Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

102

Metacognition and Learning

Winograd, P., & Gaskins, R. W. (1992). Metacognition: Matters of

the mind, matters of the heart. In A. L. Costa, J. Bellanca, &

R. Fogarty (Eds.), If minds matter: A foreward to the future

(Vol. 1, pp. 225–238). Palatine, IL: Skylight. 

Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1982). Comprehension monitoring

and the error detection paradigm. Journal of Reading Behavior,

14, 63–74.

Yussen, S. R. (1985). The role of metacognition in contempo-

rary theories of cognitive development. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley,

G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition,

cognition, and human performance (pp. 253–283). New York:

Academic Press.

Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1986). Children’s comprehension

monitoring and recall of inconsistent stories. Child Develop-

ment, 57, 1401–1418.

Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on

children’s comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 21, 69–83.

Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. H. (1992). Effects of passage type on

comprehension monitoring and recall in good and poor readers.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 373–391.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than

metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational

Psychologist, 30, 217–221.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-

regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the in-

struction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 15, 413–429.

CHAPTER 6

Motivation and Classroom Learning

PAUL R. PINTRICH

103

MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES

AND STUDENT OUTCOMES

104

THE ROLE OF MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS

IN CLASSROOM LEARNING

105

Expectancy Components

105

Value Components

109

Affective Components

114

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

FOR RESEARCH

117

REFERENCES

118

Classroom learning is often discussed solely in terms of cog-

nition and the various cognitive and metacognitive processes

that are involved when students learn in academic settings. In

fact, in a key chapter on learning, remembering, and under-

standing in the Handbook of Child Psychology, Brown,

Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione (1983) noted

Bleak though it may sound, academic cognition is relatively ef-

fortful, isolated, and cold. . . . Academic cognition is cold, in that

the principal concern is with the knowledge and strategies neces-

sary for efficiency, with little emphasis placed on the emotional

factors that might promote or impede that efficiency. (p. 78)

This quote in the most important and influential handbook on

child development reflects the state of the field in the early

1980s. Most of the models and research on academic cogni-

tion did not address issues of motivation or emotion and how

these factors might facilitate or constrain cognition and learn-

ing. Basically, motivation was irrelevant to these cold models

of cognition as they concentrated on the role of prior knowl-

edge and strategies in cognition and learning.

At the same time, most motivational research in general—

and within educational psychology specifically—did not in-

vestigate the linkages between motivational beliefs and

academic cognition. Motivational research was focused on

examining performance, which often was operationalized in

terms of experimental tasks such as performance on anagram

tasks or other lab tasks that were knowledge-lean and did not

really reflect school learning tasks. In addition, motivational

research was concerned with the classroom factors that pre-

dicted student motivation and achievement, but achievement

was usually operationalized as course grades, performance on

classroom tests, or performance on standardized achievement

tests. The research did not really examine learning on domain-

specific academic tasks (e.g., math, science tasks), which is

what the cognitive researchers were focused on in their re-

search. Motivational models and constructs were cognitive—

especially in social cognitive models of motivation—but the

links between the motivational constructs and the cognitive

tasks and models were not made explicit in the research or in

the theoretical models of motivation.

Fortunately, this state of affairs has changed dramatically

over the last 20 years of research. Cognitive researchers now

recognize the importance of motivational constructs in shap-

ing cognition and learning in academic settings (e.g.,

Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), and motivational re-

searchers have become interested in how motivational beliefs

relate to student cognition and classroom learning (e.g.,

Pintrich, 2000a, 2000c). This integrative work on academic

cognition and motivation has provided a much more accurate

and ecologically valid description of classroom learning.

Given these advances in our scientific knowledge, our under-

standing of classroom learning is not only more robust and

generalizable, but it is also more readily applicable to prob-

lems of instructional improvement.

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize this work and

discuss how various motivational constructs are related to

student cognition and learning in classrooms. Given space

considerations, this chapter does not represent a comprehen-

sive review of the extant research in this area; rather, it

attempts to highlight the key features of the work and active

areas of research interest and future directions for the field.

104

Motivation and Classroom Learning

In addition, the chapter focuses on personal motivational

beliefs and their role in cognition and learning. It does not

consider the role of various classroom contextual features

and how they shape the development of student motivation.

