Creating Motivated Students

Creating Motivated College students
Going to college instead of pursuing other endeavors is one of the biggest decisions that a student will make in their lives up to that point. Once they are in college, however, parents often feel challenged to ensure that their children are doing well, that all of their needs are taken care of and that they are motivated to do well while they are there because parents understand how important college is to the next phases of their children’s lives. Whether they have been to college or not, most parents understand that their children need to be motivated to get good grades and maintain a high GPA so that they can access more potential opportunities while they are in college and then after they graduate.
What parents do not seem to understand, however, is that the majority of what they can do to motivate their child to do well in college takes place long before the student sits in their first college class. Motivating their child to do well is the result of the focus given to education while growing up, and the development of a high level of self-efficacy which encourages the student to become a self-regulated learner, allowing them to more easily adapt to the rigors of a college environment. The kind of support that encourages the development of these characteristics is indicative of the kind of support network that invested parents provide which serves as one of the strongest ways that students remain motivated to succeed while they are in college.
In order to better understand how this is the best way for parents to motivate their children while they are in college it is necessary to define self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Bandura one of the pioneer and major proponents of self-efficacy theory, defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 3) Put more simply, self-efficacy refers to one’s personal beliefs that they are capable of mastering a certain set of material, achieving a desired outcome or meeting some other goal. The higher that a student’s level of self-efficacy is, the better able they are to face challenging material in school and master it. Conversely, the lower a student’s self-efficacy, the less willing they are to even look at material they consider to be challenging or advanced, and the less motivated they are to continue through school. As Bandura argues, self-efficacy is about agency, and “if people believe that they have no power to produce results, they will not attempt to make things happen” (4).
Bandura points out that those individuals who spend the most time with the child have the greatest effect on their level of self-efficacy. This especially includes parents but also teachers, and other educators who spend time with the student, because these are the people who reinforce certain behaviors. The parents who continue to motivate their child to keep trying until they get it right is working to develop a higher level of self-efficacy in that student, and that is what motivates them to continue trying to succeed in college when they find themselves stuck on challenging material.
Kirschner describes self-regulated learning as learning that is guided by higher level thought patterns, strategic action, and motivation to learn (194). Self-regulated learners, because they are internally motivated, have taken the time to be more aware of their academic strengths and weaknesses and are well prepared to overcome the obstacles and challenges that they find in their way. Self-regulated learners tend to have a high sense of self-efficacy, and are more likely to find success in and beyond the academic environment. This motivation starts in the home, with dedicated and invested parents who build up a support network that leaves the child unafraid to try new things and embrace the difficulty of learning new material.
What Kirschner argues is that no matter how much time students spend in school or in the presence of other authority figure, they ultimately spend more time at home in the presence of their parents and the atmosphere their parents have crafted in the home (198). No matter how productive the teacher is in the classroom environment, if the student goes home to an environment that does not value education then much of the lesson is lost. Thus, the actions that the parents take go a long way towards encouraging the development of self-regulated learning. The majority of the research seems to indicate that this is the best answer to give. The clearest academic evidence points to teachers and other administrators having the greatest ability to motivate students once they enter college. Parent, however, are better able to foster a sense of high motivation in their children over the course of their lives so that by the time the student enters college, they are internally motivated to do well, knowing that they have the continued support of their parents along the way. Schunk and Pajeres believe that the development of self-efficacy is bi-directional, that “parents who provide an environment that stimulates youngsters’ curiosity and allows for mastery experiences help to build children’s self-efficacy. In turn, children who display more curiosity and exploratory activities promote parental responsiveness” (4). In this kind of environment, children are motivated to work on the activities that will help them learn new information and skills. Even as the child grown older, this motivation remains the same as long as the support remains the same (5). Hence, parents seeking to motivate their children in college just need to provide the same level of support that helped their child get to college. The power of a warm and supportive home environment cannot be overstated insofar as it accelerates intellectual development and motivates the child to be a part of the culture of success that the parents have created. Kail and Cavanaugh argue that the motivation inherent in high-achieving children is actually instilled in them by their parents and their environment from ages one through six. Drawing on Erikson’s theory of Psychosocial Development, the stance taken is that “human behavior is largely governed by motives that are internal and often unconscious” (pg. 11). However, this does not mean that they are arbitrary. In fact, the way that parents help their children navigate each phase of psychosocial development is proposed as the way that certain personality traits are developed.
There are eight stages of psychosocial development in Erikson’s theory. These stages occur throughout the course of one’s life, so it takes a lifetime to acquire certain personality traits. The first applicable stage is known as Autonomy vs. Shame or Doubt. During this stage, which is ongoing from 1 – 3 years of age, children learn to either realize that one is an independent person who can make decisions, or begin to doubt they can handle demanding situation and begin to feel shame from a sense of failure. A proper blending of these feelings gives rise to “will, the knowledge that, within limits, youngsters can act on their world intentionally” (Kail and Cavanaugh, 11). This is the first step where children learn to work on their own and perform. It is easy to see from the use of the word ‘intentionally’ that this stage ties into Bandura’s concept of social efficacy as well, highlighting the role that parents play in developing motivated students who are prepared to handle college.
