Motivation: Used Often, Often Misunderstood
The next time you’re speaking with your colleagues, friends, children, or students ask them to define the term motivation, “Motivation is….” In all likelihood, the responses will represent a wide-range of responses, mostly describing characteristics of “unmotivated” students. All definitions will voice the importance of motivation to learning and output. The definitions will probably dance around the definition by substituting other global terms in need of definition themselves: Self-confidence, self-esteem, self-concept, locus of control, learned helplessness, volition, or interest.

Mrs. Seifreid, my fourth grade teacher, taught me two rules about definitions: (1) You can’t use the term you're defining in the definition of that term and (2) you can’t use terms in the definition that will need to be defined themselves. Wise words from an experienced teacher, but difficult to achieve especially with the term motivation. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of current views of motivation that may increase understanding of and ability to enhance specific aspects of motivation in students.

Current Views of Motivation
The All Kinds of Minds neurodevelopmental approach is grounded in specifying what might be considered primary relationships between the neurodevelopmental constructs of attention, memory, language, the ordering systems, higher order cognition, neuromotor functions, and social cognition and the educational performance and social well being of students. We spend a great deal of time educating educators, clinicians, parents and caregivers, and students about the neurodevelopmental underpinnings of performance. The effort promotes a better understanding of prime suspects contributing to differences in learning. But, differences in learning can often impact motivation, sometimes considered a secondary issue to neurodevelopmental problems. Nevertheless, motivation is an important issue to educators and parents alike and if better understood, can help facilitate improvement in the educational well being of children, early adolescents, and adolescents.

Most views (i.e., theories) of motivation conceptualize it as being multi-dimensional (or faceted) not as a global and uni-dimensional construct. What does this mean for teachers? Understanding current perspectives of motivation allow teachers to learn and use a specific language that goes beyond generalities and moral turpitude associated with phrases like, “She is just not motivated” or “He just doesn’t want to put in the effort.” Using this new language to discuss motivation allows teachers to specify breakdowns in this area much like they can specify breakdowns in attention or any other neurodevelopmental construct. For example, teachers should no longer use global terms like “Attention Deficits” as both the description of, and explanation for, differences in learning. Teachers should think about observing and asking questions that allow them to specify which of the controls of attention are undermining learning and output.

In general, perspectives on motivation may be split into the following views:
expectations and values, or the view that a student’s behavior results from the combined function of student’s prospects for attaining particular outcome and the degree to which they place some worth in the outcome (Atkinson, 1957; Eccles, 1983);
self-concept, defined as a student’s collected self-perceptions formed through experience and interpretation of those experiences (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985);
attributions, or a student’s perceived cause of an outcome (e.g., high or low grade on a test) (Weiner, 1985); and
self-efficacy, defined as student’s judgments of their capabilities to plan, organize, implement, and monitor a course of action that will lead to attaining a designated level of performance (Bandura, 1986; 1993; 1997; Schunk, 1991).

Each of these facets of motivation shares the characteristic of being cognitive in nature. Motivation is more than finding the correct reinforcement schedule and reward or punishment (think B. F. Skinner and Behaviorism). Students actively think about the feedback we give them. Oral and written feedback validates their sense of self-worth and competency, communicates to them how well or poorly they are doing, the degree effectiveness of their strategies, etc. Their accumulated mass of prior feedback and experiences, in part, influences everything from their self-concept and sense of well being to the degree of effort they will exert on the next task. The primary difference between the facets of motivation defined above is the degree to which each is thought of as a general disposition of the individual (e.g., self-concept) or specific to a task (e.g., self-efficacy).

Expectations and values. Expectancy-value perspectives emphasize the two-pronged influence of a student’s expectations for attaining a designated level of performance and the extent to which the student values that outcome. For example, a student may expect that he could score an 80 or higher on the next math test (and be fully capable of attaining that score) which will push his end-of-term grade in Algebra I into the B/B- range. But, if he doesn’t value receiving a B/B- on his end of term Algebra I grade, in all likelihood, he will not exert the needed effort to score at least an 80. Maybe the student doesn’t care what his grade is OR maybe he only cares about receiving an A. Even if the test score is easily within in his grasp. An attractive goal in combination with the belief that it is attainable motivates people to act (Schunk, 1991). Management strategies should focus on linking the end-of-term score to a goal thought of as attractive by the student, thereby making the test score of 80 or higher a means to a more attractive end. For example, entrance to the college of his choice or more time dedicated to developing his declared area of expertise or affinity area.

