Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Theory, Research, and Applications

Dale H. Schunk, Barry J. Zimmerman, Dale H. Schunk, Barry J. Zimmerman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136826771
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

This volume focuses on the role of motivational processes – such as goals, attributions, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, self-concept, self-esteem, social comparisons, emotions, values, and self-evaluations– in self-regulated learning. It provides theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating the role of motivation in self-regulated learning, and discusses detailed applications of the principles of motivation and self-regulation in educational contexts. Each chapter includes a description of the motivational variables, the theoretical rationale for their importance, research evidence to support their role in self-regulation, suggestions for ways to incorporate motivational variables into learning contexts to foster self-regulatory skill development, and achievement outcomes.

1

Motivation

An Essential Dimension of Self-Regulated Learning

Barry J. Zimmerman and Dale H. Schunk

INTRODUCTION

Lexical definitions for self-regulation and close synonyms, such as self-control or self-discipline, all refer to the control of one’s present conduct based on motives related to a subsequent goal or ideal that an individual has set for him- or herself (English & English, 1958). Central to these definitions is the role of personal motives regarding one’s future (including one’s sense of self), although the exact nature of these motives varies from theory to theory, as seen in this volume. A self-regulation analysis broadens conceptions of learning based on reactive outcome measures, such as academic grades or standardized test performance, to include proactive process measures, such as goal setting and strategy use.

Prior books on students’ self-regulated learning (SRL) have focused on processes that learners use to activate and sustain not only their behavioral conduct but also their cognitive and affective functioning (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Research on these processes has revealed that, in comparison to poor self-regulators, good ones set better learning goals, implement more effective learning strategies, monitor and assess their goal progress better, establish a more productive environment for learning, seek assistance more often when it is needed, expend effort and persist better, adjust strategies better, and set more effective new goals when present ones are completed. These descriptive studies led to interventions to help poorly regulated students overcome deficient processes (e.g., Graham, Harris, & Troia, 1998; Schunk, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996). Although SRL interventions produced successful outcomes in classroom settings, they often failed to sustain students’ use of these processes in less-structured environments. This limitation has led researchers to focus on students’ sources of motivation to self-regulate, such as their goal orientations, attributions, self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, social sources, values, and interests. Not surprisingly, many of these sources of motivation involved self-perceptions of various aspects of one’s learning, such as mastery (i.e., goal orientation), personal competence (i.e., self-efficacy), and causality regarding personal outcomes (i.e., attributions).

This chapter focuses on key sources of motivation in SRL. These motives can serve as one or more of the following functions: (a) a precursor to SRL, such as individual differences in interest regarding an academic task such as mathematics; (b) a mediator of SRL, such as whether a training-induced motive leads to improved efforts to SRL; (c) a concomitant of SRL outcomes, such as whether a learning strategy produces changes in intrinsic interest in a task like writing along with improvements in skill; and (d) a primary outcome of SRL, such as whether SRL leads to lower levels of defensiveness about taking courses in a foreign language. In Table 1.1, prominent sources of motivation are listed along with the types of research that have been conducted to date regarding SRL.

In each of the following chapters, the authors provide a distinctive theoretical perspective on the role of motivation in SRL, such as volition, social cognition, goal orientation, self-determination (SD), interest, help seeking, expectancy-value, attributions, as well as others. In this introductory chapter, we discuss key issues regarding the relation between motivation and learning first, and then we briefly survey key sources of motivation that have been linked to students’ use of SRL processes.

