Introduction

Abstract

Motivation: A construct with a long traditionDespite the highly acclaimed place of motivation within pedagogical practice and instruction models, the construct has not been well integrated into theories of learning and instruction. Many researchers involved in educational research still focus mainly on cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning. When being confronted with this observation, they argue that the construct is too complex to be integrated in their theories and models and that much is to be gained by better conceptualizations and operationalizations of the motivation construct. Why do they demand greater clarity? In popular language motivation is equated with goal-directed behavior and, is as such, easily understood. However, educational researchers who wanted to include this seemingly clear construct into their models of learning and instruction soon discovered that it was a blanket term which refers to a variety of interrelated cognitions and affects, including expectations, goal orientation, perception of control, interest, self-concept of ability, and intentions. Furthermore, each facet of the motivation construct has been intensively researched within its own conceptual niche, a situation which has resulted in a kaleidoscope of overlapping constructs and complementary measurement instruments. It is therefore not surprising that educational researchers are baffled by the multitude of terms and labels and demand more conceptual clarity. Quite clearly, the presence of too many motivation-related constructs has hindered the integration of the concept within models of learning and instruction. Our position here is not that there is no room for competing theories. On the contrary, we welcome competing theories for they stimulate thoughtful comparisons of findings assembled by different research schools. Rather, what we are saying is that there should be an extensive exchange of ideas between researchers working in the same area of research, yet belong to a different school of thought. Such an exchange of ideas will not only deepen each researcher's understanding, it will also force researchers to agree on the labels being used for the various facets of the motivation construct. In our view it is essential that all involved in the study of motivation a.nd learning form a community of investigators who speak the same scientific language, making use of a similar conceptual framework. Acceptance of shared tools will ignite the desire to share ideas and exchange empirical results, thus maximizing the chances that a more comprehensive theory of learning and motivation will develop. In contrast, using 4