Students may present a second scenario: A student may value a grade of at least a B/B- in Algebra I but not expect that she could ever receive such a high grade. In this student’s case, the student will not be motivated to pursue a goal thought of as unattainable. In this case, the educational management plan may need to include a range of intervention strategies including accommodations, setting a series of short term or proximal goals that will lead to attaining the longer term goal of higher grade, in combination a healthy dose of strategy instruction and scaffolding.

A third type of student may be one who possesses a low expectation for, and little value in, attaining a designated level of performance. In this case, the educational management plan may use a range of intervention strategies but emphasize their use in the student’s declared affinity area (an area of high value and possibly high expectation for success). In this way, the student will see the benefit of the management plan in relation to enhancing an affinity. The student and teacher may then leverage a higher expectation for success and improved value of outcomes in academic areas.

Self-concept. Theories of self-concept view this facet of motivation as being multi-dimensional in nature and comprising self-esteem, self-confidence, stability, and crystallization (Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982; Schunk, 1991). Self-esteem is viewed as a student’s respect for him or herself (Schunk, 1991). Self-confidence is a student’s belief that he or she possesses the ability to produce results, attain goals, or possesses the competence to complete tasks (Schunk, 1991). Stability refers to the ease or difficulty of changing one’s self-concept which is related to how crystallized the student’s self-perceptions have become through repeated successes or failures (Schunk, 1991).

Most researchers accept the notion that self-concept is a global construct (reflecting the general disposition of the student) that is multi-dimension and hierarchically organized. Marsh and Shavelson (1985) provided evidence that students possess a general self-concept, an overarching sense of self-worth based on a collection of perceptions based on personal experiences and feedback from significant others. These collective perceptions that contribute to one’s sense of competence vary developmentally, but in general include an academic self-concept (which is derived from performance in reading, writing, the content areas), self-concept related to peer-relations, and self-concept related to relations with adults.

What does this mean for educators? Students may present observable phenomena representative of a high, adequate, or low general self-concept, “I’m a poor student.” “I’m pretty good in school.” But, a teacher who hears a student making such statements must keep in mind that these comments are in all likelihood an amalgamation of perceptions from different content areas, that is an overall judgment of competence. Important follow-up questions should focus on learning more about their sense of competence in each of the content areas and also gaining a sense of how crystallized and stable the beliefs are. The more stable the beliefs, the more difficult it will be to engage the student in risk-taking tasks. To enhance self-concept, the management plan will need to include an appropriate mix of accommodations, interventions, and emphasize strengthening of affinities or development of expertise.

Attributions. Attribution perspectives on motivation assume that students actively think about the perceived causes of outcomes (e.g., grades) (Schunk, 1991, 2000). Students who receive a high grade on a social studies test may attribute this positive outcome to their ability (“I’m good in Social Studies.”), effort expenditure (“I studied hard for that test.”), ability and effort (“I am good in Social Studies and I studied hard for the test.”), task ease (“The test was easy.”), or luck (“I was lucky on this test. I studied the right notes and sections in the text.”). Students who receive a low grade on the Social Studies test may attribute this negative outcome to ability (“I’m horrible in Social Studies”), effort expenditure (“I didn’t study hard enough for this test”), ability and effort (“I am horrible in Social Studies and I didn’t study hard enough for the test”), task difficulty (“That was the hardest test ever. I bet no one will receive a good grade.”), or luck (“My luck ran out on this test. I just studied the notes and didn’t read the book like I did before the other tests.”).

Teachers will need to spend some time talking to students about their perceived causes of success and failure. For example, teachers may need to shift students’ attributions if they think that their successes and failures are based solely on ability. Ability is highly stable and not under the direct control of the student. For example, a student who attributes her excellent performance in Algebra I and II to her ability (“I’m smart in Algebra.”) may begin to think of herself as not as able in Calculus when her grades begin to decline (“I was so smart in my other math classes. I guess I need to drop Calculus because I’m not smart enough for this class!”). Good students who begin to form and crystallize beliefs such as these are less likely to expend effort and persist in the face of difficulty. Teachers will need to shift the student’s attribution from ability to effort which is under the direct control of the student (“I will work harder in Calculus class.”). Shifts in attributions are most likely to occur when management plans include accommodations and strategy instruction. For example, the Calculus teacher will need to explain to the student that she will need to work hard to learn a important concept but the effort will lead to success.

