Motivation

This article or chapter is incomplete and its contents need further attention. Some information may be missing or may be wrong, spelling and grammar may have to be improved, use your judgment!

"This article should be rewritten. Only use it to grab some ideas and pointers to further reading ... DSchneider"

## Contents

* 1 Definition
* 2 History
* 3 A short (chaotic) overview of specialized theories
* 3.1 Drive
* 3.2 Needs, goals and social interaction.
* 3.3 Emergent motivation
* 3.4 Self and satisfaction
* 3.5 Human information processing and the task environment
* 3.6 Attribution
* 3.7 Expectancy/value theory
* 3.8 Self-determination theory
* 3.9 What about extrinsic rewards ?
* 3.10 Task value
* 4 Complex constructs and learning
* 5 Motivation in education
* 5.1 Motivation in classroom training
* 5.2 Motivation in distance and blended training
* 5.3 Motivation in vocational training
* 5.4 Instructional design models
* 5.5 Survey instruments
* 6 Motivation and other variables
* 6.1 Motivation and Emotion
* 6.2 Motivation and learning strategies
* 6.3 Motivation and competence beliefs
* 7 Links
* 8 References

## Definition[edit | edit source]

Motivation is that which gets a behavior started and keeps it going. ([1]). Motivation is a need or desire to reinforce a behavior or to orient it towards a goal (Myers)

Often, one makes a distinction between intrinsic motivation (desire to do something for personal, internal reasons) and extrinsic motivation (seek compensation and avoid punishment), but the two are very much linked and difficult to separate. "A person is intrinsically motivated if he performs an activity for no apparent re-ward except the activity itself. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the performance of an activity because it leads to external rewards (e.g., status, approval, or passing grades)" (Deci, 1972, p.113).

Why motivation ? It is related to

* attention level
* activity level
* perseverance
* maximal [cognitive load | mental load] level

See also: Affect, self-efficacy theory, flow theory, student satisfaction

Subpages (scales):

* Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
* Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
* Online Learning Value and Self-Efficacy Scale
* Task Value Scale for Children

## History[edit | edit source]

Maslow (1954) wrote one of most cited articles on lower-level human motivation and that was based on a synthesis of the state of art. He later expaned it to include higher level needs.

According to Huitt (2001), Maslow's model broke down human motivation into a hierarchy of needs

1. Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;
2. Safety/security: out of danger;
3. Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and
4. Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.
5. Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore;
6. Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty;
7. Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential; and
8. Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.

This hierarchy is a bottom up structure with need (1) being the lowest level. Each lower need must be met before one can move to the next level

## A short (chaotic) overview of specialized theories[edit | edit source]

This is just an outline, mostly based on Motivation by Marilla Svinicki)

### Drive[edit | edit source]

Drive theories are  behaviorist and/or cognitivist in nature and explain behavior as as response to psychological and social needs. The relation between need and motivation can be described as a feedback system. The bigger the need the bigger motivation and the lesser the need, the lesser the motivation. E.g. We are more motivated to eat when we hungry and less motivated after we have eaten. Regarding instruction, learners in these models are rather passive and the environment (materials, teachers, etc.) in control.

### Needs, goals and social interaction.[edit | edit source]

Needs are cognitively elaborated into concrete motivational goals and means-end structures. Being motivated means striving for goals which are by definition not yet realized at the moment that they are formulated or expresses (Nuttin, 1980). The individuals hopes and expects to reach them at a certain moment in time as a consequence of his actions. There are three degrees of activation: (1) passive action to respond to stimulus, (2) respond actively to selected stimuli and (3) change the environment. At levels two and three, goals and the anticipated outcome are the source of motivation. Good goals are: clear, personally relevant, proximal, progress can be seen, interim successes are possible.

One can distinguish between learning goals (desire to be able to master a task) and performance goals (desire to appear competent or at least better than the others).

### Emergent motivation[edit | edit source]

* Motivation comes from engaging in the task itself
* Motivation comes from new goals that arise as a consequence of interaction with the environment
* flow (complete involvement)

### Self and satisfaction[edit | edit source]

For Greenwald (1982), the 'self' becomes involved in an activity in three conditions:

1. Social evaluation (I want to please the crowd)
2. Self-evaluation (intrinsic motivation)
3. Personal values/interests/goals.