Readers interested in the role of classroom context factors

can consult other sources (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;

Stipek, 1996). This chapter first discusses four general out-

comes of motivation; then it considers how different motiva-

tional constructs are related to these four outcomes. From this

analysis, four generalizations are proposed for how motiva-

tional constructs can facilitate or constrain cognition and

learning. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future

research directions for integrating motivation and cognition.

MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES

AND STUDENT OUTCOMES

There are many different motivational theories related to

achievement and learning (see Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;

Graham & Weiner, 1996). These theories make some differ-

ent metatheoretical assumptions about human nature and

have proposed a large number of different constructs to ex-

plain motivated human behavior. In fact, the large number of

different motivational constructs with different labels often

makes it difficult for novices to understand and use the dif-

ferent constructs in their own research (Murphy & Alexander,

2000). Nevertheless, these different theories have some im-

portant commonalities in outcomes and motivational con-

structs that allow for some synthesis across theories. In this

chapter, the focus is on four general outcomes with which

all motivational theories are concerned, as well as three

macrolevel motivational components that are inherent in

most models of motivation. Accordingly, this chapter does

not focus on different theoretical models of motivation;

rather, it discusses how the three different motivational com-

ponents are related to the four outcomes. Within the discus-

sion of the three general motivational components, different

theoretical perspectives and constructs are highlighted.

The term motivation comes from the Latin verb movere,

which means to move. Motivation is evoked to explain what

gets people going, keeps them going, and helps them finish

tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Most important is that moti-

vational constructs are used to explain the instigation of

behavior, the direction of behavior (choice), the intensity of be-

havior (effort, persistence), and actual achievement or accom-

plishments. Motivational theories focus both on developing

general laws of behavior that apply to all people (a nomothetic

perspective) as well as seeking explanations for individual dif-

ferences in behavior (an idiographic perspective). Historically,

cognitive researchers often ignored motivational research

because it was assumed that motivational constructs were

used to explain individual differences in behavior, which was

not a useful perspective for general models of cognition. How-

ever, this classic distinction between nomothetic and idio-

graphic perspectives has lessened over time as motivational

researchers have developed general principles that apply to all

individuals as well as constructs that can be used to explain in-

dividual differences.

Most motivational theories attempt to predict four general

outcomes. First, motivational theories are concerned with

why individuals choose one activity over another—whether

it be the day-to-day decisions regarding the choice of work-

ing on a task or relaxing or the more momentous and serious

choices regarding career, marriage, and family. In the acade-

mic domain, the main issues regarding choice concern why

some students choose to do their schoolwork and others

choose to watch TV, talk on the phone, play on the computer,

play with friends, or any of the other activities that students

can choose to do instead of their schoolwork. In addition,

motivational theories have examined why students choose

one major over another or choose to take certain classes over

others when given a choice. For example, in high school, stu-

dents are often allowed to choose some of their courses; mo-

tivational theories have examined why some students choose

to take more academic math and science courses over less

rigorous courses. Choice is an important motivational out-

come, and choosing to do an academic task over a nonacade-

mic task is important for classroom learning; however, it may

not be as important to classroom learning as are some of the

following outcomes.

A second aspect of motivated behavior that motivational

research has examined is the students’ level of activity or in-

volvement in a task. It is assumed that students are motivated

when they put forth a great deal of effort in courses—from

not falling asleep to more active engagement in the course.

Behavioral indicators of this involvement could include tak-

ing detailed notes, asking good questions in class, being will-

ing to take risks in class by stating ideas or opinions, coming

after class to discuss in more detail the ideas presented in

class, discussing the ideas from the course with classmates or

friends outside of class time, spending a reasonable amount

of time studying and preparing for class or exams, spending

more time on one course than on other activities, and seeking

out additional or new information from the library or other

sources that goes beyond what is presented in class. Motiva-

tional theories have developed constructs that help to predict

these types of behavioral outcomes.

Besides these behavioral indicators, there are more covert

or unobservable aspects of engagement that include cognitive

The Role of Motivational Components in Classroom Learning

105

engagement and processing, such as thinking deeply about

the material, using various cognitive and self-regulatory

strategies to learn the material in a more disciplined and

thoughtful manner, seeking to understand the material (not

just memorize it), and integrating the new material with pre-

viously held conceptions of the content. All of these cogni-

tive processes are crucial for deeper understanding and

learning. It is important to note that it is not enough for stu-

dents to just be behaviorally engaged in the course; they also

must be cognitively engaged in order for true learning and

understanding to occur. In this sense, cognitive engagement

refers to the quality of students’ engagement, whereas sheer

effort refers to the quantity of their engagement in the class.

