You are on page 1of 5

http:// Motivation through the design of work: test of a

theory
J.Richard Hackman
Greg R. Oldham

3106group7.wikispaces.com/file/view/Motivational+Synergy.pdf
Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Front Cover. J. Richard
Hackman, Greg R. Oldham. Department of Administration Sciences, Yale ...


MOTIVATION OVERVIEW
sites.google.com/site/motivationataglanceischool/home
he goal of Motivation
Embed gadget

at a Glance is to document theories of motivation, particularly those theories which address learning,
education, and information processing, in an effort to identify common threads and concepts which
together provide a robust picture and insight into the factors which arouse our desires and influence our
behaviors. Edward L. Deci addresses these factors in his book, Why We Do What We Do: Understanding
Motivation (1995). Daniel Pink tackles the question in, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What
Motivates Us (2009). Interestingly, the insights shared by Mr. Pink are based on the work of Deci and
Ryan's Self-Determination Theory.
dintr-o privire este de a documenta teorii ale motivaiei , n special acele teorii care adresa nvare , educaie , i de
prelucrare a informaiilor , ntr- un efort de a identifica subiecte i concepte comune, care ofer mpreun o imagine
robust i de introspecie n factorii care trezesc dorinele noastre i influena noastr comportamente . Edward L.
DECI se adreseaz acestor factori n cartea sa , ce facem ceea ce facem : Motivaia nelegere ( 1995 ) . Daniel Pink
abordeaz problema n , unitate :Surprinzator adevrul despre ce noi ( 2009) motiveaza . Interesant , descoperiri
comune de domnul Pink se bazeaz pe munca de Deci si Ryan Teoria auto-determinare

An effort to find common threads among theories of motivation, is addressed by Piers Steel, inIntegrating
Theories of Motivation (2006), "...our understanding of behavior has been hindered by the very extent of
our efforts. There is a superabundance of motivational theories. Not only does each field have its
particular interpretation, but there are ample subdivisions within each discipline." (2006: 789) Steel offers
a case for integration of theories and suggests that, "A common theme across the disparate disciplines of
decision making and motivation is the desire for more comprehensive and integrated theories." (2006:
890)
Un efort de a gsi subiecte comune ntre teorii ale motivaiei , se adreseaz de ctre Piers Steel , n Integrarea Teorii
ale Motivation ( 2006 ) , " ... nelegerea noastr de comportament a fost mpiedicat de foarte amploarea eforturilor
noastre . Exist o supraabunden de teoriile motivaionale . Nu numai ca fiecare domeniu are interpretarea sa
deosebit , dar exist subdiviziuni ample n fiecare disciplin . " ( 2006 : 789 ) Otel ofer un caz de integrare a
teoriilor i sugereaz c , " O tem comun n ntreaga discipline disparate de luare a deciziilor i de motivaia este
dorina de teorii mai cuprinztoare i integrate . " ( 2006 : 890
)
Rosemary Luckin in Re-designing Learning Contexts (2010), notes that: "The term 'motivation' is subject
to a variety of definitions and approaches, Bergin et al, (1993), for example , define the term 'motivation'
as: 'The physiological process involved in the direction, vigor, and persistence of behavior'. Ryan and
Deci (2000) define motivation as 'reason for action' and suggest two aspects of motivation: one is
quantitative and underpins the way we talk about the strength of a learners motivation; the other is
qualitative, and describes the orientation of the process." In addition, theories approach motivation from
different viewpoints. "There are theories that draw the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), theories that are concerned with sociocognitive constructs, such as
expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 2000), and there are
achievement goal theories that identify the influence of person's learning goals on the way that they
manage their learning interactions." (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, 1991).
Rosemary Luckin n Re - proiectarea de nvare contexte ( 2010) , noteaz c : " Termenul" motivaie " este supus
la o varietate de definiii i abordri , Bergin et al , ( 1993 ) , de exemplu , pentru a defini termenul de " motivaie "
ca : " procesul fiziologic implicat n direcie , vigoarea , i persistena comportamentului " Ryan i DECI ( 2000)
definete motivaia ca " motiv pentru aciune " i sugereaz dou aspecte ale motivaiei : . unul este cantitativ i st
la baza modul n care vorbim despre puterea de motivare a elevului , iar cealalt este calitativ , i descrie orientarea
procesului " . n plus , teoriile se apropie de motivaie din diferite puncte de vedere . " Exista teorii care atrag
distincia ntre motivaia intrinsec i extrinsec ( Ryan & DECI , 2000 ) , teorii care sunt n cauz cu constructe
sociocognitiv , cum ar fi teoria speranta de valoare ( Wigfield & Eccles , 2000) i de auto - eficacitate (
Zimmerman , 2000 ) , i exist realizare teorii obiectiv care identific influena obiectivele de nvare persoane pe
modul n care acestea gestioneaz interaciunile lor de nvare . " ( Ames , 1992; Dweck & Leggett , 1988; Meece ,
1991) .
Our effort to identify theories, share background knowledge, and compile key references for each theory
has proven to be a monumental task. Clearly, documenting each theory is insufficient if we wish to make
relationships amongst theories explicit. To achieve this goal, we are creatingmind-maps. Current maps
will certainly undergo significant revisions as we address each theory. We share our under-construction,
in-process maps here for your review:
Efortul nostru de a identifica teorii , schimb de cunotine de fond , i compila referine cheie pentru fiecare teorie sa
dovedit a fi o sarcin monumental . n mod evident , documentarea fiecare teorie este insuficient , dac dorim s
relatii printre teorii explicite . Pentru a atinge acest obiectiv , vom crea hri mentale . Hri actualizate vor suferi cu
siguran revizuiri semnificative ca ne adresam fiecare teorie . mprtim noastr n construcie , n procesul de
hri aici pentru comentariul tau