KEY ISSUES REGARDING MOTIVATION AND LEARNING

One issue concerns why motivation is important during students’ efforts to self-regulate their learning. Which aspects of academic learning are influenced by motivational constructs? First, highly motivated students are more attentive to their learning processes and outcomes than poorly motivated students (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991). A student can be taught self-monitoring as a cognitive process, but if the student remains motivationally inattentive to his or her feedback, this monitoring is unlikely to be sustained or to enhance learning. Second, students who are motivated to choose a task when given the opportunity display greater progress than unmotivated students (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). For example, a student who memorizes foreign language words during free time in preference to other activities is more likely to acquire mastery of the language than a less-motivated student. Third, students who are motivated to put forth increased effort to learn a difficult task display higher levels of mastery (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). For example, an American student who comes from a non-English-speaking family will need to exert more effort to succeed in a writing class than a student from an English-speaking family. Fourth, students who are more motivated to persist are more likely to learn on their own than less-persistent classmates (Schunk, 1984). For example, an aspiring news announcer who practices pronunciation skills daily is more likely to develop a high level of elocution than a student who practices only weekly. Finally, students who are highly motivated experience greater satisfaction and positive affect when given the opportunity to learn than poorly motivated students (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). For example, a student who is motivated to pursue a career in math is more likely to feel satisfied when receiving a good math test score than a student who does not expect to use math in his or her chosen career. Clearly, motivational processes play a vital role in initiating, guiding, and sustaining student efforts to self-regulate their learning.

A second key issue that emerges during SRL instructional interventions involves potential conflicts between learning and motivation. Use of self-regulatory processes, such as self-questioning during reading, usually requires additional time and effort. How does an instructor motivate a passive student to expend the extra effort needed to implement self-regulatory processes? Although self-regulatory training can enhance many forms of motivation, the effectiveness of this training in producing personal success is seldom instant. It usually requires diligent practice. However, SRL interventions can be designed to enhance students’ motivation concomitantly, such as their self-efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Pajares, 2005) as well as their learning outcomes. There is growing evidence that students’ SRL processes and motivational beliefs are reciprocally interactive. But, what leads to self-enhancing cycles of SRL and motivation rather than conflicting, self-defeating cycles?

One possible answer to this “chicken-and-egg” dilemma for enhancing self-sources of motivation involves the use of social resources, such as parental or instructor modeling, praise, or rewards (e.g., academic grades). Some theorists view these social resources as external to a learner’s control, whereas other theorists, such as social cognitive (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000) and Vygotskian theorists (e.g., McCaslin & Hickey, 2001), view social sources as interdependent with self-sources of motivation. For example, there is a growing body of research indicating that learners’ adaptive help seeking is an important skill (see chapter 13, this volume). Surprisingly, poor learners are reluctant to seek help in a dependent manner because it can expose their limitations. However, students with favorable motivational beliefs, such as a mastery goal orientation (Newman, 1994), are willing to seek assistance because they are confident that it will lead to more adaptive cycles of learning. This is a good example of how social forms of support can enhance SRL learning and motivational beliefs rather than detract from them.

A third key issue concerns how learners’ motivation can be enhanced to ensure long-term SRL outcomes. Historically, educators have embraced efforts to make the curriculum more motivating by selecting interesting instructional tasks, providing praise or tangible rewards for success, or giving students more autonomy. Each of these approaches to motivation has been hypothesized to have a positive immediate impact on learning. Making a learning task more interesting and engaging is attractive to teachers as well as students, but there are aspects of learning that can be described by many viewers as boring and repetitive, such as memorizing words of a new language. Teachers or students who seek to avoid those aspects of learning may preclude the emergence of long-term forms of motivation (e.g., self-efficacy regarding a career) that are less dependent on external support (Blumenfeld, 1992). Similar concerns have been raised about the use of tangible rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Some parents and teachers feel that if rewards are used to motivate learning, then students will become unwilling to engage in tasks that do not offer such benefits. However, giving students the autonomy to choose preferred learning tasks may lead to “cherry-picking” easy tasks that are superficially fun but do not develop important competencies. Research studies show that setting difficult goals can significantly increase students’ motivation and performance (Locke & Latham, 2002).