This outcome of cognitive engagement is the most important

one for understanding classroom learning and is the main

focus of this chapter.

The third general aspect of motivated behavior that has

been examined in most motivational theories is persistence.

If individuals persist at tasks even in the face of difficulty,

boredom, or fatigue, it would be inferred that they are moti-

vated to do that task. Persistence is easily observable in gen-

eral because teachers do have opportunities to observe

students actually working on course tasks during class time.

It is common for teachers to comment on the students’ will-

ingness to persist and try hard on the classwork. In this

sense, persistence and behavioral engagement are much

easier for teachers and others to judge than is cognitive

engagement.

The fourth general outcome that motivational theories

have examined is actual achievement or performance; in the

classroom setting, this involves predicting course grades,

scores on classroom tests, or performance on standardized

achievement tests. These are important outcomes of school-

ing, although they may not always reflect what students actu-

ally learned or the quality of their cognition and thinking.

This mismatch between the quality of cognition and the per-

formance on the academic tasks or tests that students actually

confront in classrooms can lead to some different conclusions

about the role of different motivational components. It may

be that some motivational components predict general course

achievement or performance on standardized tests, and oth-

ers are better predictors of the quality of cognition or cogni-

tive engagement in learning tasks. This general idea of

differential links between different motivational components

and different outcomes is an important contribution of cur-

rent motivational research. The field has moved past the

search for a single magic motivational bullet that will solve

all learning and instructional problems to the consideration of

how different motivational components can facilitate or con-

strain different outcomes.

The remainder of this chapter discusses how motivational

components can shape and influence cognition, learning, and

the other important outcomes of schooling. Of course, a key

assumption is that motivation and cognition are related, and

that contrary to Brown et al. (1983), there is a need to exam-

ine how motivational and emotional components can facili-

tate or constrain cognition and learning. Accordingly, the

remainder of this chapter discusses how motivational compo-

nents can predict the four outcomes, including cognition and

learning. At the same time, it should be clear that most cur-

rent models of motivation assume that there is a reciprocal re-

lation between motivation and cognition such that cognitive

outcomes like learning and thinking or general outcomes like

achievement and performance do have feedback effects on

motivation. For example, as a student learns more and be-

comes more successful in achieving in the classroom (as in-

dexed by grades or test scores), these accomplishments have

an influence on subsequent motivation. Nevertheless, the em-

phasis in the motivational research has been on how motiva-

tion influences cognition and learning; therefore, that is the

general orientation taken in this chapter.

THE ROLE OF MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS

IN CLASSROOM LEARNING

Although many models of motivation may be relevant to

student learning (see Graham & Weiner, 1996; Heckhausen,

1991; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1992), a general

expectancy-value model serves as a useful framework for

analyzing the research on motivational components (Pintrich,

1988a, 1988b, 1989; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Three

general components seem to be important in these different

models: (a) beliefs about one’s ability or skill to perform the

task (expectancy components); (b) beliefs about the impor-

tance, interest, and utility of the task (value components); and

(c) feelings about the self or emotional reactions to the task

(affective components).

Expectancy Components

Expectancy components are students’ answer to the question

Can I do this task? If students believe that they have some

control over their skills and the task environment and if they

are confident in their ability to perform the necessary skills,

they are more likely to choose to do the task, be cognitively

involved, persist at the task, and achieve at higher levels. Dif-

ferent motivational theorists have proposed a variety of con-

structs that can be categorized as expectancy components.

The main distinction is between how much control one

106

Motivation and Classroom Learning

believes one has over the situation and perceptions of effi-

cacy to accomplish the task in that situation. Of course, these

beliefs are correlated empirically, but most models do

propose separate constructs for control beliefs and efficacy

beliefs.