Herzberg et al. (1959) identified two main factors of work satisfaction: "hygiene needs, which are influenced by the physical and psychological conditions in which people work, and motivator needs, which Herzberg described as being very similar to the higher-order needs in Maslows (1954) hierarchy theory." (Furnham et al., 2009). Fullfillment of hygiene needs only can eliminate dissatisfaction but it can't motivate. So let's let just look at motivation. F. Herzberg's 5 factors motivation/demotivation model is based on the idea that motivation is related to internal satisfaction dependent on external factors:

* achievement,
* recognition (for achievement)
* work itself,
* responsability,
* social progression (advancement).

This model was extracted from fourteen first-level job factors related with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, possibility of advancement, possibility of growth, salary status, the quality of interpersonal relations with superiors, the quality of interpersonal relations with peers, technical supervision, agreement with company policies and administration, pleasant working conditions, external factors from personal life, and job security. The five factor model defines motivation as a result of the job content (or the learning activity if we dare to extrapolate).

In a more recent publication, Furnham et al (1999) relate work motivation to personality. E.g. they found that extraversion can be related to a preference for Herzberg's motivator factors, and neuroticism a preference for hygiene factors.

### Human information processing and the task environment[edit | edit source]

Warr (????) describes motivation as a cognitive process that concerns future planned actions and that can be based on a set of reasons:

* Intrinsic desirability of immediate results
* Intrinsic desirability of further outcome
* Social comparison
* Social pressure
* Career and development aims
* Expected subjective probability of a "project"
* Habits
* Other current desires and potential actions
* The structure of the action

A similar model concerns the characteristics of the task and the job environment (Hackman and Oldman, 1976): Factors influencing motivation are:

* Variety of tasks (and accordingly of skills, abilities, talents used)
* Does the job require completion of tasks ? (task identity)
* Meaning of tasks, i.e. its impact on the immediate or external environment (significance)
* Autonomy, i.e. how can the person organize tasks and select appropriate procedures.
* Feedback on activities, i.e. to what degree does the worker receive useful comments but also to what degree can he observe results of his work.

These theories had important impact on how work should be designed. In simple terms, work is more motivating if tasks are varied and meaningful, if the worker can exercise control. On the other hand task also should lead to results that are acknowledged by the environment. According to many studies, these models don't work for everyone but best for people who do have "growth needs".

### Attribution[edit | edit source]

How does the actor/learner explain what happens to him ? How does he explain the outcome (e.g. success and failure). Dimensions of causes that learners attribute can be:

* internal / external cause:
* e.g. talent, effort, intellectual power, learning strategy vs. difficulty of the task, competence of the teacher, etc.
* stable / transitory (unstable, variable)
* permanent vs. random or changing because of various external factors
* controllable / not controllable
* students believes that can do something about it.
* local / global
* intentional / non-intentional

Of course the pedagogical design and the teacher can influence these perceptions. In empirical studies these factors also show up in combinations related to given issues and affect. Philipp Dessus (2001) summarizes Crahay, 1999, p. 284 and Archambault & Chouinard, 1996, p. 110):

Location | Stability | Control | Issues | Affects

|
|
|
|

Internal | stable | Controllable | Learning strategy | Gratitude/anger
Internal | stable | not controllable |  intellectual Aptitudes | Proudness/Shame, despair
Internal | unstable | Controllable | Effort | Proudness Culpability
Internal | unstable | not controllable | Sickness |
External | stable | Controllable | Support courses (?) |
External | stable | not controllable | Level of difficulty, program | Disinterest, Anger
External | unstable | Controllable | Perceptions of the teacher |
External | instable | not controllable | Chance, Affective state of the teacher | Gratefulness, surprise, resignation

### Expectancy/value theory[edit | edit source]

* Motivation increases as expectation to succeed and value of task increase.
* Ways to influence expectancy for success
* Ways to influence value of task

### Self-determination theory[edit | edit source]

Motivation equals the degree of perceived control. Influencing factors are: choices, impositions by others through threats or controlling statements or being watched, getting feedback, getting extrinsic rewards

### What about extrinsic rewards ?[edit | edit source]

Most authors agree that immediate extrinsic rewards don't contribute much to motivation. Long term extrinsic rewards do play a role. E.g. studies about job satisfaction (e.g. Herzberg et al, 1969) identify recognition for achievement and social progression as critical factors that could be called extrinsic. Achievement, work itself and responsability are rather intrinsic.

