Seifert

CONSIDERATIONS ON MOTIVATION: SELF-ASSUREDNESS AND AGENCY Timothy L. Seifert Memorial University of Newfoundland

I wish to begin by a brief consideration of the distinctions between the different usages of the word "motive." When we speak of someone being motivated or not being motivated, we are referring to some qualities of the person's behaviours directed towards achieving some end. When we describe someone as being motivated to learn, we are making a judgement based upon observation of that person's behaviours: things they say, things they do, and the quality of the work they produce. In the context of schooling, a person motivated to learn may be characterized, in part, as someone who is willing to engage in the task (eagerness), will persist at a task, and is self-initiating and self-directing. Such a person demonstrates a commitment to learning by focussing on learning new skills, acquiring more knowledge, improving competency, understanding and mastering the work. On the other hand, someone who is not motivated to learn may refuse to do the assigned work or may do the minimum work necessary. That student may choose to do only the easiest work, perform the work in the easiest way possible, and avoid any unnecessary work. The student may shy away from challenging problems or situations which may tax his or her abilities. Such a person may be less interested in learning than pursuing other ends.

In contemporary cognitive psychology, metacognition has emerged as a dominant construct characteristic of the type of motivated person described above. Good learners are metacognitive, poor learners are not. Good learners are mentally active, poor learners are not. It is the quality of this mental activity that determines immediate and future performance. By metacognition, we mean the orchestration and utilization of mental resources to address the task at hand. When a student approaches a task, the student must identify the type of task and know what the task requires. The student must also know about ways to complete the task, or strategies. The student must know what strategy might work and what strategy might not work. Yet, the learner must also regulate thinking while performing the task. The learner needs to make plans, monitor strategy use, and evaluate performance on the task. In other words, the learner must be mentally active. The student needs to be aware of his/her thinking, in control of his/her thinking, and be willing to modify his/her thinking.

The development and utilization of this mental activity is closely connected to motivation to learn. Not only does this mental activity describe a person motivated to learn, the motivational disposition of the learner may sustain and enhance this mental activity. A student who is motivated to learn is a student who will be mentally active. Because the students is mentally active, utilizing components of the metacognitive system, he or she is more likely to achieve success through his or her efforts. Having achieved success through effort enhances the development of the metacognitive system and sustains motivation to learn. This motivation will increase the likelihood that the student will put forth the necessary mental effort enabling the student to achieve future success. Thus motivation to learn, metacognition, and success become interrelated in a way that promotes the development of the child.

On the other hand, a student who is not motivated to learn will not engage in the mental activity necessary to achieve success. Consequently, he or she may fail. In failing, the student does not acquire the metacognitive knowledge and skills needed for future learning. Motivation may continue to be low, or pushed lower. The student eventually falls into a pattern of failure which may become debilitating. Understanding motives is important to improving academic performance.

When we speak of a person as having a motive, we refer to the reason a person engages in some behaviour, such as an act or speech. This reason may be external to the person such that the person is compelled to engage in the behaviour. Such a view is not uncommon and was a powerful force in early psychology. Early attempts at formulating laws of learning and behaviour tried to explain behaviour in terms of reinforcements and punishments. A person who was rewarded for engaging in some behaviour ought to be likely to engage in similar behaviours in similar circumstances. Such thinking underlies the current and prevalent practice of businesses offering token points for utilizing their services which may be accumulated and exchanged for some tangible merchandise. This particular school of thought views human behaviour as contingent upon reinforcement of responses to certain antecedent conditions. Something happens; we respond; there is a consequence to our response which determines whether or not our future responses will be similar to our initial response. Behaviour is conditioned, and the motive for our behaviour is conditioned -- we have learned to respond in a certain way in a certain situation.

