FACTORS DRIVING STUDENT MOTIVATION
Beth Castiglia, Felician College
Abstract
Strong study habits are key to student academic success, yet an
understanding of the underlying motivations for student studying eludes
most faculty members. This study, conducted at Felician College in Lodi,
New Jersey, was designed to explore the factors that drive students to
study, to identify differences between successful and less-successful
student in terms of their study behaviors, and to connect student study
motivation to the larger realm of workplace motivation theory.
INTRODUCTION
What makes students study? This question, usually expressed with frustration, is
heard over and over again whenever college faculty assemble. “Students are motivated by
fear,” some faculty members might claim. “Give them tough classes and they’ll pull
through.” Other faculty members might plea the opposite case, arguing that students
thrive on positive feedback. Still other teaching faculty might argue that students work to
satisfy their own personal achievement goals, or that students work when they believe
that there will be direct payback – in future pay or opportunities – for the efforts
expended today. In the end, if a dozen faculty members were asked “What makes
students study?” it is likely that a dozen different opinions would be advanced.
The disagreement about the sources of student motivation makes the question of
academic motivation sound a great deal like that of workplace motivation. Management
theory abounds with contradictory theories about what makes employees work. Maslow
(1968) argued that needs drive behavior, and that workplace (and, presumably, academic)
motivation is determined by the level of the needs hierarchy at which the individual is
operating. McClelland (1966) claimed instead that motivation is driven by an innate need
to achieve, and Herzberg (1959) proposed that the content of the jobs themselves was the
source of the elusive employee motivation. The purpose of this research was to align
explanations for student motivation with classical workplace motivation theories. Are
students driven by needs, confirming Maslow’s (1968) theory? Are they instead
motivated by innate needs to achieve, aligning with McClelland’s work? Or are they,
perhaps, motivated to study only when the content of their courses inspires them, as
seems to be suggested by Herzberg (1959)? Once college faculty are aware of the sources
of students’ motivation, they will be better equipped to develop classroom strategies that
capitalize on them.
This study was conducted within the Division of Business and Management
Sciences at Felician College, in Lodi, New Jersey. One hundred seven students (of a total
student population of 178 within the division) voluntarily completed a survey on the
sources of student motivation (reproduced in Appendix A). The survey and the research
design were approved by the Felician College Institutional Review Board. The questions
on the 7-scale Likert survey (written by the researchers) included questions such as I
study more when the class is difficult and I’m afraid of failing, I am motivated to study
because I want to graduate with honors, and I don’t study because I have no time due to
work and family obligations. The questions were broad enough to cover need-based
motivation (I am motivated to study because studying makes me feel good and I am
motivated to study because I want to outdo my classmates and friends), achievementbased motivation (I am motivated to study because I want to make the Dean’s list) and
content-based motivation (I study more when I find the material interesting and
practical).
The student participants were drawn from two very distinct populations at
Felician College. The traditional, day-time students (of whom 75 participated) were
enrolled predominantly full-time, were mostly less than 25 years of age, and were
approximately half male and half female. Most worked part-time, and over one-third of
them participated in college athletics. The second population was comprised of 32
students in Felician College’s accelerated degree completion program. These students
were all over 25 years of age, were predominantly female, and were all employed full
time during the day. At the outset of the research, it seemed logical that the factors that
motivated this population might be very different from those which motivated the
traditional students.
THE PROBLEM
Studying plays an integral role in the success of college students. Faculty
members, however, are limited in their abilities to compel students to study. The
motivation to study (and, ultimately, the responsibility for success or failure) must rest
with the students. Davis and Murrell (1993) summarized, “While faculty members can
serve as academic helmsmen, the collective energy of all students at the oars actually
moves the boat through the water” (p. 11). Nevertheless, teaching faculty measure their
successes or failures in terms of student learning – and student learning is closely
connected to student study behavior.
Faculty’s inability to harness the sources of student motivation has become a
more serious concern over the past decade. According to the AAC&U (2002), the United
States is approaching an era of near-universal college attendance. College is no longer the
province of only the wealthy, but is seen as the ticket to upward mobility and professional
life across class lines (Davis & Murrel, 1993). While the diversity of students reflected in
college enrollment now reflects that of the nation as a whole, the same cannot yet be said
about the diversity of the population of students who complete their studies and graduate.
According to the Department of Education (2004), less than half of the lowest income
students enrolled in college graduate within five years. If the attainment of a college
degree is to be seen as the great equalizer in the United States, it is important to
understand why some students succeed in an academic environment and others fail.
Motivation may prove to be a major determinant of which students (from which
socioeconomic environments) succeed and which fail.
2
THE SETTING
Felician College is a small private Catholic College located on two campuses in
Lodi and Rutherford, New Jersey. The mission of the college historically was to serve
first-generation college students from immigrant families. The traditional mission has not
changed very much in the past 40 years: Felician still draws primarily first-generation
college students who are uncertain of their academic preparation for college. The
president of the college likes to say, “The measure of a college should not be measured
by the caliber of the students it admits, but rather in the quality of the students it
graduates.” Because of this philosophy, Felician College has a liberal admissions policy
(the average SAT score for the class of 2005 was approximately 1,000). Demographically,
the students enrolled represent the diversity of the region in which the college is located.