The second stage occurs from 3 – 6 years of age, and is known as Initiative vs. Guilt. In this stage children experiment with different adult roles, and begin to ask innumerable questions and imagine possibilities for themselves (Kail and Cavanaugh, 11). This individual initiative is key in the concept of overachieving because it explains where the motivation to overachieve comes from. These two stages, taken together, form Erikson’s explanation for a high achieving personality. Children who resolve the first stage of development more Autonomy and develop less Shame and Doubt will be a person who is much more comfortable working on one’s own and making independent decisions than an average person. If this same person resolves the second stage with more Initiative and less Guilt about the consequences of it, then they will be more driven to work. Once the stage has been set to develop initiative, the child has the majority of their motivation in place to succeed. What the parent has to do from that point forward is provide the continuous support needed to keep the levels of motivation as high as possible. Bandura and Schunk examined the various ways that students could be motivated to engage in self-regulated learning, and came to the conclusion that parents play an invaluable role in the process. As students reach higher levels of school, they inevitably find themselves without the structure and support that they are used to. This is especially true once they enter college and find that the freedom they receive is coupled with the responsibility to use it wisely. The way for parents to prepare their children for this environment, according to Badura and Schunk, is to model the kinds of behaviors they want their children to emulate. A parent who values education inspires children to value education. A parent with books in the household motivates children to read. Reading on their own is part of the social forces that give rise to self-regulated learning. One thing that the research also makes clear is that parents are part of a student’s social support network, and the stronger that network is, the more likely that student is to be successful in college. In the same way that parents serve as agents of socialization for their children when it comes to their personal and social interactions, parents also serve as agents of socialization when it comes to their children’s academic habits as well. Although teachers and other agents often take a primary role in teaching children study skills and other academic tools, the impression that parents give regarding the importance of these skills is very important when it comes to the development of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. This social support network is even a greater requirement for children who are first generation college students. Inman and Mayes looked at characteristics that separated first generation college students from students whose parents attended college. When contrasting these two, the authors found that first-generation students “are less well-prepared academically and psychologically for college” (Inman & Mayes). These first-generation students also have a lower sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem than their counterparts who are not first generation, with the hypothesis being that the parents who went to college were able to set up different expectations over the lifetime of the student that reinforced academics and education in general (Inman & Mayes). In these cases, the best thing that parents can do is to motivate their children to reach out and find information on their own. Inman and Mayes caution that the advice given to first-generation in college students by their parents can actually lower the student’s motivation in the long-term because “their parents, unaware of the general education requirements of college, may even offer counterproductive advice regarding choices about which courses are necessary” and place the student even further behind than they would have been otherwise. In these cases, the kind of support that parents need to provide should include less specifics about courses of action and more general support, including the knowledge that the parent is there to provide whatever assistance is necessary. The reason that this general support is important is that Inman and Mayes detail that while the parents may be in support of their children going to college, first-generation students often find themselves in a position where “the pressure from friends and family encouraging these students not to go to college is often intense.” In cases such as these, the motivation to do well in college often lowers unless the parents made a conscientious attempt to support the student’s endeavors, and to remind them that they are not alone as they go through school. This approach tends to increase the student’s motivation to do well because they no longer feel that they have to choose between their family and their academic endeavors. Some have questioned whether it is appropriate for parents with the means to motivate their children through the use of financial rewards. Levitt and Dubner, looking at the presence of external motivations, use data that suggests that the concept of paying for grades is not the automatic long-term solution that many parents think it is (164). The problem is that people, especially teenagers, are victims of “hyperbolic discounting,” the idea that works behind delayed gratification. Essentially, promising someone a financial reward at the end of the semester causes them to discount the worth of that reward at the expense of short-term satisfaction (Levitt & Dubner, 164). Unless the parent is paying for individual tests and quiz grades then the idea is that the reward is so far removed from the effort that college students will not make the connection. Parents who believe that they can motivate their children with external rewards will either have to consistently pay up for individual grades instead of class grades or find ways to spur the inner motivation of their child, which many believe will dwindle under a work-for-pay system anyway (Levitt & Dubner, 159). Essentially, the research seems to validate my hypothesis, which is that parents motivate children to do well in college by preparing them for college, and they prepare them for college by spending a lifetime developing their child’s inner motivation in order to encourage high levels of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. If parents stay invested in their children’s education, supporting them to reach academic success, the tendency to develop an internal motivation to do well is likely to emerge. Especially when the student is attending college away from home, the structure that the parents had set up in the household to ensure that academic work was completed becomes much less important. When the parent is not physically there to check on their children’s academic achievements, the best thing they can do is work to increase their child’s inner motivation to succeed. They do this by working to instill a sense of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning into their child over the course of their lifetime. This should be followed up with vocal encouragement while the student is in school so that they do not feel isolated from family while in the midst of the college environment.
Paying for grades sounds like a great way to some to increase the motivation of college students, but the research does not always support that conclusion. While there is research suggesting that students who were paid for grades before they attended college often have better grades in college, much of the research also criticizes this as a way to motivate students, arguing that it can ruin a student’s intrinsic motivation to do well. There is also the point that this approach suffers from a discounting problem because of the lack of immediate gratification. This is why parents need to begin the support process long before college starts, because it is harder for students to find the ability to stay motivated in a more challenging environment if the support has not always been there, especially if they are a first-generation student. However, an invested parent who has worked from the beginning to develop an internally motivated student should have no problem keeping them motivated as they matriculate through college.