Other schools of thought have suggested that the reasons for our behaviour, our motives, are internal -- they originate within us. Some view motives as arising from drive reduction, need satisfaction, or thoughts and beliefs. The drive reduction and the needs satisfaction views suggest that humans have drives that must be reduced or needs that must be satisfied. Our behaviour is subsequently directed towards reducing the drive or satisfying the need. For example, psychologists might postulate adults have a sex-drive or a need for sex, and behaviour is subsequently directed towards engaging in sexual activity to reduce that drive or satisfy the need. Such is the thinking underlying the suggestion of inducing learning behaviours in students by using novelty or tricks to stimulate interest or curiosity. The intent is to create a need to learn which will be satisfied by doing the assigned work. However, the cognitive school of psychology has suggested that the reasons for behaviours are more profound and arise from beliefs held by the person and it is this particular view I wish to expound.

Two constructs have emerged as being paramount in the cognitive view of motivation. The first construct is self-assuredness, the second is agency. To understand the role of self-assuredness, it is important to understand the constructs of self-efficacy and self-worth. Self-efficacy refers to a person's belief that he or she is capable of performing a task, a perception of competency. It is a confidence judgement about being able to what is being asked. The research in self-efficacy theory has resulted in some very straightforward claims. Students who believe themselves to be capable are more likely to be motivated; those who believe themselves incapable will not be motivated. This explanation is readily apparent when we witness a child exclaim "I can do that!" and readily attack the task at hand, or when we witness a child proclaim "I can't do that" and refuse to attempt the task.

Yet, we must also admit that this explanation is unsatisfactory on two accounts. First, while it may seem sensible enough to say that students who judge perceive themselves incapable will not be motivated to learn, it is not necessarily the case that students who are not motivated to learn see themselves as incapable. This point is evidenced by the bright but bored underachiever who does the minimum to get by. Such a student may feel capable but attaches no value to effort beyond the minimum. Second, we may have witnessed children proclaim "I can't do that" but proceed to attempt the problem anyway. A child may state that they do not know how to do something but that perception of incapability may not necessarily hinder that child.

However, if we view motivation as an attempt to protect self-worth then we can provide a more powerful explanation than self-efficacy theory. Covington has suggested that motivation may be explained as an attempt to protect self-worth. Each person has a need to believe that he or she is worthy and valued. According to Covington, many people believe that self-worth is inherently tied to one's ability to perform. Thus, who you are and your value as a person becomes inherently connected to one's ability to do something well.

If you will allow me to digress for a moment, a story will clarify what Covington is trying to point out. I happened to see a television interview of figure skater Kurt Browning on a CBC show called Champions. In this interview, Kurt was recollecting the events of the 1993 World Championships and 1992 Olympics. He was expected to win a gold medal at both events but during his performance at each event, he fell after attempting a difficult jump. At the end of one of the performances he came off of the ice crying and made the remark that this must be what it feels like to lose a child. He received many faxes and telegrams of support from fans, but one of the letters he received was from Barbara Underhill who had lost a child. She told him this is not what it feels like to lose a child. It was just a competition. In the interview, Kurt stated that when he read that, he realized that figure skating is not who he is, it is just something he does. Unfortunately, many people believe that who they are, their worth and dignity as people, is intimately connected to their ability to perform.

According to self-worth theory, self-worth is intimately connected with performance for many students and doing well is important to one's self of worth and dignity. Yet, if students cannot perform well, they seek ways to make it appear as though they could have succeeded. In other words, no matter what else occurs, do not look incompetent. Consequently, if students perceive themselves incapable of performing well, they become motivated to protect perceptions of competency, for if they can convince themselves and others they could do well they will maintain some sense of worth or dignity.

For example, imagine a student who has been given a test to complete. The student looks at the answers and realizes that this is a hard test. Instead of answering the questions, the student fools around and fails the test. The teacher admonishes the student by saying that with some effort the student could have passed. This is exactly what the student wanted, because the student and the teacher have blamed the failure on lack of effort, leaving the student's perception of competency and self-worth unthreatened (for now).

In summary, self-worth theory posits that if a student believes that self-worth is conditional upon performance, and performance is not satisfactory such that perceptions of competency may become threatened, that student will behave in such a manner as to protect perceptions of competency and self-worth. This is consistent with self-efficacy theory, for if the student believes himself or herself to be capable, then he or she will be motivated to do the work. If the student does not believe that a satisfactory performance is possible, the student will not be motivated to do the work. Covington describes such students as failure avoidant.