The informal management literature often makes similare statements. E.g. "Rewards and punishments are not opposites at all; they are two sides of the same coin. And it is a coin that does not buy very much" (Kohn, 1999). Or more explicitely "Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people's behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery." (Punished by Rewards). Daniel H. Pink's (2010) Drive book makes similar statements.

### Task value[edit | edit source]

Task value can be defined as interest that participants show for given tasks. E.g. Children's interest in math can be be assessed using the Task Value Scale for Children (TVS-C; Aunola et al., 2006; Jõgi, Mägi, & Kikas, 2011). "The interest scale consisted of three items measuring children's interest in or liking of math (i.e., “How much do you like math tasks at school?”). Children were asked to mark one of five circles (from the smallest and lightest — I do not like it at all/I dislike doing those tasks — to the largest and darkest — I like it very much/I really enjoy doing those tasks) that best reflected their thoughts." (Jögi et al, 2015)

Artino and McCoach (2008) [1] found that task value is negatively correlated with boredom and frustration and positively with elaboration and metacognitive self-regulation. Task value was found to be a much stronger predictor than self-efficacy.

## Complex constructs and learning[edit | edit source]

Konrad (2005) argues that in an educational context we should complete sociological, psychological and interactional models with a decision making approach where "learners are seen as decision makers, who more or less consciously analyse their past experiences, current life and work situation, and future expectations, and base their decisions to participate or not on these complex elements which form the motivation structure." (Konrad, 2005:7).

Manninen (2004:4) also points out that different stages of the learning process may engage different motivations. "Motives activate, direct and maintain the learning activity (Ruohotie 2000, 8). Therefore motivation and its factors should be defined keeping in mind in which part of the process they belong. For example, activating elements are more general factors which are more or less stable personality elements (like curiosity, learner self-image), while directing factors (like outcome beliefs, task value) focus the persons interest on a specific target (learning activity). Elements maintaining the motivation, on the other hand, influence learning activity while it is taking place (during the training programme; test anxiety, expectancy for success) or as feedback loop after the learning experience (like achievements) influencing therefore future motivation to participate or not."

The following table lists some non exclusive models of explanation. It is based on Manninen (2004) and was also found in Konrad (2005):

Model|  Sociological |  Psychological |  Interactionist |  Modern

|
|
|
|

Explanations sought from|  External causes |  Internal causes |  Interaction of causes |  Individual decision making
Key elements|  Work, society, social class, opportunities, obstacles |  Motives, traits, personality, interests |  Socialisation, experiences, felt needs, relevance, expectancy |  Images, values, feelings, stories
Base theory | behaviourism | humanistic psychology | Field Theory | Consumer behaviour, Dream Society
References|  Lehtonen & Tuomisto 1972; Rinne & al. 1992 |  Boshier 1973; Garrison 1987 |  Rubenson 1979; Pintrich & Ruohotie 2000 |  Manninen 2004; Manninen & al. 2004

In any case, DSchneider believes that motivation in relation to teaching and learning has to be conceived as multi-dimensional phenomenon (construct) influenced by various variables such as:

* Needs and desires
* Perceived utility of task / an activity. Does the learner think that he could use outcomes ?
* Achievement: did the learner encounter positive experiences in the past, project positive ones in the future (e.g. see self-efficacy theory)
* Recognition by others (small group work can increase motivation) and feedback provided by the teacher
* Task: Is the task itself interesting.
* Self-efficacy: Does the student feel competent for a given activity ?
* Autonomy and Control: Can the student set goals and control activities ? (See also: project-based learning)

## Motivation in education[edit | edit source]

Motivation ;)

Motivation always has been a key variable in education:

* "Donnez à l'enfant le désir d'apprendre et... toute méthode lui sera bonne" (Rousseau dans l'Emile en 1762).

* "The success of a training program is largely contingent on the beneficiary's training motivation." (Guerrero & Sire, 2000)

* "The general definition of 'motivation to learn' is 'an individual's desire to work towards a learning goal. The motives which are the basis for the learning desire activate, direct and maintain the learning activity' Ruohotie (2000:8)" but such definitions are not very operational and the instructional designer should rely on some model of motivation structure.

