Competence and Motivation 37

3.2 New Developments

Beginning with a simple dictionary definition of competence (a condition or quality of effectiveness, ability, sufficiency, or success), Elliot and Dweck (2005) apply this construct within a motivational framework where competence accounts for how behaviour is energised and directed:

“Competence can be seen as a basic psychological need that has a pervasive impact on daily affect, cognition, and behaviour, across age and culture. As such, competence would seem to represent not only an ideal cornerstone on which to rest the achievement motivation literature but also a foundational building block for any theory of personality, development, and well-being” (p.8).

3.2.2 Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation

From a social cognitive perspective, intrinsic motivation refers to “motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake” whereas “extrinsic motivation is motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p.245).

Individuals who are intrinsically motivated work and continue working on tasks out of enjoyment; the task itself is the reward, and no other external reward or constraint is necessary. Extrinsically motivated individuals become involved in tasks because participation leads to attractive outcomes, rewards, praise or even avoidance of punishment or incompetence.

Pintrich and Schunk (2002) recommend a viewpoint that separates these concepts each on its own continuum rather than a polar-dichotomy including both concepts. People can range from high to low on each for any given activity. An essential

They can change over time, and are unique to a situation and person. In a learning situation, this has important consequences, because intrinsic motivation enhances learning, and learning enhances intrinsic motivation.

The concept of intrinsic (and extrinsic) motivation is a key element that is related to many of the core constructs for this current research study, including the ability to self-regulate learning processes, to adopt an appropriate goal orientation, and to feel in control as a learner to set goals encouraging task completion, among others.

The origin of the concept has been influenced strongly by the theories mentioned already in the historical motivation section, and its development will be briefly described in this section⁴.

The concept of intrinsic motivation arose, in part by the inadequacies of instinct and drive theories to deal with the human behaviour of exploration and play. No drive or instinct could successfully explain excitement (even in rats) related to exploring new stimuli. White (1959) was the first to propose a psychological motivation⁵ called effectance motivation, which was “based in the central nervous system rather than non-nervous-system tissue deficits” (Deci & Moller, 2005, p. 582). Effectance motivation referred to a universal or inherent need to feel competent and interact effectively with the environment. Within the competence motivation put forward by Elliot and Dweck (2005), White’s effectance motivation theory is seen as being the initiator of a innate

4 For much more complete overviews of the origins of intrinsic motivation, please refer to Deci and Moller (2005); Pintrich and Schunk, (2002); and Eccles and Wigfield (2002).

5 Although it has widely become accepted to describe White’s concept as a need, it is necessary to realize that he purposefully avoided the term if possible. Deci and Moller (2005) point out that it was used only once, for it was a laden term since concurrent psychological research viewed needs as well-learned behaviour or reflexes.

need for competence (Elliot, McGregor, & Thrash, 2002) that is the motivational basis of healthy development. And although he did not use the term, it is generally accepted that White’s effectance motivation was essentially intrinsic motivation (Deci & Moller, 2005) since it “motivates activities in which the sole rewards are the spontaneous feelings of interest and enjoyment that occur when one engages in the activities” (p.

582).

Other theories are important and necessary for understanding the modern concept of intrinsic motivation:

ƒ Mastery motivation (Harter, 1981) – expanded White’s effectance motivation through the construct of perceived competence, which was domain and situation specific rather than generic in nature. Harter’s development of scales to measure intrinsic and extrinsic classroom motivational orientation furthered research in these areas. It also helped to identify key characteristics of intrinsic motivation in the learning context which other theories have incorporated – namely, a preference for challenge, and an incentive to work in order to satisfy one’s own interest and curiosity instead of working to satisfy the teacher or to get a good grade (Pintrich &

Schunk, 2002).

ƒ Locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Phares, 1976) – the degree to which a person feels in control of his or her behaviour, especially task engagement and outcomes can have great influence on learning. An individual’s locus of control can be either internal or external – depending on perceived source of origin. Internal locus of control can be compared to White’s effectance motivation regarding a similar quality of mastery over environment (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). It is a construct that is also situational,

with the motivational effects of increased engagement in academic tasks, and high effort and persistence in the face of challenging tasks.