However, if the student does not believe that self-worth is conditional upon performance or that ability is the source of performance, competency perceptions may not influence motivation for a task. These students seek to learn, and increase competency. Failure, for such a person, does not necessarily imply incompetency or lead to a lower sense of self-worth. Failure is interpreted as meaning that one lacks some skill or knowledge needed for the task which can be acquired. Thus, even though initial confidence is low, a student may still be motivated to perform a task because he or she can learn from doing it. More importantly, the student, despite low competency perceptions, may engage in a task because the student sees himself or herself as a causal agent. Such a student believes that with effort and knowledge success is attainable.

Agency has emerged as a second important construct in contemporary motivational theory. The basic premise of agency as a motivating force is that people who see themselves as agents are more likely to be motivated than people who are passive. By agency, I refer to a sense of control and autonomy. Students who believe that their success lies within their control attribute their success to internal, controllable factors (e.g., effort or strategy use). These are students who will feel proud, satisfied, and competent. These students recognize that it was through their own efforts they succeeded, they feel good about themselves and have attained a measure of self-worth. Consequently, these students are more likely to choose to work on harder tasks, persist in the face of difficulty, and produce work that is of good quality. These students will be self-regulating and self-determining. Such behaviours should lead to more success which should result in enhanced feelings about self.

Some students do not see themselves as agents of success. These students will attribute success to internal, uncontrollable factors (specifically ability) or to external factors (e.g., luck, teacher's help). Consequently, they do not feel proud or satisfied with the work they do. These students tend to be less motivated. They prefer to work on less-challenging tasks and do not persist in the face of difficulty, produce work that is of lesser quality, and are prone to maladaptive or dysfunctional behaviours.

Of particular importance is the attributional pattern in which success is attributed to external factors (e.g., luck) but failure is attributed to internal, uncontrollable factors (especially inability). Such a pattern is characteristic of students who are helpless. If they fail, they blame themselves; if they succeed, they do not give themselves credit. The result of this pattern of thinking is a student who does not see himself/herself as an agent and feels very little control over his/her learning. He/she does not feel proud or satisfied and his/her sense of self-worth disappears. Consequently little learning occurs and the metacognitive development of the learner suffers.

Yet agency is not just a matter of believing that one is in control. Agency is an essential part of the human condition that stems from an innate human desire to behave in an autonomous manner. That is, people seek to be self-determining and behaviours are directed towards becoming autonomous or maintaining autonomy. Students who believe themselves to be acting in a self-directing manner will be more motivated -- they will be self-regulating, take greater interest in their work, experience more positive emotions about their work, and develop deeper conceptual understanding of the content. If students perceive that they are being coerced, or if their sense of autonomy is threatened motivation to learn will decrease as other motives arise (such as please the teacher or not fail the test).

Motivation, being motivated, is closely connected to the formation of the self. Students who are motivated are in the process of becoming aware of themselves and have a strong sense of self. They are self-assured and have a sense of agency or autonomy; they are motivated to learn and their behaviours are self-enhancing. If this sense of self becomes jeopardized or threatened, or if students lose a sense of self, then their behaviour becomes dysfunctional. They begin to engage in behaviours which are self-protective or self-destructive.

A sense of self-assuredness and agency develop, not from curriculum innovations or educational reforms, but from human interactions. Students come to feel good about themselves and come to develop a sense of agency through interactions with teachers and parents who are perceived to be caring, respectful, and striving to promote feelings of competency and agency.

The relationship between self-assurance and motivated behaviours has two important implications. The first implication concerns the messages we send to students about the opportunities for success and the value of success. What opportunities do we provide to students so that they can meet success with effort? Often the rewards that are offered to students are distributed such that only a few can share in the rewards and achieve success. Grade distributions are arbitrarily constructed such that only a few can achieve A's within a class. Special privileges are often allocated to those who finish fastest or have the most correct, cutting of most students from a chance to share in those privileges. Consequently the opportunity to achieve success is a remote possibility for some students.

