are oriented to attaining goals (Zimmerman, 2000: cited in Zimmerman, 2002, p. 65). Self-regulated students are therefore likely to perform better than students who are not. Zimmerman (2002, p. 66) noted that:
“These learners monitor their behaviour in terms of their goals, and self-reflect on their increasing effectiveness. This enhances their satisfaction and motivation to continue to improve their methods of
13 “The lower class students are unfamiliar with the academic culture and therefore disadvantaged compared to
students from families who are closer to this culture, and in other words, have more cultural capital. This leads to social reproduction because those who have been inculcated the cultural forms from childhood will have greatest probability of academic success” (Collins 1971, 1975, 1976; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1996: cited in Nordli and Mastekaasa 2006, p. 277)
26
learning. Because of their superior motivation and adaptive learning methods, self-regulated students are not only more likely to succeed academically but to view their future optimistically”.
Moreover, self-regulated students are believed to have a strong self-efficacy and intrinsic interest (Zimmerman, 2002). He noted that self-efficacy has a wider form of motivation including efforts, choices, emotional reactions and persistence. As noted by Bandura (1977: cited in Sheehy, 2004, p. 29) self-efficacy is the foundation of human motivation, well-being and personal accomplishment. It shapes the way people think, choices they make and vulnerability to stress and depression. Moreover, it determines the effort spent on a given task and persistence in the face of difficulties (Bandura, 1977). Individuals with strong self- efficacy are internally motivated while individuals with weak self-efficacy may need reinforcement. In relation to academic performance, it could be explained that students with strong self-efficacy are likely to devote more time and efforts on academic matters. In addition, their choices may depend on their interests, thus they may choose difficult programmes to meet their goals because they belief they are capable to perform better. Therefore, students with strong self-efficacy may perform better than those with weak self- efficacy. Students who have strong self-efficacy are likely to control their behaviour and be able to adapt to the new learning environments such as, higher education. In relation to goals, researchers have found that individuals who have set their goals are likely to devote more time, commitment and energy in order to achieve their goals (Schunk, 1991). He added that as they work on the task, they engage in activities they believe will lead to goal attainment. Tinto (1993) indicated that highly motivated people are willing to commit themselves fully to the attainment of valued goals and expend the energies and resources to do so. Therefore, students who are willing to invest their time, energy and often-scarce resources to meet the institutional demands imposed upon them are more likely to perform better academically. The effects of motivation on academic performance have been widely acknowledged by many researchers: Pintrich and De Groot (1990), Kranzler and Pajares (1995), Watson, McSorley, Foxcroft, and Watson (2004), Steinmayr and Spinath (2009) and Litmanen, Hirsto, and Lonka (2010). In their study Kranzler and Pajares (1995) analysed the influence of self- efficacy and students’ ability on mathematics problem solving in high school. They observed that students’ self-efficacy about their math capability had a strong influence on math anxiety and problem solving even when the general ability was controlled. Another study by Watson et al. (2004) on motivation and learning strategies and their relation to academic performance used three motivational constructs: self-efficacy belief, goal orientation and self-regulation.
27 They concluded that students who saw personal value in the courses they followed, who believed they exerted special efforts, who knew how to plan and direct their time and study place well, performed better than those who did not. A similar study by Al-Harthy and Was (2010) in USA found that motivational constructs such as self-efficacy, self-regulation and task value were significantly positively related to test scores. The study by Radovan (2011) aimed to discover the possible relationship between self-regulated learning dimensions and students’ success corresponds with the previous studies. In his study, he found that goal setting, task value, self-efficacy and self-regulation were the main strategies that led to better academic achievements of students. He concluded that students who set themselves more intrinsic goals, value their learning, believe in their ability to successfully accomplish academic demands and can handle distractions and maintain concentration finished more exams, accomplished them faster, and achieved higher test scores.
Based on the above literature overview, it is observed that motivation can influence good performance in different levels: lower level (primary school) students (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990), middle level (secondary school) students (Kranzler and Pajares, 1995) and higher education students (Radovan, 2011), and in different countries: in Germany (Steinmayr and Spinath, 2009), in Finland (Litmanen et al., 2010), in South Africa (Watson et al., 2004) and in USA (Al-Harthy and Was, 2010). All these studies have recognized the influence of motivation on academic performance. On this basis, despite that these studies were not conducted in Tanzania the consensus in the results gives confidence that they can also be applicable in the Tanzanian context.