Achievement Goal Theory
VARIABLES
Among the variables which may be considered are those that focus on:
Mastery goals - understanding of concepts and content, and application to tasks - learning, task-involved,
mastery goals, approach and avoidance performance goals, work avoidant, academic alienation
Performance relative to others - performance, relative ability, ego-involved
Outcomes - goals, attributions, self-efficacy, levels of cognitive engagement, self-regulation, affect,
interest, persistence, choice behaviors.

* Note 1: "In terms of the use of dichotomies, goal theory has traditionally viewed mastery and
performance goals in opposition to one another. However, the empirical results from correlational studies
with survey data have found that mastery and performance goals may be negatively correlated,
uncorrelated, or even positively correlated." (Pintrich, 2000: 98).

* Note 2: "The field of motivational research has progressed to the point where there are clear and distinct
constructs that have differential relations with one another and with achievement outcomes like choice,
persistence, and behavior. These different constructs like goals, efficacy, attributions, and interest can
and should be used as distinct independent or moderator variables as well as distinct mediator and
dependent variables in our research. The fact that they might show consistent relations to each other
does not preclude us from understanding how they might operate additively or multiplicatively in
achievement dynamics. This perspective is not only important for theoretical reasons, but also for
practical pedagogical ones, as we have come to understand that students are not just motivated or
unmotivated in terms of some general quantity, but that in fact there are important qualitative
differences in how students are motivated and these different qualities have a dramatic influence on
learning and achievement. (Pintrich, 2000: 101).

Realizarea Teoria Goal
n ceea ce privete utilizarea de dihotomii , teorie obiectiv a privit in mod traditional obiective de miestrie i de
performan n opoziie unul fa de cellalt . Cu toate acestea , rezultatele empirice din studiile corelaionale cu
datele sondajului au constatat c obiectivele de miestrie i de performan poate fi corelat negativ , necorelate , sau
chiar pozitiv corelat " ( Pintrich , 2000 : 98 ) . .

* Nota 2 : . "Domeniul de cercetare motivaional a progresat pn la punctul n cazul n care exist construcii clare
i distincte care au relaii difereniale cu un altul i cu rezultate de realizare , cum ar fi alegerea , persistena , i
comportament aceste concepte diferite , cum ar fi obiective , eficacitate , atribuiile , i de interes pot i ar trebui s
fie folosite ca variabile distincte " " independent " " sau moderator , precum i mediator distinct i variabile
dependente n cercetarea noastr . faptul c s-ar putea arta relaii consistente ntre ei nu ne exclude de la nelegerea
modului n care s-ar putea opera aditiv sau multiplicativ n dinamica de realizare . Aceast perspectiv este
important nu numai pentru motive teoretice , ci , de asemenea, pentru cele practice pedagogice , cum am ajuns s
nelegem c elevii nu doar " " motivat " " sau " " nemotivat " " sunt din punct de vedere unele cantitate general, dar
care , de fapt, exist diferene calitative importante n modul n care elevii sunt motivai i aceste caliti diferite au o
influen dramatic asupra nvrii i realizare . ( Pintrich 2000 : 101 ) .

DOMAINS: Psychology, Sports, Business, Education (Cognition)
Contributors: Sarah Chauncey



DEVELOPERS
The following are names associated wtih early works on Achievement Goal Theory. They are mentioned in the References selected for this review. I
have included citations for their early works below the Background section.

