Motivation is something I have often thought about since beginning my career as student and educator. What motived me to stay up late to finish a paper; social pressure, fear of negative consequences, desire for a good grade, a high value placed on schoolwork, or a confidence that staying up late would produce a good result? Why would one of my students spend so much time and energy on a project while the others forgot about it? While motivating students was something I regularly sought to do, mostly through engaging, relevant lessons, and positive affirmation; it was not something I can say that I systematically embedded within the design of each unit of instruction. The flexibility the ARCS model affords by easily paralleling and combining with countless instructional design models is a remarkable strength (Cheng & Yeh, 2009). Motivation may not be included as an instructional objective, but it should be considered alongside all instruction with corresponding outcomes.
Pintrich’s (2002) three part definition helped me to realize that motivation is far more complex than I was led to believe. Like learning, it can be viewed from multiple perspectives such as cognitive or behaviorist. Others even define is as characteristic someone inherently posseses much like the debate of nature vs. nurture. The perspective one espouses would then contribute to the theory of motivation they feel explains the phenomena the best. However, the various theories such as need theories and self-determination theory are not confined by a single ontological argument (Cheng & Yeh, 2009).
The expectancy * value theory is one that simply yet profoundly suggests reasons why a persons chooses to persist and exude effort on a task or toward a goal. For example, consider the gruesome PhD process illustrated above. The week begins with a fantasy of how much work will be accomplished and ends with guilt over how little was accomplished. Expectancy was low at the beginning of the week and finshed just as low. So much was assigned, and the student felt it was impossible to complete the tasks. However, the work peaks midweek for the meeting with the advisor. It may not be that the student felt anymore confident in what was being accomplished but valued their life as a PhD student, the potential to make progress, the advisor’s time, and the overarching knowledge that every successful meeting with the advisor is one step closer to the prized achievement. Value was high, and the effort soared! Work plummets after the meeting which leads to the need to go where everybody knows your name and be reminded that there are people who believe you can succeed.
This simple comic shows the reciprical relationship many have studied between motivation and learning and performance. “When students attain learning goals, goal attainment conveys to them that they possess the requisite capabilities for learning. These beliefs motivate them to set new, challenging goals. Students who are motivated to learn often find that once they do, they are intrinsically motivated to continue their learning (Meece as cited in Pintrich, 2002, pg. 6).” This is encouraging though, because if it is true, this means we can choose which side of the relationship is easier to target, learning or motivation. Conversely, if we design for both, we may hope to at least achieve one.
Knowing that little will be accomplished when the product of expectancy and value is zero augments the need for motivation within the design of instruction. If either value of expectancy reaches zero, the properties of multiplication demand that no effort will be put forth by the learner. In my experience, it has been more difficult to get students to increase their value of learning, and I have focused on increasing their self-efficacy and confidence. Following the ARCS model or Howland’s framework for meaningful learning can both aid in guiding students to see the value in the learning process and outcome (Keller, 1983; Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2011).
Cheng, Y. C., & Yeh, H. T. (2009). From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering motivation from an instructional design perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 597–605. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x
Howland, J. L., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R. M. (2011). Meaningful Learning with Technology. Pearson Education Inc.
Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction.
Pintrich. (2002). Motivation: Introduction and historical foundations.