Does Motivation Predicts Academic Performance Gera Noordzij EUC

Does Motivation Predicts Academic Performance? Gera Noordzij (EUC) 1

Motivation theories Learned Helplessness/Optimist Theory of Action Control Operante conditioning Social Learning Theory Expectancy‐Value Theories Control theory Drive reduction theorie Need Theory Self-regulatory focus Self-Determination Theory Achievement Goal Orientation Theory Goal-setting Theory Social Cognitive theory Theory of reasoned action Theory of Achievement Motivation Flow Psychoanalytic Theory of Planned Behavior Proactive personality construct Two factor Theory Attribution theory Equity Theory 2

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) ‘ i I w Amotivation ‘ External motivation in g ex or t m pe he y rie p kn n le ow ce as le in ure dg b e’ roa I de n e av h I no a de hy r tte e b a ’ ve r on a h o late t r y de lar r o sa In ‘F y’ ud st e bl a lf’ p ’ e ca ree ys g m m ’ t I de op a l e th g ve lf olle e e d o ys y c t t m an to te m Iw ve ple o se pr om u o c ca ‘T to e ‘B Introjected motivation Controlled motivation Identified motivation Intrinsic motivation Autonomous motivation 3

Achievement goal (orientation) theory (Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Mc. Gregor, 2001; Van Yperen, 2006) Approaching Success Intrapersonal Interpersonal Mastery-approach Performance-approach Improving competences 34. 4% ‘In my study, I prefer challenging tasks that I can learn a lot from’ Avoiding Failure Mastery-avoidance Avoiding intrapersonal incompetence 33. 6% ‘I prefer to avoid situations in my study wher I might perform poorly’ Demonstrating competences 13. 7% ‘I enjoy it when other students are aware of how well I’m doing’ Performance-avoidance Avoiding interpersonal incompetence 18. 3% ‘In my study, I prefer to avoid failures in front of others’ 4

Longitudinal research Psychology and EUC • Stability and change in motivation (goals and reasons) to study • Motivation predictor of academic performance? • Procedure: – SDT (reasons) and AGT (goals): at the start (T 1), end first academic year (T 2) and end second year (T 3). – Grades, professional behaviour and N=N, 5

Academic motivation Orange =2011 Psych. Start Red = 2012 Psych. Green = 2013 EUC White = 2014 EUC Autonomous motivation: F = 2. 83, p <. 05 Controlled motivation: F = 0. 67, p >. 05 A-motivation: F = 8. 50, p <. 001 6

Achievement goals Start Mastery-approach F = 16. 01, p <. 001 Perf. -approach F = 2. 01, p >. 05 Perf. -avoidance F = 18. 99, p <. 001 Orange =2011 Psych. Red = 2012 Psych. Green = 2013 EUC White = 2014 EUC Mastery-avoidance F = 18. 51, p <. 001 7

Does it predict anything? • Psychologie: – N = N : A-motivation – Grades: A-motivation – Prof. behaviour: autonomous, controlled and amotivation • EUC ---- 8

Stability and Change (T 1 -T 2 -T 3) (Sample level) • Mean level change – – – – A-motivation: decrease Controlled motivation: curvilinear Autonomous motivation: stable Mastery-approach goals: increase Performance-approach: u-shaped Performance-avoidance goals: decrease Mastery-avoidance goals: decrease • Differential continuity • Academic motivation: . 57 • Achievement goals: . 46 9

Person-level 2. 00 Low quantity motivation and goals group 1. 50 1. 00 High quality motivation and goals group 0. 50 0. 00 Moderate quality motivation and goals group -0. 50 -1. 00 High quantity motivation and goals group -1. 50 A-motivation with low qualtity goals group -2. 00 -2. 50 -3. 00 MAP MAV PAP PAV Auton. Contr. A-Mot. 10

Person-level Profiles predict: • N=N • Grades • Professional behaviour In general: Students with high quality goals and motivation (green) highest grades etc. Followed by students with moderate quality goals and motivation (white) 11

Stability or Change? Solid lines p <. 001 Dashed lines p <. 05 Time 1 Time 2 Low motivation and goals High quality motivation and goals group Moderate quality motivation and goals group High quantity motivation and goals group A-motivation with low quality goals group 56% stable profile – 44% profile change