Huitt's model

"In general, explanations regarding the source(s) of motivation can be categorized as either extrinsic (outside the person) or intrinsic (internal to the person). Intrinsic sources and corresponding theories can be further subcategorized as either body/physical, mind/mental (i.e., cognitive, affective, conative) or transpersonal/spiritual." (Huitt, 2001).

Motivation to learn according to Huitt, 2001 (reproduced without asking permission)

Measuring student task motivation through 3 dimensions ([Dessus])

1. Motivations regarding activities and subject matter
2. Self-estimation of competence to achieve
3. Estimation of control

What teachers can do to enhance motivation (Ames and Ames recommendations)

According to Marilla Svinicki, teachers, in order to increase student motivation, should:

* Reduce social comparison
* Increase involvement in learning
* Focus on effort by student
* Promote beliefs in competence
* Increase chances for success

How theories are used to design for motivation

* Behavior theory - use reinforcement and punishment
* Expectancy value theory - increase expectancy for success and raise value of task
* Attribution theory - get learner to focus on effort and controllable causes
* Goal theory - set reasonable, mastery-oriented goals
* Self-determination theory - give choices and control to learner

What students can do

* Fix objectives that can be evaluated
* Divide work in several parts (e.g. subgoaling, workpackages)
* Give a self-recompensation after a difficult activity
* Take time to evaluate both activity (e.g. problem-solving path) and the outcome
* Think about a long term goal (e.g. aspiration for a nice job)
* Think about past success stories.

### Motivation in classroom training[edit | edit source]

to do ...

### Motivation in distance and blended training[edit | edit source]

to do ...

### Motivation in vocational training[edit | edit source]

Guerrero & Sire (2000:3-4) again point out the complexity of motivation and single out  self-efficacy and instrumentality as two key dimensions to study training motivation of french workers.

One of the definitions widely used in recent studies of training motivation (Baldwin et al., 1991; Facteau et al., 1995; Quinones, 1995) is that introduced by Noe in 1986 in the Academy of Management Review. It is inspired by American research on motivation at work (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976). Training motivation is described as "a specific desire of the trainee to learn the content of the training program". Other definitions refer to the effort exerted in training to learn the course contents (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987), along with Vroom's expectancies theory (1964). Accordingly, Mathieu et al. (1992) describe training motivation as "trainees' perceptions that doing well in a program would lead to better job performance and consequently to valued outcomes." Furthermore, several concepts have been used to describe training motivation. In addition to expectancies theories (Vroom 1964, Porter and Lawler 1968), authors have built upon the studies of Bandura (1977) on self-efficacy and Adams on equity (1965).

Manninen (2004:3) points out that "The key question (why adults engage themselves in learning activities and why not?) can be analysed using two different but overlapping theoretical frameworks, which are theories of motivation and theories of participation. Participation [...] deals with the processes which make people to participate in organised training situations. In addition to psychological explanations (cf. Boshier, see Garrison 1987), there has been more sociologically oriented (Lehtonen & Tuomisto 1972) and interaction models (Rubenson 1979) which take into account the wider context and individual life situations."

In a large-scale empirical studies Manninen & Birke (2005) and Konrad (2005) studied the learning motivations of lower qualified workers using a multi-dimensional learning motivation scale that was based on the following concepts (categories). Values, i.e Alpha, Neutral, Beta refer to Dynamic concept analysis (Kontinen, 2002).

Concept |  Alfa |  Neutral |  Beta

|
|
|

Individual characteristics: |  Supportive |  Neutral |  Unsupportive
Training format: |  Attractive |  Neutral |  Unattractive
Work complexity: |  Complex |  Neutral |  Simple
Past learning experiences: |  Positive |  Neutral |  Negative
Information & opportunity: |  Easily available |  Neutral |  Unavailable
Attitudes & values: |  Positive |  Neutral |  Negative
Motivation |  High |  Medium |  Low
Current work & future expectations: |  Motivating |  Neutral |  Demotivating
Support & incentives: |  Easily available |  Neutral |  Unavailable
Expectancy & Valence: |  Positive |  Neutral |  Negative

Results let to a typology of motivation according to 2 dimensions: Simple work/complex work situation and low/high motivation.

