Chinese undergraduate students' motivation profiles: Identification and significance

<p>This research sought to investigate the motivation of Chinese undergraduate students. It drew on Higgins’ (2012) conceptualization of motivation, which defined motivation as involving individuals’ simultaneous strivings for value, truth, and control effectiveness. Promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion are key general motivation tendencies that measure these three ways of strivings for effectiveness; these motivation tendencies interact to shape motivation effects (Higgins, 2012). This research examined the number and nature of the motivation configurations (i.e., motivation profiles) that mapped the interrelationships among promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion for a sample of Chinese undergraduate students. To this end, a mixed methods approach was adopted. First, quantitative data were collected from 886 Chinese undergraduate students at a Chinese university. The quantitative phase identified the motivation profiles and evaluated similarities/differences among the profiles with regard to important motivation factors pertaining to grit, theories of intelligence, critical thinking, effort regulation, and perceptions/evaluations of academic success. Then, the qualitative phase consisted of a multiple-case study of 19 interview participants who were purposefully selected from each of the motivation profiles identified in the quantitative phase. Analyses of quantitative and qualitative data revealed important findings. Specifically, five distinct motivation profiles were determined in the quantitative phase. The first profile (i.e., C1) was characterized by having high/very high and comparable levels of all four motivation orientations. The C2 profile encompassed very strong prevention and average and comparable levels of the remaining orientations. The C3 profile was characterized by strong/very strong and comparable assessment, locomotion, and promotion, but very weak prevention. The C4 profile was characterized by having low/very low levels of assessment, locomotion, and promotion and below average levels of prevention. The C5 profile encompassed below average and comparable levels of assessment, locomotion, promotion, and somewhat stronger prevention. Subsequent analyses showed that there were statistically significant differences among the profiles with regard to most of the motivation factors investigated. Some of these differences were of medium to large/very large magnitude. The qualitative phase of this research provided an in-depth understanding of the different strategic approaches that students who have a certain motivation profile reported employing in their learning. The qualitative findings showed that the approaches to learning and learning related tasks/activities that were reported by the interview participants were generally in line with the characteristics of their motivation profiles. Identifying and discussing Chinese undergraduate students’ motivation profiles contribute to understanding how the four general motivation tendencies (i.e., promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion) interact and how these interactions shape other motivation factors for this population. Moreover, findings from this research provide salient information regarding the motivation factors that undergird students’ academic success. This knowledge can help teachers/educators better understand students’ motivation and support productive outcomes in learning settings. In conclusion, this research makes important contributions to the existing motivation literature and educational practices. It also opens up novel directions for future research.</p>

Chinese undergraduate students' motivation profiles: Identification and significance

<p>This research sought to investigate the motivation of Chinese undergraduate students. It drew on Higgins’ (2012) conceptualization of motivation, which defined motivation as involving individuals’ simultaneous strivings for value, truth, and control effectiveness. Promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion are key general motivation tendencies that measure these three ways of strivings for effectiveness; these motivation tendencies interact to shape motivation effects (Higgins, 2012). This research examined the number and nature of the motivation configurations (i.e., motivation profiles) that mapped the interrelationships among promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion for a sample of Chinese undergraduate students. To this end, a mixed methods approach was adopted. First, quantitative data were collected from 886 Chinese undergraduate students at a Chinese university. The quantitative phase identified the motivation profiles and evaluated similarities/differences among the profiles with regard to important motivation factors pertaining to grit, theories of intelligence, critical thinking, effort regulation, and perceptions/evaluations of academic success. Then, the qualitative phase consisted of a multiple-case study of 19 interview participants who were purposefully selected from each of the motivation profiles identified in the quantitative phase. Analyses of quantitative and qualitative data revealed important findings. Specifically, five distinct motivation profiles were determined in the quantitative phase. The first profile (i.e., C1) was characterized by having high/very high and comparable levels of all four motivation orientations. The C2 profile encompassed very strong prevention and average and comparable levels of the remaining orientations. The C3 profile was characterized by strong/very strong and comparable assessment, locomotion, and promotion, but very weak prevention. The C4 profile was characterized by having low/very low levels of assessment, locomotion, and promotion and below average levels of prevention. The C5 profile encompassed below average and comparable levels of assessment, locomotion, promotion, and somewhat stronger prevention. Subsequent analyses showed that there were statistically significant differences among the profiles with regard to most of the motivation factors investigated. Some of these differences were of medium to large/very large magnitude. The qualitative phase of this research provided an in-depth understanding of the different strategic approaches that students who have a certain motivation profile reported employing in their learning. The qualitative findings showed that the approaches to learning and learning related tasks/activities that were reported by the interview participants were generally in line with the characteristics of their motivation profiles. Identifying and discussing Chinese undergraduate students’ motivation profiles contribute to understanding how the four general motivation tendencies (i.e., promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion) interact and how these interactions shape other motivation factors for this population. Moreover, findings from this research provide salient information regarding the motivation factors that undergird students’ academic success. This knowledge can help teachers/educators better understand students’ motivation and support productive outcomes in learning settings. In conclusion, this research makes important contributions to the existing motivation literature and educational practices. It also opens up novel directions for future research.</p>

Motivation Profiles in the Selection of a Study Program: Why do Physical Education Students Decide to Choose Teacher Education?