Works Cited

Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1997. Print.

Bandura, Albert., & Schunk, Dale. H. “Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 41 (1981): 586-598. Ebscohost. Web. 27 April 2013.

Inman, W. Elliot, and Larry Mayes. "The Importance Of Being First: Unique Characteristics Of First Generation Community College Students. "Community College Review 26.4 (1999): 3. Ebscohost. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

Kail, Robert. V. and John C. Cavanaugh. Human Development: A Life-span View. Los Angeles: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Kirschner, B.M. “Working with curriculum standards to build a community of readers in a culture of non-readers.” Educational Horizons. 82.3 (2004): 194 – 202. Ebscohost. Web. 27 April 2013.

Levitt, Steven D. and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: HarperCollins Publishing, 2005. Print.

Schunk, Dale H. and Frank Pajares. “The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy.” In: Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press, 2004. Print.

Cited: Bandura, Albert. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1997. Print. Bandura, Albert., & Schunk, Dale. H. “Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 41 (1981): 586-598. Ebscohost. Web. 27 April 2013. Inman, W. Elliot, and Larry Mayes. "The Importance Of Being First: Unique Characteristics Of First Generation Community College Students. "Community College Review 26.4 (1999): 3. Ebscohost. Web. 27 Apr. 2013. Kail, Robert. V. and John C. Cavanaugh. Human Development: A Life-span View. Los Angeles: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Kirschner, B.M. “Working with curriculum standards to build a community of readers in a culture of non-readers.” Educational Horizons. 82.3 (2004): 194 – 202. Ebscohost. Web. 27 April 2013. Levitt, Steven D. and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: HarperCollins Publishing, 2005. Print. Schunk, Dale H. and Frank Pajares. “The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy.” In: Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press, 2004. Print.