1. Climbers: Positive attitude towards training. Key motivation is advancement. There is support from the company.
2. Developers: Similar as climbers, but key motivation is to develop skills needed in current job. Past experiences with learning has been positive.
3. Drop-outs: Attitudes towards training are neutral (or unnecessary). Work is simple and there is no possibility of advancement. This concerns most employees.
4. Refusers: Negative attitudes about training. Employees perform complex work and there is no possibility of advancement and support from the company.

An important finding from this study was that  Learning preferences identified by lower qualified workers across the countries (like learning by doing & learning from others) indicate that theoretical models such as shared expertise and cognitive apprenticeship (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1993; Lave & Wenger 1991) are suitable for this target group. (Konrad, 2005:22). The author also makes a connection to constructivism, i.e. knowledge as direct and social experience, and citing Resnik (1991) social processes as cognition.

Broad exposure to ongoing practice ... is in effect a demonstration of the goals to which 'newcomers' expect and are expected to move. ... This more inclusive process of generating identities is both a result of, and a motivation for participation.(Lave 1991:71)

Thus, when an individual joins an existing group of competent practitioners, they are motivated by membership of that group both to strengthen their identity as learners and, at least as importantly, to promote the success of the group. This process of mastering the virtuous circle of learning to learn is a central part of the process of successful adult learning. In a structured workplace, the role of the competent members is crucial, whether those with formal status (such as supervisors) or as informal leaders.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that where a group has sufficient autonomy to manage their own learning in order to contribute to the achievement of shared goals, motivation is likely to be enhanced. In particular, valuing such situated learning is an important process in promoting engagement in lifelong learning. To put it simply, success at learning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it encourages individuals to shape their identity as successful learners, irrespective of any previous lack of success, such as within formal learning processes at school or college.

(Konrad, 2005: 23)

In practical terms this means that situated motivation will be enhanced by the motivating potential of the instructional design. Adler (2001) suggests:

* The amount of autonomy provided.
* The degree to which students can identify with and find interesting a given learning task or set of tasks.
* Type and timing of the feedback provided.

### Instructional design models[edit | edit source]

* ARCS
* Constructivist emotionally-oriented model

### Survey instruments[edit | edit source]

* Motivation/Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich and DeGroot, 1990)

* Motivation/Online Learning Value and Self-Efficacy Scale (Artino & Coach, 2008)

* Motivation/Task Value Scale for Children (TVS-C; Nurmi & Aunola)

* Motivation/Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI, Ryan & Deci, 2000)

* Lepper, M. R., Sethi, S., Dialdin, D., & Drake, M. (1997). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A developmental perspective. Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder, 23-50. (items missing)

* Harter, Susan A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, Vol 17(3), May 1981, 300-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.300

## Motivation and other variables[edit | edit source]

### Motivation and Emotion[edit | edit source]

Motivation is linked to emotions, but emotions an related emotional design of instruction are yet another category of interest: Here is a citation from Astleitner (2000:169): "It is well known in the field of basic and applied research on education and psychology that cognitive, motivational, and emotional processes are related to the world in different ways. Cognitive processes concern the acquisition and representation of knowledge and have a representative relation to the world of objects and facts. Motivational processes refer to goal states of the organism and have an actional relation to the world. Emotional processes are based on the acceptance or rejection of objects and facts and have an evaluational relation to the world (Kuhl, 1986)"

* FEASP: "According to the F(ear)E(nvy)A(nger)S(ympathy)P(leasure)-approach for designing positive feeling instruction, the instructional designer has to analyze emotional problems before and during instruction (Astleitner, 2000: 175).

### Motivation and learning strategies[edit | edit source]

(To do)

Jean-Louis Berger, Stuart A. Karabenick, Motivation and students’ use of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathematics classrooms, Learning and Instruction, Volume 21, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 416-428, ISSN 0959-4752, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.002.

### Motivation and competence beliefs[edit | edit source]

According to Spinath and Spinath (2005) competency beliefs and learning motivation are not correlated in primary school children.