C. Ames; Diener; C, L, C. S.Dweck; E. S. Elliott; E. L. Leggett; M.L. Maehr; J.G. Nichols

BACKGROUND

"Traditional AGT, also referred to as normative goal theory (e.g. Harackiewicz et al., 2002), evolved from work (Diener & Dweck 1978; Dweck & Elliott, 1983) in which researcher
sought to identify goals that lead to helpless and master patterns of responses to different achievement contexts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In normative goal theory, two
dichotomous achievement goals are identified: mastery and performance. Mastery goals have been labeled task-goals (Nicholls, 1984) and learning goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988,
Elliott and Dweck, 1988), whereas performance goals have been labeled ego-goals (Nicholls, 1984) and ability goals (Ames & Ames, 1984). Ames (1992) provides evidence for
convergence among labels, enough to warrant adoption of the terms mastery and performance. Other researchers have followed suit (e.g. Barron & Harackiewicz., 1001; Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1994, Pintrich, 2000b). Henceforth, the dichotomous goals included in AGT are referred to as mastery and performance."(Robustelli, 2006: 12) ... Robustelli's
found in her review of the literature on research using normative goal theory that "...mastery goals demonstrated a consistent pattern of rsults relating
to adaptive motivational patterns but not to increased achievement...perofrmance goals yielded mixed results with eduational outcomes; they were
corrleated with both maladdaptive motivational patterns and increased achievement." (Robustelli, 2006: 17)

Revised Goal Theory
"Revised goal theory broke the competence-based mastery and performance goals into valenced dimensions, termed approach and avoid. Two new
frameworks, the trichotomous and 2 x 2 framework, were devised to include the approach and avoid dimensions of performance and master goals.
The trichotomous framework includes master, performance approach, and performance avoid goals, while the 2 x 2 framework completes the
addition of approach and avoid dimensions by including master avoid goals." (Robustelli, 2006: 18)

According to Pintrich, "Achievement goals refer to the purposes or reasons an individual is pursuing an achievement task, most often operationalized
in terms of academic learning tasks, although they can be applied to other achievement contexts such as athletic or business settings (Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996). ...achievement goal constructs represent an integrated and organized pattern of beliefs about, not just the general purposes or reasons
for achievement, but also the standards or criteria (the target) that will be used to judge successful performance (Urdan, 1997). ...In this
sense, achievement goal constructs represent a combination of general goals or purposes like mastery or superiority (cf. these two goals in
Fords 1992 taxonomy) as well as more specific criteria or targets by which performance will be judged [Sarah's emphasis] (e.g., progress or
self-improvement vs. higher grades than others)." (Pintrich 2000: 93-94)

In her dissertation, Robustelli (2006) sites Grant, Dweck and Pintrich, noting that "achievement goals can be conceptualized differently and those
conceptualizations dictate their assigned labels, underlying structures, level of analysis, and their respective contributions to AGT and achievement
outcomes (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Pintrich, 2000a) (Robustelli, 2006: 11) She devotes Chapter 1 of her dissertation to terms and definitions and
Chapter 2, literature review, to background on traditional AGT (normative) and Revised AGT. (Robustelli, 2006)

In the domain of education (cognition), achievement goals embody the goals of competence and mastery, and, when ego-involved, individuals may
seek opportunities to demonstrate mastery to gain social recognition, to establish their superiority, to garner praise etc. According to Ames, Pintrich
and others, mastery goals and performance goals may co-mingle as motivators. An Achievement Goal Theory definition of mastery tells us that, "A
student who adopts a mastery goal towards learning is concerned most with the process of learning rather than the outcome. He or she considers
learning to be a reward in and of itself. [in contrast] A student who adopts a performance approach goal towards learning is concerned most with the
outcome of learning; in particular, he or she wants to demonstrate his or her competence to others " (Robustelli 2006, abstract) Mastery in the domain
of education identifies what learners should know, understand, and be able to do.Thus, mastery requires that individuals understand concepts, have
background knowledge (content), and have the ability to call on both on both to address tasks which require critical thinking, inference, induction,
deduction, and application of knowledge -- to solve problems and address issues in novel situations.

"Researchers have labeled different sets of contrasting achievement goal orientations: learning versus performance (Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Miller,
Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993); task versus ego (Fox, Goudes, Biddle, Duda, & Armstrong, 1994); deep, achieving, and surface approaches to
achievement (Ainley, 1993); mastery versus performance (Ames & Archer, 1988; Cho, 1992); task mastery, ego-social, and work-avoidant (Meece et
al., 1988; Meece & Holt, 1993; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990); and knowledge building, instructional, and task completion (Ng & Bereiter, 1991). The
common rationale and criteria in defining those sets of contrasting achievement goal orientations is related to whether the approach or
orientation perceives and values learning for other external goals. [Sarah's emphasis]" (Somuncuoglu & Yildirm, 1999: 267)

"Students' achievement goal orientations and learning strategy use are context-specific traits rather than general traits. Ames and Archer (1988)
argued that (a) situational demands are the initiating factors that shape students' individual perceptions which, in turn, form up adoption of different
goal orientations and (b) goal orientations finally lead into variance in students' use of learning strategies. These arguments are critical because
they illustrate the dynamic interplay between social, motivational, and cognitive factors that influence learning behavior.[Sarah's emphasis]"
(Somuncuoglu & Yildirm, 1999: 268)

You might also like