Self-efficacy. Views of motivation that emphasize the importance of self-efficacy are most interested in the role student’s judgments about their own capabilities to plan, organize, monitor, and reflect upon their learning and performance on specific tasks (Bandura, 1986; 1993; Schunk, 1991). Perceptions of efficacy have been shown to predict outcomes in a wide-array of situations such as academic achievement, social skills, smoking cessation, pain tolerance, athletic performance, and coping with fears (e.g., snakes, flying) (Bandura, 1986).

In the classroom, students who posses a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to engage in difficult tasks, persist for longer periods of time when faced with challenges, and cope more effectively with set-backs. Students with a low sense of self-efficacy are more likely to avoid challenging learning tasks and not persist in the face of difficulty.

Being aware of students with a low sense of self-efficacy will help educators work with them to set flexible, challenging, and attainable short-term (i.e., proximal) goals that students feel they can reach (i.e., feel highly efficacious about). In many cases, educators will also need to then provide direct instruction in the strategies they want the students to use as well as use of credible others (especially peers) to model strategy use.

Thinking About Motivation and Management

Compared to students without learning problems, students with differences in learning are more likely to
report lower expectations for attaining designated outcomes,
not value those outcomes as highly,
possess a lower general and academic self-concept,
attribute their failures to a lack ability or teacher bias (and their success to luck),
judge themselves less efficacious when tackling specific, challenging tasks.

Motivation may not cause differences in learning. In all likelihood, students fail to attain specific performance outcomes because of a neurodevelopmental difference(s) and diminished motivation (probably initiated by an accumulation of attributions to a lack of ability) rises up and the failure spiral overtime begins to undermine exercising of neurodevelopmental components which undermines development of academic skills.

Failure to succeed may result in negative attributions which may result in lower self-efficacy for the task which leads to more failure which strengthens belief of inability which contributes to lower self-concept which contributes to lowered expectations for success which is associated with a decline in the value of achievement which means effort is not expended which results in diminished use of neurodevelopmental functions which leads to more . . . and so on and so forth.

Slowing down or breaking the failure spiral means one or more facets of motivation will need to be attended to when formulating the management plan. What can teachers do to attend to aspects of motivation in the plan? By emphazing the use of:

Strength and Affinity Leverage: Using strong neurodevelopmental components and affinities are inherently motivating. Whenever possible, for however long they need to be used, strengths and affinities should be used as a strategy for improving performance thereby enhancing self-efficacy.

Stepwisdom: Self-efficacy is enhanced when complex or long-term projects (i.e., distal goals) are broken into more easily attainable short-term goals (proximal goals). For example, students feel much more efficacious when they are told that they need to read one book every other week for nine weeks instead of being told that they need to read four books this grading period.

Task Component Isolation: Reserve the most difficult (and least motivating) aspects of a task for times when the student feels she will be relatively more successful.

Scaffolding: Provide re-assurance and assistance when learning new strategies or when trying to complete a task.

Self-Coaching: As the student is talking himself through a task making sure that the coach (i.e., the student) is cheering himself on to success (“I can do this. I need to work hard for another 15 minutes and I will have reached my goal!” “This is tough but I can do it with hard work!”)

Self-monitoring: Make sure the student monitors her work and asks for assistance when faced with an obstacle. Asking for assistance from others is an effective coping strategy essential to successful learning.

Strategy Initiation: Model and promote strategy usage in students. Self-efficacy is enhanced when strategy initiation is combined with learning goal (goals that stress the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and strategies). All aspects of motivation are enhanced when students feel like they can control over their own learning because of their development of a personal toolbox of strategies.

Other interventions and accommodations may prove to enhance motivation as well. For example, special devices may improve performance and/or motivation. An accommodation such as a volume adjustment may help self-efficacy (“I can’t get 85% of my 20 math problems correct, but I can get 90% of 10 math problems right!”)

Summary
Sometimes students who are not working up to expectations may be described as “unmotivated,” “lazy,” “bored,” or “uninterested.” Words and phrases like these should be a red flag for students who may possess one of more neurodevelopmental differences. Students who are characterized using these phrases need to be observed over time and at the right time asked questions about aspects of their motivation. In general, they will make statements that reveal their being trapped in the failure spiral. A management plan can then be used to minimize the negative effects of diminished motivation for learning, stressing demystification and the use of an appropriate mix of accommodations and interventions, especially strengths and affinities.

Resource
McCombs, B. L., & Pope, J. E. (1994). Motivating hard to reach students. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

References
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Marsh, H. W. , & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multi-faceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-123.

Rosenberg, M. & Kaplan, H. B. (1982). Social psychology of the self-concept. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 201-231.

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Motivation. In Learning theories: An educational perspective (pp 300-354. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological review, 92, 548-573.