(To do)

Birgit Spinath, Frank M. Spinath, Longitudinal analysis of the link between learning motivation and competence beliefs among elementary school children, Learning and Instruction, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 87-102, ISSN 0959-4752, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.008. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475205000216)

## Links[edit | edit source]

* Motivation (by Mireille Linz, in french)
* Motivation by Marilla Svinicki
* Job Diagnostic Survey - A Quik Job Satisfaction Analysis
* Motivation LLL. This EU research project aims to provide information on how to improve the participation-rate of people with lower qualifications in continuing vocational education and training [VET]. (Good papers that are of general interest for motivation-in-education).
* PERTS, an applied research center at Stanford University. They work on academic motivation to raise student achievement on a large scale.

## References[edit | edit source]

* Adler, R. W., Milne, M. J., & Stablein, R. (2001). Situated motivation: An empirical test in an accounting course. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(2), 101-115.

* Adler, R. W., Milne, M. J., & Stablein, R. E. (1998). Predicting Student Motivation: The Impact of Enriched Learning Environments and Student GNS. In Stephen Long - Royal Roads University (Ed.), Management Education. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 1998, 19(10), (pp. 15-27). Canada: Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.

* Astleitner, Hermann, Designing Emotionally Sound Instruction: The FEASP-Approach, Instructional Science 28 (3): 169-198, May 2000 [ http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1023/A:1003893915778]

* Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1986). Motivational facets of the self. In E. T. Higgins & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 145-164). New York: Guilford Press. PDF

* Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109-131.

* Cole, M. S., Field, H. S. & Harris, S. G. (2004). Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: Interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 64-85.

* Dessus, Philippe (2001), La motivation en milieu scolaire, Document SAPEA, Séminaire d'analyse des pratiques d'enseignement/apprentissage, IUFM de GrenobleHTML

* Eccles, Jacquelynne S., Studying the development of learning and task motivation, Learning and Instruction, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 161-171, ISSN 0959-4752, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.012. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475205000253)

* Gendolla, Guido HE. & Michael Richter, Ego involvement and effort: Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and performance effects, Psychophysiology 2005 42:5 595.

* Guerrero, Sylvie & Bruno Sire (2000), Motivation To Train From Workers Perspective: Example Of French Companies, Les Notes du LIRHE, Université Toulouse I, note n° 318, Juillet 2000.

* Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 129-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. PDF

* Greenwald, A. G. (1982). Ego task analysis: A synthesis of research on ego-involvement and self-awareness. In A. H. Hastorf and A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 109-147). New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.

* J. R. Hackman & G. R. Oldham (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory, in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance no 16, p. 250.

* Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. The Motivation to Work. (2nd rev. ed.) New York: Wiley, 1959.

* J. Keller and T. Kopp, An Application of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design, in C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories in Action, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 289-320, 1987.

* J. Keller, Motivational Design of Instruction, in C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 383-434, 1983.

* Jõgi, Anna-Liisa, Eve Kikas, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, and Katrin Mägi. "Cross-lagged relations between math-related interest, performance goals and skills in groups of children with different general abilities." Learning and Individual Differences 39 (2015): 105-113.

* Jõgi, A. -L., Mägi, K., & Kikas, E. (2011). Maths-specific performance goals, interest and self-concept, and their relationship to previous task-avoidant behaviour and maths skills. In J. Mikk, M. Veisson, & P. Luik (Eds.), Preschool and primary education. Estonian studies in education, Vol. 3. (pp. 106–120). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH

* Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A. And Wang, C. (2006), Motivation To Learn And Course Outcomes: The Impact Of Delivery Mode, Learning Goal Orientation, And Perceived Barriers And Enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59: 665–702. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00050.x

* Kohn, Alfie (1999). Punished by Rewards. The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993 / 1999

* Konrad, John (2005), Learning Motivation Of Lower Qualified Workers, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia. PDF, retrieved 18:04, 7 September 2006 (MEST).

* Korman A K , J H Greenhaus, and I J Badin, Personnel Attitudes and Motivation, Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 28: 175-196 [ Abstract]

* Kuhl, J. (1986). Motivation and information. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins, eds, Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, pp. 404-434. Chichester: Wiley

* Lens, Willy & Antoine Gailly, Extension of Future Time Perspective in Motivational Goals of Different Age Groups, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-17 (1980) DOI: 10.1177/016502548000300102 Abstract / PDF (Access restricted)

* Malone T.W. and M. R. Lepper, Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivation for Learning, in Aptitude, Learning and instruction, 3, R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 223-253, 1987.