Control Beliefs

There have been a number of constructs and theories pro-

posed about the role of control beliefs for motivational dy-

namics. For example, early work on locus of control (e.g.,

Lefcourt, 1976; Rotter, 1966) found that students who be-

lieved that they were in control of their behavior and could

influence the environment (an internal locus of control)

tended to achieve at higher levels. Deci (1975) and de

Charms (1968) discussed perceptions of control in terms of

students’ belief in self-determination. This self-determination

perspective is crucial in intrinsic motivation theories of moti-

vation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) in

which students are only intrinsically motivated if they feel

autonomous and their behavior is self-determined rather than

controlled by others. De Charms (1968) coined the terms ori-

gins and pawns to describe students who believed they were

able to control their actions and students who believed others

controlled their behavior. Connell (1985) suggested that there

are three aspects of control beliefs: an internal source, an ex-

ternal source or powerful others, and an unknown source.

Students who believe in internal sources of control are as-

sumed to perform better than do students who believe power-

ful others (e.g., faculty, parents) are responsible for their

success or failure or those students who don’t know who or

what is responsible for the outcomes. In the college class-

room, Perry and his colleagues (e.g., Perry, 1991; Perry &

Dickens, 1988; Perry & Magnusson, 1989; Perry & Penner,

1990) have shown that students’ beliefs about how their per-

sonal attributes influence the environment—what they label

perceived control—are related to achievement and to aspects

of the classroom environment (e.g., instructor feedback).

Skinner and her colleagues (e.g., Skinner, 1995, 1996;

Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990) distinguish three types

of beliefs that contribute to perceived control and that are im-

portant in school. These three beliefs can be organized

around the relations between an agent, the means or strate-

gies and agent might use, and the ends or goals that the agent

is trying to attain through the means or strategies (Skinner,

1995). Capacity beliefs refer to an individual’s beliefs about

his or her personal capabilities with respect to ability, effort,

others, and luck (e.g., I can’t seem to try very hard in school ).

These beliefs reflect the person’s beliefs that he or she has the

means to accomplish something and are similar to efficacy

judgments (Bandura, 1997) or agency beliefs (Skinner, 1995,

1996; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988). Strategy beliefs

are expectations or perceptions about factors that influence

success in school, such as ability, effort, others, luck, or un-

known factors (e.g., The best way for me to get good grades

is to work hard.). These beliefs refer to the perception that the

means are linked to the ends—that if one uses the strategies,

the goal will be attained. They also have been called outcome

expectations (Bandura, 1997) and means-ends beliefs

(Skinner, 1995, 1996). Control beliefs are expectations about

an individual’s likelihood of doing well in school without

reference to specific means (e.g., I can do well in school if I

want to). These beliefs refer to the relation between the agent

and the ends or goals and also have been called control ex-

pectancy beliefs (Skinner, 1995, 1996). Skinner and col-

leagues (Skinner, 1995; Skinner et al., 1990) found that

perceived control influenced academic performance by pro-

moting or decreasing active engagement in learning and that

teachers contributed to students’ perceptions of control when

they provided clear and consistent guidelines and feedback,

stimulated students’ interest in learning, and assisted students

with resources. 

In self-efficacy theory, outcome expectations refer to

individuals’ beliefs concerning their ability to influence

outcomes—that is, their belief that the environment is

responsive to their actions, which is different from self-

efficacy (the belief that one can do the task; see Bandura, 1986;

Schunk, 1985). This belief that outcomes are contingent on

their behavior leads individuals to have higher expectations

for success and should lead to more persistence. When indi-

viduals do not perceive a contingency between their behavior

and outcomes, they may show passivity, anxiety, lack of effort,

and lower achievement, often labeled learned helplessness

(cf. Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Learned help-

lessness is usually seen as a stable pattern of attributing many

events to uncontrollable causes, which leaves the individual

believing that there is no opportunity for change that is under

their control. These individuals do not believe they can do any-

thing that will make a difference and that the environment or

situation is basically not responsive to their actions.

The overriding message of all these models is that a gen-

eral pattern of perception of internal control results in positive

outcomes (i.e., more cognitive engagement, higher achieve-

ment, higher self-esteem), whereas sustained perceptions of

external or unknown control result in negative outcomes

(lower achievement, lack of effort, passivity, anxiety). Re-

views of research in this area are somewhat conflicting, how-

ever (cf. Findley & Cooper, 1983; Stipek & Weisz; 1981), and

some have argued that it is better to accept responsibility

for positive outcomes (an internal locus of control) and deny