Editorial

Motivation has been a pervasive research topic in educational psychology and recent work emphasises the multi-dimensionality of motivational and goal orientation frameworks within cultural contexts (Elliot & Dweck, 2005; King & McInerney, 2016; Wentzel & Ramani, 2016). The 10 articles published in this issue continue and extend this multi-dimensional approach to student motivation and pursuit of goals and their relationships to various educational outcomes. Within this focus, you will find a truly international perspective tapping into different cultural/national contexts, theoretical underpinnings, methodologies and analytical strategies.

Focussing on achievement goals in both mathematics and language in Dutch elementary school students, Jansen in de Wal, Hornstra, Prins and van der Veen (2016) showed relatively stable goals across time (one year) and academic domain but the movement of some students to more adaptive motivation implicates classroom context and teacher effects. Also addressing such goals, Scheltinga, Kuyper, Timmermans, and van der Werf (2016) demonstrated that a high percentage of their Dutch secondary students reported having a Dominant Achievement Goal (DAG). That DAGs are seen to be related to factors, such as self-efficacy and effort, the construct adds to our understanding of the complexities of learning. The apparent decline in DAGs for students in lower tracks of high school raises some concern.

Teachers are an integral part of student learning, as motivators and as observers of classroom behaviour. Teacher effects, in addition to peer effects, within a self-determination framework are considered by Raufelder, Regner, Drury, and Eid (2016). Their findings, from German adolescents, highlight the perceived role of both peers and teachers in self-determination, positive attitudes and interest in learning as well as classroom engagement through effort and participation. Questions are raised about the extent to which school learning environments satisfy the psychological needs of students.

Teachers’ perspectives on student behaviour are studied by Bugler, McGeown, and St Clair-Thompson (2016) showing that the less British teachers reported negative classroom behaviours, the more likely their secondary students had adaptive cognitions and behaviours such as valuing school work, self-belief and persistence. They also showed girls increasing in maladaptive motivations, including anxiety, in the later years, an issue worthy of continued examination.

By way of contrast, Martin and Elliot (2016) approached the motivation problems by introducing Personal Best (PB) goals, goals that focus on one’s own previous performances, to improve and/or do better than previously. Their longitudinal study of Australian secondary students showed PB goals positively predicting motivation and engagement one year later. Comparisons to one’s own previous performances seems to further personalise the motivation of students and act to drive learning engagement.

Cultural values related to individualistic and collectivist societies are raised in a comprehensive study of Qatari secondary school students by Nasser and McInerney (2016). They investigated eight motivational factors, and their relationships to university intention, the value of school and achievement. Their findings highlighted the role of mastery oriented motivation, specifically effort and task, in student thinking about their future education and also their current levels of achievement.

Taking a more situated motivational perspective, Ozdemir Oz, Lane, and Michou (2016) examined the reasons underlying achievement goals while their Turkish university students completed a laboratory-type spatial task. Their findings reinforced the power of autonomous reasoning, irrespective of goal, in predicting adaptive outcomes, including the less likelihood of cheating. There are implications here for classroom practice.

Brassler, Grund, Hilckmann, and Fries (2016) and King (2016) studied different perspectives on learner intentions, the former investigated conflicting motivations, the latter, time perspectives. Brassler et al. (2016) showed that the stronger the subjective motivational strength of an alternative, the greater impediment to self-regulated learning in German university students. This study is one of the very few looking at motivational interference in a learning task. Teaching students to handle motivational conflict is advocated. King (2016), on the other hand, focussed on the role of time perspectives in Filipino university students. His findings, that pleasurable thinking about the past and contemplating actions for the future are linked to engagement and achievement adds another dimension to the complexity of student motivation and learning. Importantly, King raised the cross-cultural validation imperative.

Quite different from all the other studies reported in this issue, Leptokaridou, Vlachopoulos, and Papaioannou (2016) explored the effects of a relatively short-term autonomy-support intervention on Greek elementary school students’ motivation, finding positive impacts on motivationally related indices. The study illustrates the power of instructional strategies and classroom practice on students’ emotions and motivation.

In conclusion, each of these articles has addressed important motivationally related questions and in doing so has extended our understanding of the complexities of motivation and learning. They raise also the need for more developmental, longitudinal studies (also noted by many of the above researchers), closer examination of cultural contexts/cross-cultural validation and the development of more motivationally oriented interventions. These deserve our serious attention. Ultimately, we should be aiming at producing students with more adaptive motivational profiles (Anderman & Dawson, 2011; Wilson & Buttrick, 2016). Finally, I am confident that you will appreciate the rigour, depth and concept enhancement of the leading edge research reported in this issue. Collectively and individually this work should provide a strong stimulus for on-going research.

Phillip J. Moore