Students´ motivation to select a study program is an important factor that influences the professional development of student teachers. The exploratory study intended to clarify whether different study choice motivation profiles can be distinguished for PE students and how these profiles can be characterized. The analysis is based on 816 German PE students from 12 universities. The identification of different profiles was carried out by means of latent profile analysis. Among the PE students who were examined, four profiles can be identified concerning the motivation for the selection of a teacher education. The findings differ from most non subject-specific findings, mainly in the number of identified profiles. Further studies need to address whether this finding is subject-specific by comparing different subjects. Furthermore, it is necessary to examine the relevance of the identified profiles with respect to the development of competence of PE students

Similar but Different. Inter-Branch Diversification of Volunteers' Motivations

The article aims to verify whether volunteers working in the same branch of the nonprofit sector (e.g., culture, emergency services, and charity) share any similarities with respect to their motivation profiles. Moreover, the study tries to identify the mechanisms responsible for such inter–branch “motivation sorting.” In particular, three mechanisms are considered: functional matching, motivations to affordances matching, and motivation alignment. The data used in the analysis come from an original survey conducted among volunteers in Poland with the use of the Volunteer Functions Inventory (Clary, Snyder & Stukas, 1996). This questionnaire allows the identifying of six types of volunteer motivations: career, social, protective, understanding, enhancement, and values. The motivation profile of volunteers working in seven branches of the nonprofit sector is compared. The results indicate that the most distinctive group with respect to the motivation profile was made up of volunteers working in tourism and sports as well as emergency service volunteers. It was in the latter group that some traces of the motivation alignment and/or motivation to affordances matching were identified. The identification of some homogeneity of motivations within particular branches of the nonprofit sector is a valuable finding from the point of view of volunteer recruitment and retention.

Motivation and Motivation Profiles of the Employees in a Modern Organization

The article presents the results of an empirical study of staff motivation in a large financial company in a case study format. The technique of V. I. Gerchikov to determine the motivational profiles of employees: instrumental, professional, patriot, boss, lumpen. The experience of research conducted using this technique contains limited information on how to implement such research in organizations, and what results can be obtained. The features of the implemented research are the format of the survey (internally, HR research), the motivation of respondents (the possibility of obtaining a personal report), the format for presenting the results (the report and infographics on the internal portal), the breadth of analysis of the data obtained (analytics for certain categories of employees) and the nature of the research – applied. The test results allowed us to understand various aspects of motivation and motivational profiles of employees by category (position, length of service, gender). In the studied organization, the most common were professional and instrumental motives, but employees of different positions differed in terms of motivation and in motivational profiles. Professional motives are more typical for managers, and instrumental ones for specialists. Seniority in the company affects the change in motivation: if professional and patriotic motives are more typical for newcomers, then over time professional and instrumental ones begin to prevail. The most common employee profiles in an organization are “instrumental” and “professional”. An analysis of the differences in the distribution of employee profiles revealed that there are more “professionals” among managers (56%), and among employees working with clients – “instrumentalists” (60%). Employees with profiles “professional-instrumental” and “instrumental-professional” are widespread in the studied company. The results obtained were taken into account when adjusting the current motivation system and personnel development programs.

Work Motivation Profiles and Work Performance in a Group of Corporate Employees: A Two-Step Cluster Analysis

Few studies have applied a person-centered approach to work motivation using cluster or profile analyses. Thus, little is known about which configurations of work motivations characterize professionals. The aim of this study is to establish the structure of work motivation profiles under the framework of self-determination theory and to examine the relationship between work motivation and subjective work performance. The study involved 147 corporate employees who completed the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale and self-rated their work performance. The two-step cluster analysis was applied, followed by a one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Bonferroni test. The findings revealed differences between the five profiles for all forms of motivational regulation on the self-determination continuum (large effect sizes). Further examination revealed that the employees’ current work performances differed across motivational profiles (medium effect size). Strongly and poorly motivated as well as autonomously motivated employees reported better subjective work performance compared to unmotivated individuals. In line with self-determination theory, the quantity and shape of motivation can be simultaneously considered in terms of both theoretical and practical implementation.