* Manninen, Jyri (2004). Motivation of Lower Qualified Workers for Lifelong Learning - Theoretical background, working paper ESREA '04 Research Conference Wroclaw, Poland 16-19 September, 2004. WORD.

* Manninen & Birke (2005), Lifelong Learning and European Reality, Learning Motivation of Lower Qualified Workers (Motivation-III report), Leonardo da Vinci EU programme. PDF

* Small, R. V. (2000). Motivation in instructional design. Teacher Librarian, 27, 29–31.

* Smart, Karl L. and James J. Cappel (2006). Students’ Perceptions of Online Learning: A Comparative Study. Journal of Information Technology Education, Volume 5, 2006

* Nuttin, J., 1980. Theorie de la motivation humaine: du besoin au projet d'action. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

* Pintrich, P. 1988. A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In: Stark & Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

* Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being American Psychologist 55(1), 68-78.(PDF)

* Spitzer, D. R. (1996). Motivation: the neglected factor in instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(3), 45-49.

* Viau, Rolland, 12 questions sur l'état de la recherche scientifique sur l'impact des TIC sur la motivation à apprendre, HTML

* Warr, P. B. (1990).Decision latitude, job demands and employee well-being. Work & Stress, 4,285-294.[ISI]

* Warr, P. B., & Routledge, T. (1969).An opinion scale for the study of managers'job satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 43,95-109.[ISI]

* Warr, P.B., Bartram, D., and Brown, A. (2006). Big Five validity: Aggregation method matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 377-386.

* Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

References as footnotes

1. ↑ Anthony R. Artino, Jr. and D. Betsy McCoach Development and Initial Validation of the Online Learning Value and Self-Efficacy Scale, Journal of Educational Computing Research April 2008 38: 279-303, doi:10.2190/EC.38.3.c

Article cited in citations

* Adams, J. 1963. 'Toward an understanding of inequity,' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67/5: 422-436

* Baldwin, T. Magjuka, R. et Loher, B. 1991. « The perils of participation: effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning », Personnel Psychology, 44: 51-65.

* Boshier R (1973), Educational participation and dropout. A theoretical model. Adult Education 23,4, 255 - 282.

* Campbell, J & Pritchard, R. 1976. « Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology », Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3: 63-130, Rand McNally, Chicago.

* Crahay, M. (1999). Psychologie de l'éducation. Paris : PUF, 1er cycle. [Une des meilleures introductions à la psychologie de l'éducation]

* Facteau, J Dobbins, G Russell, J Ladd, R & Kudish, J. 1995. « The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer », Journal of Management, 21/1: 1-25T

* Fenouillet, F. (1996). Motivation et découragement. in A. Lieury (éd.). Manuel de psychologie de l'éducation et de la formation. Paris : Dunod, chap. 10. [Un résumé de Lieury & Fenouillet, 1996]

* Adrian Furnham, Liam Forde, Kirsti Ferrari, Personality and work motivation, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 26, Issue 6, 1 June 1999, Pages 1035-1043, ISSN 0191-8869, 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00202-5.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886998002025)

* Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W. & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York : HarperCollins, chap. 16. [Ouvrage de référence anglo-saxon sur la psychologie de l'éducation]

* Gaonac'h, D., & Golder, C. (1995). Manuel de psychologie pour l'enseignant, Profession enseignant: Hachette éducation.

* Garrison, D. (1987), Dropout Prediction within a Broad Psychosocial Context: an Analysis of Boshier's Congruence Model. Adult Education Quarterly 37, 4, 212-222.

* Hicks, W & Klimoski, R. 1987. « Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: a field experiment », Academy of Management Journal, 30/3: 542-552.

* Huitt, W. (2001). Motivation to learn: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. HTML, retrieved 16:06, 11 August 2007 (MEST). (includes a good bibliography).

* Hulleman, C.S., Durik, A.M., Schweigert, S.A., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 398–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398.