ƒ Personal causation (de Charms, 1968) – connects to the previous theories presented in this section as it deals with the initiation of behaviour that is intended to alter the environment. The research of de Charms maintains that people are causal agents motivated to produce changes in the environment. Using the interesting terminology of origins (people who determine their own behaviour) and pawns (people who believe their behaviour is determined by external forces), his theory is similar to internal and external locus of control concerning the advantages in learning that are ascribed to origins. However, de Charms incorporates clear and applicable implications for teaching and offered training in how to foster and encourage origin behaviours (de Charms, 1976). His methods included exercises intended to enhance achievement motivation, self-concept, realistic goal setting, and personal responsibility. Positive results from this intervention and other subsequent efforts offer a solid foundation for this current program of research focused on soliciting change in student motivation through a “classroom” intervention using a blended learning format.

The two theories of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) are especially interesting in terms of their applications of intrinsic motivation, and although they are not specifically operationalized in this program of research, examination of the main premises sheds light on and accentuates elements of intrinsic motivation that are employed in this study, especially the advantages of intrinsic motivation when used as a standard for regulation of performance (self-determination), and the ability to act in one’s own best interest to

monitor and regulate learning metacognitively (thinking about learning) in order to create a situation/environment that is conducive to “optimal” functioning (flow).

Flow theory defines intrinsic motivation as the immediate subjective experience occurring when engaged in an activity that offers a match between high level of challenge and personal ability (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). Flow is an emotional state characterised by five main elements:

1. A holistic feeling of being immersed in, and carried by, an activity 2. A merging of action and awareness

3. Focus of attention on a limited stimulus field 4. Lack of self-consciousness

5. Feeling in control of one’s action and the environment

When there is no match between challenge and ability/expertise, then the result is either boredom or anxiety. Within a learning context, flow theory demands skill, expertise, concentration and perseverance from students and learners, while for educators it is the responsibility of creating and designing conditions facilitating the match between tasks and student expertise increasing the possibility of optimal functioning.

Self-determination theory incorporates the notion of “will” (conscious choice of action) in terms of deciding how to act on their environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Three innate psychological needs are posited: competence (to masterfully interact with the environment and others), autonomy (to be in control acting as an independent agent), and relatedness (to belong to a group). Intrinsic motivation, therefore is the

determining in relation to the environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Pintrich and Schunk (2002) make the observation regarding implications for learning that it is the process of self-determination that is intrinsically motivating, and offer the following example:

“A person may have an inherent need to learn and may manifest it by reading books. Intrinsic motivation is satisfied when that person decides which books to read and when to read them, although the actual reading may provide further satisfaction”

(p.258).

Kehr (2004) points out an issue of contention with Deci and Ryan’s model due to the two criteria used to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The first criterion is that activity will satisfy basic human needs, and the second is added to this in terms of the determined quality of the activity: intrinsic motivation is self-determined while extrinsic motivation can be both self-self-determined and externally determined. Kehr examines these criteria further, through consideration of an activity that is initially determined externally, but which after a while becomes enjoyable and fun – and questions whether “at this moment is it still externally determined?” (p. 65).

In order to solve this dilemma, Kehr imposes two additional requirements for intrinsic motivation: 1) any action must comply with immediate affective preferences; 2) absence of simultaneous external cognitive preferences. This is similar to the process dependent model from Higgins and Trope (1990) because it makes intrinsic motivation dependent on psychological processes.

However, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) in their review of motivational beliefs, values and goals posit a feasible resolution that is less stringent and complex than the

one suggested by Kehr. Eccles and Wigfield identify a similar weakness with Deci and Ryan’s theory, however it is presented by making a direct comparison with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988; 1992) flow theory, and applied through the example of play behaviour. While self-determination theory relies on innate/basic human needs to conceptualize intrinsic motivation, flow theory emphasizes instead subjective experience. According to Eccles and Wigfield, this is not necessarily problematic since it is an issue of reconciling ultimate and immediate goals (self-determination theory is seen as promoting ultimate goals, while flow theory promotes immediate goals). The premise is that intrinsic behaviour can promote ultimate goals even if the actor is motivated by immediate incentives. Using the example of play, it is a behaviour that promotes an ultimate goal (e.g. competence), but is often engaged in due to immediate incentives (excitement, pleasure, enjoyment, etc.). Intrinsic motivation need not be limited to a specific moment in time (immediacy), but can be viewed on a spectrum, acknowledging a less definable point in the future, as in repeated flow experiences that can be seen as a reward encouraging the continued seeking of competence development Csikszentmihalyi (1992).

3.3 Motivation – A Research Framework