While Felician’s retention rate is admirable (the college ranks second in the state of New
Jersey in student retention), it is mixed across programs and college populations. Very
few students from the accelerated program fail to complete their degrees, and the students
most at risk are young traditional minority students. Students who withdraw from the
college generally do so because of poor academic performance. It is rare to have a student
in good academic standing fail to complete a degree program.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
College is seen as the “great equalizer,” but in order for it to perform this role
students need to achieve academic success within its walls. Academic success, in part,
derives from students’ study habits – which, in turn, are driven by students’ motivations.
If college faculty members and administrators understood students’ motivations to study,
they might be better able to help the at-risk students succeed.
This study was organized around the following research questions:
1. What motivates most students to study? Are there significant
differences in the motivations of adult learners and traditional
students or between males and females?
2. Are there differences between the motivating factors affecting
high-performing students (those with GPAs of 3.5 or above) and
poorly performing students (those with GPAs below 2.5)?
3. Do the factors that motivate students to study align with the
motivational theories of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor,
David McClelland, and/or Frederick Herzberg?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted on the two campuses of Felician College. The
survey instrument used (Appendix A) consisted of 30 questions on motivation to study
and eight questions on student background. The background information compiled
included gender, age, GPA, and athletic status. The surveys were administered by the
3
researchers during the month of April, 2005 in classes that were offered in the business
program during that semester. Over 95% of traditional students completed surveys.
Because of logistical issues (the accelerated degree completion program runs in 5-week
modules), though, less than 1/3 of the non traditional students were surveyed. The
courses and students surveyed in the accelerated program were chosen by convenience
(they were available during the survey period) and were not believed to be different from
the adult population as a whole in any meaningful way.
DATA ANALYSIS
After all of the surveys were complete, the data were compiled for the 107 student
participants. The surveys were scored by assigning a rank of 1 to the statement strongly
agree and a score of 7 to strongly disagree. Demographic and background responses
were also scored numerically (e.g., 1 = male; 2 = female). The data for each question on
motivation were first correlated with the data for student GPA to seek significant
relationships between motivating factors and academic performance. Spearman rank
correlations were calculated between GPA ranges and responses to each of the questions
on the survey. High GPAs (over 3.5) were significantly correlated (at α = .05) with the
motivating factors of grades, honors, and being on the dean’s list. Low GPAs (under 2.5)
were correlated significantly (at the .05 level) with concerns over “disappointing my
family” “losing my scholarship.” Taken on their own, these results might imply that the
high-performing students are driven by the need to achieve academic success and the
lower-performing students by fear of failure. This connection might be spurious, however.
Since the students responding to the questions already had either high or low GPAs, their
responses to the survey questions could have been driven by their current placement in
the academic pecking order – not the motivators affecting the study habits that caused the
GPAs in the first place.
Next, mean scores for each survey question were calculated, and the motivating
factors were ordered from the lowest average score (closest to strongly agree) to the
highest (closest to strongly disagree). Ranked lists were created for the student
population as a whole, for traditional students alone, for accelerated students alone, for
males, for females, and for low and high GPA students. Comparisons were done between
traditional and accelerated, male and female, and high GPA and low GPA. Any factor
with a difference of 15 basis points or more was highlighted as an important distinction
between the groups. The results of this analysis are discussed below.
Finally, the questions on motivation were clustered according to how well they
aligned with classical motivational theory. Questions were tagged as either corresponding
to McGregor, McClelland, Maslow, or Herzberg. The number of respondents either
strongly agreeing or agreeing with the tagged questions was viewed as confirmation or
rejection of the theory as an explanation of students’ motivation to study. The discussion
of the results of this analysis appears later in this paper.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: BY RESEARCH QUESTION
1. What motivates students to study?
4
Results. Among the top reasons for studying among all students were grades and
upcoming exams. Seventy-eight percent of all students also claimed to study most when
the subject is “interesting and practical” The need to “prove something to myself” was
cited as a motivation to study by 68% of the population, and this percent rose to 87%
when the accelerated adult students were isolated. Learning for its own sake was the third
ranked reason for studying among the adult population, but came in eighth for the
traditional students. The top reason cited for not studying was work and family
obligations; 37% of all students claimed that obligations took away from study time. Not
surprisingly, the accelerated adult learner felt this pressure more than the traditional 1821 year old student. The second greatest reason for not studying, I’d rather go out or
hang out with my friends, was ranked strongly agree or agree by 31% of the traditional
students, but (again, not surprisingly) only 9% of the adult learners. Fear of letting down
family ranked much higher as a motivator for traditional students than accelerated
students, while the desire to learn ranked higher for the adult population than the
traditional one. These results are logical and were expected given the different stages of
life of the members of the two groups.