Research on expert performance (Ericsson, 1997, 2006; Zimmerman, 2006) reveals that the development of high levels of skill involves deliberate practice, which may appear to an outside observer as boring because it involves repetitive efforts to improve certain aspects of one’s skill. But, if experts are questioned about their deliberate practice episodes, they typically report high levels of personal motivation. For example, the tennis star Monica Seles described the motivating power of deliberate practice in the following way: “I really never enjoyed playing matches, even as a youngster. I just love to practice and drill and that stuff” (Vecsey, 1999, p. D1). The actress Geena Davis took up archery as a young adult and developed such a high level of skill that she was invited to tryout for the U.S. Olympic team. She described the enjoyment that she derived from deliberate archery practice experiences in the following way: “I guess I just got hooked. It is really fun to try to see how good you can get, and I don’t know how good that is. I haven’t maxed out. I haven’t peaked. I’m trying to get better” (Litsky, 1999, p. D4). These quotations reveal the presence and the nature of long-term forms of motivation, such as perceptions of growing self-efficacy, valuing the task for its inherent properties rather than its instrumental qualities in gaining other outcomes, and the emergence of a mastery learning goal orientation. Clearly, a key question is how do long-term forms of motivation emerge from self-regulatory efforts to learn?

A fourth key issue concerns efforts to deal with motivation as an outcome of efforts to SRL (see chapter 12, this volume). In addition to the role of motivational variables as precursors, mediators, and concomitant outcomes of SRL, they can also serve as the primary outcomes of such self-regulatory processes. Wolters (1999, 2003) identified various self-regulatory strategies for improving students’ motivation. These strategies can be used to increase behavioral forms of motivation, such as task persistence, as well as affective forms of motivation, such as elation or self-satisfaction. SRL strategies can also be used to decrease adverse emotional reactions, such as anxiety, and various forms of defensiveness, such as helplessness, procrastination, task avoidance, cognitive disengagement, and apathy (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Because of the perceived effectiveness of these strategies, sport psychologists have employed them widely to help athletes control their motivation and associated emotional reactions during competitive events (Loehr, 1991). These psychologists have used such self-regulatory strategies as verbalizing positive self-directions, setting process rather than outcome goals, and forming images of correct form before executing a particular skill, such as a golf shot, tennis serve, or basketball free throw (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001). One potential downside of focusing exclusively on motivational outcomes is that students’ success in decreasing adverse self-reactions, such as test anxiety, may be short-lived if this intervention does not lead to better study practices as well. It is for this reason that many self-regulation teachers and coaches focus on improving learning outcomes as well as motivational concomitants. Next, we consider some of the key forms of motivation and their relation to specific SRL processes.

ROLE OF KEY MOTIVATIONAL CONSTRUCTS IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

Goal Orientation and Self-Regulated Learning

According to most goal orientation theorists (e.g., Ames, Dweck, Elliot, & Harackiewiez; Midgley and colleagues), the purpose of a performance goal orientation is to gain positive judgments of personal competence, whereas the purpose of a learning, mastery, or task goal orientation is actually to increase one’s competence. Dweck and her colleagues (see chapter 2, this volume) suggested that a performance goal orientation is based on an entity theory (i.e., intelligence is fixed). This self-theory will motivate confident learners to seek opportunities to demonstrate their prowess but will discourage unconfident learners and lead to feelings of helplessness. In contrast, learning goal orientation is based on an incremental theory (i.e., intelligence is malleable), and this self-theory will motivate both confident and unconfident learners to seek opportunities to improve their abilities. Thus, students’ theories of intelligence have clear implications for SRL: Incremental theorists seek self-improvement rather than favorable social comparisons with others.

Although both entity and incremental theories of intelligence are stable over time (Robins & Pals, 2002), they can be induced or taught as concomitant outcomes of learning (Nussbaum & Dweck, 2006). Research also shows that changes in students’ goal orientations mediate changes in their learning. For example, Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2003) showed that training-induced goal orientations led to observable changes in students’ motivation in class, and these changes were in turn associated with improved achievement. Research studies show that students holding an entity theory were more likely to engage in a form of defensiveness, such as self-handicapping, which refers to purposively setting up barriers to success (Rhodewalt, 1994; Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006). Grant and Dweck (2003) reported that students with strong learning goals used deep learning strategies more frequently when they studied for a premed course. Students with a learning goal orientation also recovered more quickly from poor performance on the first exam in the course and displayed higher performance by the end of that course than students with a performance goal orientation. Clearly, students’ goal orientation is a key precursor as well as a co...