Further, if performance and self-worth are as closely connected as Covington suggests, are we providing opportunities for students to find things that they are good at (such as the arts, trades, academics), and thus obtain some measure of self-worth? Do students have an opportunity to display their various skills or are all assessments written format? Such considerations are important because there are certain trends that present the real possibility of cutting students off from sources of self-worth through displays of competency. For example, many students with reading disabilities have very good spatial skills and are good artists or musicians. While they may not read or write very well, they can draw or perform. If the only opportunities these students have to express their knowledge is in written form, they may not do very well and self-worth may suffer. However, if they can express their knowledge in other forms (through art or music, for example), they may come to see themselves as competent, be seen as competent by their peers, and thus attain some measure of self-worth.

Yet we must also consider the types of programmes that are being offered and being cut through economic downsizing. If programmes in the arts, music, the humanities, and physical education are eliminated, and math, science, and technology become valued as the programmes to which resources should be allocated, many students will be cut off from sources of self-worth. A large number of students do not see themselves capable in math or technology. Yet if math and technology are the paths students are pressured into because of scarcity of resources and economic priorities, many students will be cut off from a major source of self-worth.

As an example, I watched a documentary about a school in �Western Canada which implemented a new pass/fail system in math and science in which the passing grade was raised to 80%. From a self-worth perspective, students who were achieving at 75% may be able to raise their performance to 80%. But students who were performing at the 60% level may see the new pass level as unattainable. If so, they would perceive themselves as having little chance of success; self-worth would be threatened and motivation to learn would disappear.

Yet, the most important implication of self-worth theory pertains to the formation of the performance-worth link itself. The belief that worth comes from performance creates a conditional sense of worth. I am worthy as long as I am good at something. But is it possible to unconditionally accept someone? Can we say to our students that you are a good person, you are important to us, we love you even though you may not be getting A's? What messages are being sent by teachers and parents about the worth and dignity of the person? You are valued only if you do well?

The agency-motivated behaviour relationship has important implications for teaching, specifically the types of messages we send and the opportunities we offer students for making meaningful decisions. Psychological research has pointed out that students who are motivated to learn are students who see themselves as agents. Students who are not motivated to learn are students who make external or uncontrollable attributions. What messages do we send about the causes of success and failure? Does our language and do our practices leave students with the belief that ability is the cause of success or failure? Or do we teach them the importance of strategy and effort in success and failure?

Offering opport unities for students to be autonomous is critical for the development of self-determination and self-regulation. But do we provide students with the opportunities to make meaningful decisions in their learning? Do students have a role in decision-making matters with in the school? Could they be given opportunities to make decisions about what they might learn, how they might learn it, what tasks they might accomplish, or how they might be evaluated? Are students given an opportunity for making meaningful decisions?

Motivation to learn is strongly related to self-assuredness and agency. Students who are sure of themselves and have a sense of agency are students who will be motivated to learn. But this sense of self and agency is developed through interpersonal relationships. Parents and teachers who are seen as caring and supportive will help students develop a strong sense of self. Parents and teachers who are seen as uncaring, manipulative, or punitive will stunt the growth of the sense of self within the student. For example, the inappropriate use of reward systems can lead to a decrease in motivation to learn by decreasing students' sense of agency. Students may begin to form external attribution patterns and feel a loss of autonomy. Classrooms which get students to think about how they learn and solve problems, create meaning in the work for students, give students opportunities to make decisions, and place emphasis on effort and strategy use tend to be classrooms in which students are motivated to learn.

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1993). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Boggiano, A. & Katz, P. (1991). Maladaptive achievement patterns in students: The role of teachers' controlling strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 35-51.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., and Pressley, M. (1990). ' Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of meta-cognition, attributions, and self-esteem', In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, A. & Palincsar, A. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.

Brown, A. and Palincsar, A. (1982). 'Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training', Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.

Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.

Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Ibid.

Marshall, H. (1987). The motivational strategies of three fifth grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 135-150.

Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teacher's College Record, 89, 281-306.

Palincsar, A. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118-124.

Seifert, T.L. (1997). Academic goals and emotions: Results of a structural equation model and a cluster analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

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