* Kontiainen, S. (ed.) 2002. Dynamic Concept Analysis (DCA). Integrating Information in Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

* Lave J, 'Situating Learning in Communities of Practice,' in Resnick L et al ., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 63 - 82.

* Lehtonen, H. & Tuomisto, J. 1972. Aikuiskoulutukseen osallistuminen. Teoreettinen prosessimalli. Tampereen Yliopisto, Aikuiskasvatuksen laitos, tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 1.

* Lieury, A. & Fenouillet, F. (1996). Motivation et réussite scolaire. Paris : Dunod. [Ouvrage introductif à la motivation à l'école]

* Liem, A.D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Journal, 33, 486–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001.

* Manninen, J. 2002. Affective experience of unemployment. A dynamic analysis. In: Seppo Kontiainen (ed.), Dynamic Concept Analysis (DCA). Integrating Information in Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

* Manninen, J. 2003. Adult participation in dream society - images of education as motivational barriers. In: Marco Radovan & Neda Dordevic (eds.). Current Issues in Adult Learning and Motivation. Ljubljana: Slovenian Institute for Adult Education.

* Mathieu, J Martineau, J & Tannenbaum, S. 1993. « Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness », Personnel Psychology, 46: 125-147.

* Mathieu, J Tannenbaum, S & Salas, E. 1992. « Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness », Academy of Management Journal, 35/4: 828-839.

* Morissette, D. & Gingras, M. (1989). Enseigner des attitudes ? Bruxelles : De Boeck. [Ouvrage sur la préparation de séquences d'enseignement qui tiennent compte des aspects affectifs et émotionnels]

* Myers, David G. (98). Psychologie: Flammarion.

* Noe, R & Wilk, S. 1993. « Investigation of the factors that influence employees participation in development activities », Journal of Applied Psychology, 78/2: 291-302.

* Noe, R. & Schmitt, S. 1986. « Trainee's attributes and attitudes: neglected influence on training effectiveness », Academy of Management Review, 11/4: 736-749.

* Pink, Daniel H. (2009). Drive. Riverhead. ISBN 1594488843

* Pintrich, P. R. & SCHUNK, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice Hall.

* Porter, L. Lawler, E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, Illinois, Irwin.

* Pratkanis, A., R., & Aronson, E. (1992). The age of propaganda / the everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: WH Freeman.

* Quinones, M. 1995. « Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback », Journal of Applied Psychology, 80/2: 226-238.

* Resnick L, 'Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social Practice,' in Resnick L et al ., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1-20.

* Rinne, R., Kivinen, O. & Ahola, S. 1992. Aikuisten kouluttautuminen Suomessa. Osallistuminen, kasautuminen ja preferenssit. Turun yliopisto, Koulutussosiologian tutkimusyksikkö, Tutkimusraportteja 10.

* Rubenson, K. 1979. Recruitment to Adult Education in the Nordic Countries - Research and Outreaching Activities. Stockholm Institute of Education, Department of Educational Research, Reports on Education and Psychology nr. 3. Conceptual Models. University of Helsinki, Department of Education.

* Ruohotie, P. 2000. Conative constructs in learning. In: Pintrich & Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative constructs and self-regulated learning. Hameenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Education.

* Ruohotie, P. 2000. Conative constructs in learning. In: Pintrich & Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative constructs and selfregulated learning. Hameenlinna: Research Centre for Vocational Education.

* Salmi Bouabid Louiza & Jaillet, Alain. «Pertinence des normes et standards dans les dispositifs de formation à distance». TICE et développement, Numéro 01, 11 novembre 2005, .

* VIAU, R. (1997). La motivation en contexte scolaire. Bruxelles : De Boeck, 2e éd. [Un des ouvrages en français les plus complets sur le sujet]

* Viau, R. (1997). La motivation en contexte scolaire. (2e éd.). Bruxelles: De Boeck.

* Viau, R. (2004). La motivation des élèves en difficulté d'apprentissage. Une problématique particulière pour des modes d'intervention adaptées. Paper presented at the Difficulté d'apprendre, Difficulté d'enseigner, Luxembourg. (intranet)

* Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation, John Wiley & Sons

* Wigfield, A., Harold, R.D., Freedman-Doan, C., Eccles, J.S., Yoon, K.S., Arbreton, A.J.A., et al. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.89.3.451.