A Review: The Influence of Instrumentality Beliefs
(The
Influence of Instrumentality Beliefs on Intrinsic Motivation:
A
Study of High-Achieving Adolescents)
Aji Nur Hakim
David J. Kover
from San Francisco Unified School District and Frank C. Worrell from University
of California (Berkeley) have conducted a research titled “The influence of instrumentality
beliefs on intrinsic motivation.” The study describes about two main points
which are intrinsic motivation and instrumentality, include:
1. Self-Determination
Theory
2. Competence and
Autonomy
3. Organismic
Integration Theory
4. Performance-Contingent
Reward Structures
5. Evaluation and
Intrinsic Motivation
6. Competency Feedback
7. Goals and
Intrinsic Motivation
8. Personally Valued
Long-Term Goals
9. Instrumentality as
a Predictor of Extrinsic Motivation
10. Instrumentality as
a Predictor of Intrinsic Motivation
The two first is included in intrinsic motivation,
number 3 until 8 in instrumentality, and the two last points is the discussion
of the result of study.
The first
discussion is describes about intrinsic motivation. According Self-Determination
Theory (SDT), intrinsic motivation comes from the need to the task given, not about
engaging to the reward given. “Instrumentality beliefs, by definition, imply
that the individual has external reasons for engaging in the task at hand” (Kover
& Worrell, 2010). So, by instrumentality belief, external motivation is the
main reason to influence someone’s to do the task.
Competence and
anatomy, also the part of intrinsic motivation which is specialize in need. Not
different from SDT, someone also doing the task because of their competence and
anatomy. Someone who has strong intrinsic motivation will be engage to increase
their competence and be autonomous people (one’s who can take care of her/his
need). SDT theory use competence and anatomy to predict that external factor
can influence intrinsic motivation. For example, a students who doing the best
to increase the competence may be influenced of reward from someone else, so
that he/she do their best to get the reward, not to increase the competence. Even
competence and anatomy is close by intrinsic motivation, if there is at least
one reason from external of people to enter the motivation, the position of
intrinsic motivation will vanished and replace by external motivation.
The second
discussion is about instrumentality which include the discussion about
Organismic Integration Theory, performance-contingent reward structures,
evaluation and intrinsic motivation, competency feedback, goals and intrinsic
motivation; and personally valued long-term goals. As we know, SDT is identical
with intrinsic motivation. Besides, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), explain
that external factors can increase intrinsic motivation. The difference of it
is whenever external factors can increase the existence of intrinsic motivation;
it directly changes to extrinsic motivation. If SDT supported by competence and
autonomy, OIT also support by those adding with connectedness, the importance
of one’s in an environment.
Remember that
students may do their work to get the reward. There is a theory says that it is
actually exist when students have to do certain level of performance to receive
the reward that known as performance-contingent reward. It needs a competence-feedback
and experience evaluation, which is related to intrinsic motivation, because
students have to do performance-contingent and receive certain standard.
Discussing about
evaluation, when it used to control the reward and be more stressful to do, it
will affect intrinsic motivation and be the contrary side. So that evaluation
will focus to the task, not about the reward. It is exactly same with feedback.
Negative and positive feedback may change the motivation. Negative feedback can
cause someone do not have a motivation (amotivational). While positive feedback
may increase the competence which is also increase intrinsic motivation. “These
differences are especially important to consider with regard to beliefs about
the future instrumentality of school, because students receive multiple opportunities
for feedback (grades) along the path of whatever instrumentality goals they may
have.” (Kover & Worrell, 2010). In school, especially in Indonesian some Indonesian
school, teachers still rank their children every the end of semester. It may
good for students who have high rank, but it will decrease student’s motivation
to them who have low rank. Due to some protest from parents also students, some
school in Indonesian did not use this policy again.
The goals theory
is basically can support intrinsic motivation, also instrumentality beliefs
that in line with the goals theory. If the goals set from the beginning of
study, students will automatically motivated to reach those goals and be the
responsible to do the task given. Beside, long-term goals needed to predict the
future. According Husman and Lens (1999) and Simons, et al (2000) (in Kover
& Worrell, 2010), there are three types of long-term goals: both autonomously
chosen and intrinsically valued, autonomously chosen but not intrinsically
valued, and neither autonomously chosen nor personally valued.
Both autonomously
chosen and intrinsically valued is one’s who have high intrinsic motivation
because she/he also concern about autonomous, may set her/his long-term goals
without any difficulties. There is also one’s who has autonomous but not really
have high intrinsic motivation, even do not have it. She/he may do the task,
but not interested in it, or she/he just do because they need to get good grade
or get the reward. This type of person, may have long-term goals, but not
interested in doing or they might do not have long-term goals because they do
not motivated to make it. The worst is one’s who do not has autonomous and
intrinsic valued. She/he may not do the task given because not interested in
it. So, everything they do not like to do, they will not do.
The sample of
study are 961 students (44% male) who attending summer program (based on combination
of grade, standardized test result, work sample, and teacher recommendation) at
a major research university in California. Participants given 6-week program
course, and given “Approaches to Learning Survey” which is contain mastery
goals (3 items), performance goals (2 items), perceived instrumentality (5
items), extrinsic motivation (3 items), and intrinsic motivation (3 items);
that asked about participants’ reason for engage in learning.
The result comes
up with two discussions: instrumentality as a predictor of extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation. Toward extrinsic motivation, instrumentality beliefs have
positive relation. This is in line that giving reward as external control can
affect of the task that can change from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation.
Beside,
instrumentality as a predictor of intrinsic motivation is contradictory. In
other study it might have positive relationship, but they result tell us so. The
influence of instrumentality indeed depends on the nature or environment set. There
are many variety to influence on their competence, autonomy, and connectedness
which OIT emphasized that predict the intrinsic motivation.
This study basically
can not prove Miller (in Kover & Worrell, 2010) finding that instrumentality
beliefs can brings positive influence toward intrinsic motivation. It might
because of the different of sample and the environment. “It is probable that the failure to
replicate the earlier findings is due to differences in the participant samples between studies, especially in
regards to proximity to future goals, specific types of future goals, and orientation towards achievement.” (Kover &
Worrell, 2010).
Source:
Kover, D.J., & Worrell, F.C. (2010). The influence
of instrumentality beliefs on intrinsic motivation: A study of high-achieving
adolescents. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 21, 470-498. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ906113.pdf
Langganan:
Posting Komentar
(
Atom
)
Tidak ada komentar :
Posting Komentar