A

Self-determination theory

  1. Focus: why do people do things? Three components/preconditions:
- Competence: feeling capable.
- Autonomy: feeling in control and self-chosen/personally endorsed.
- Relatedness: feeling connected to/accepted by others.

Satisfaction of these three can foster intrinsic motivation. The theory also states that extrinsic motivation can be internalized (in four steps: external regulation, introjection, identification, integration). That's why people do unenjoyable things, that they do value.

^I am not entirely sure how those four steps fit together with the three factors tho.
  1. To satisfy conditions: meaningful choices to support autonomy, scaffolding and constructive feedback to support competence, caring/supportive teachers/peers to support relatedness. Explaining why can help learners see the value, which can (but doesn’t necessarily) lead to internalized motivation. On the ‘dont do this’ side: excessive control (what we used to call authoritarianism in high school) and/or pressure can undermine motivation.

Expectancy-value theory

  1. Two questions/preconditions:
- Expectancy: can I succeed?
- Value: is this worth doing?
  1. People are motivated when both are fulfilled, aka when they see value and think they can get it. Expectancy depends on prior knowledge, (perceived) difficulty, instruction/support, and (beliefs about) competence (hey, SDT!). Value depends on personality, enjoyment, goals, and culture. The combination of value and expectancy create motivation. Costs (time, effort, anxiety etc.) can reduce it.

Attribution theory

  1. Focus: how people explain (=attribute) success and failure. Three dimensions:
- Locus: is the cause internal/external?
- Stability: does the cause change over time?
- Controllability: can I influence the cause?

^This is about *interpretation* of the cause, not the *actual* cause.
  1. What people attribute failure or success to determines their motivation. If they attribute failure to stable, uncontrollable lack of ability (‘i’m just bad at this’), that won’t motivate them to do better. If they attribute success to external uncontrollable factors (‘the test was just too easy’), this won’t motivate them either. However, if they attribute failure to changeable, controllable factors (‘i’m using the wrong strategy’), they can be motivated to try something else.

Mastery and performance orientation

  1. Focus: how people define success and why they want it. Three kind of goals:
- Mastery goals like developing competence, understanding things, improving skills.
- Performance-approach goals like showing competence, receiving compliments, outperforming peers.
- Performance-avoidance goals like avoiding having it wrong, avoiding bad judgement.
  1. The kind of goals determine how motivated someone is for a particular task.

B.

Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A)

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749

It doesn’t measure how much motivation, but why students are motivated. It measures this with “why”-questions, like:

Why do I do my homework?

Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t. ☐ Very true ☐ Sort of true ☐ Not very true ☐ Not at all true

Because I’ll feel ashamed of myself if I don’t. ☐ Very true ☐ Sort of true ☐ Not very true ☐ Not at all true

Because I want to understand the subject. ☐ Very true ☐ Sort of true ☐ Not very true ☐ Not at all true

Because it’s fun.” ☐ Very true ☐ Sort of true ☐ Not very true ☐ Not at all true

It then categorizes motivation into one of four:

Controlled motivation:

  1. External: avoiding punishment
  2. Introjected: seeking approval or avoiding guilt

Autonomous motivation:

  1. Identified: personal value
  2. Intrinsic: for fun

The output measure is the Relative Autonomy Index, where higher means more self-determined motivation.

C.