Less predictable were the differences between the cited motivators and study
deterrents between male and female students. (Note: because the nontraditional
population is heavily female, these comparisons were done both for total males vs. total
females and total males vs. traditional females to avoid the confounding impact of age on
the analysis.) As shown on Table 1, males were more motivated than females by an easy
course, fear of disappointing family, fear of losing a scholarship, and a sense of
competition. Females, on the other hand, were more motivated by the presumed
applicability of the course and the possibility of making the dean’s list.
5
Table 1. Relative Importance of Motivations to Study; Males, Females, and
Accelerated
Per cent of students Strongly Agreeing or Agreeing
Motivator
Total
Grades
Interesting course
Upcoming exams
Self
Application
Low class average
Learning
Professor
Fear of failing
Cost
Promotions
Family
Dean’s list
Honors
High class average
Feel good
Easy grade
Maintain scholarship
Competition
83%
78%
73%
68%
65%
64%
63%
54%
51%
49%
49%
47%
45%
41%
40%
33%
30%
29%
21%
Traditional Accelerated Male
73%
76%
75%
60%
59%
64%
52%
52%
41%
44%
49%
56%
40%
35%
37%
23%
33%
39%
20%
97%
84%
69%
87%
81%
66%
87%
59%
56%
59%
47%
25%
56%
56%
47%
56%
22%
47%
25%
78%
82%
70%
68%
56%
58%
56%
58%
56%
44%
50%
60%
36%
36%
42%
30%
40%
48%
32%
Female Traditional female
88%
75%
75%
68%
73%
70%
68%
51%
47%
53%
47%
35%
53%
46%
39%
35%
21%
12%
12%
79%
70%
79%
55%
61%
73%
58%
48%
54%
45%
49%
45%
51%
42%
36%
18%
21%
18%
9%
Discussion. The differences between the motivational forces of traditional and
mature students uncovered in this survey confirm the existing literature on adult learners.
Tweedell (2000), for example, wrote of differences between adult learners and
adolescents significant enough to require completely different learning structures
between the two groups (p. 4). It is unreasonable, therefore, to presume that a factor that
motivates one group would have a similar effect on the other. Table 1 shows that for the
motivating factors of self, learning, and studying because it makes them “feel good,” the
responses of the adult learners exceeded those of the traditional students by over 25 basis
points. Erikson’s (1980) model of identity development in adulthood suggests that adults
entering the stage of integrity may search for meaning in their pursuit of higher education.
The need to seek truth and meaning at this stage could explain why the adults in this
survey ranked learning and self second only to grades as their top motivators.
The differences between male and female students in this study might have arisen
from true gender differences, but could also be a function of the differences in average
GPAs between the two groups at Felician College. The Spearman rho correlation
between gender and GPA for students in this study was .398, which was significant at
the .01 level. Because the females in the study academically outperform the males, it is
6
impossible to draw conclusions about their different motivations based on their genders
alone. While it appears that the female students were motivated more by achievement and
male students more by fear, these results are most likely driven by their differences in
academic performance, not their different genders. Further research should be done with
a larger population that could be normalized for grades before analyzed by gender.
2. Are there differences between the motivating factors of high performing and lowerperforming students?
Results. As shown in Table 2, the greatest differences between high GPA and low
GPA students are in the factors of learning, application, honors, dean’s list, family
scholarship, and competition. Overall, the high achiever appears to thrive on the positive
reinforcement that comes with his or her success, while the lower performer is driven
largely by fear and competition. Again, these results might be confounded by the
prevalence of females in the high GPA population. Low GPA students, expectedly,
expressed much more agreement with many of the excuses not to study, as revealed in
Table 3. They cited a despised topic, sports and school activities, and the presence of an
easy professor with whom they can “get by” as their strongest reasons to avoid the books.
Table 2. Comparison between high-GPA and low-GPA students’ motivations to
study
(Percent of students Strongly Agreeing or Agreeing)
Motivator
Grades
Interesting course
Upcoming exams
Learning
Self
Application
Low course average
Professor
Honors
Dean’s list
Fear of failing
Cost
Promotions
High course average
Family
To feel good
Easy grade
Competition
Maintain scholarship
High GPA (n=34)
85%
82%
76%
73%
71%
71%
67%
56%
53%
53%
50%
47%
44%
44%
38%
35%
21%
18%
15%
Low GPA (n=18)
83%
78%
67%
50%
78%
56%
61%
72%
28%
33%
61%
50%
44%
39%
56%
33%
33%
39%
50%
7
Table 3. Comparison between high-GPA and low-GPA students’ reasons for not
studying
Percent of students Strongly Agreeing or Agreeing
Reason for Not Studying
Obligations
Useless topic
Friends
Can get by without
Sports obligations
Poor facilities
Hate the topic
Easy professor
Boring
No recognition
Hopeless
Noise
High GPA (n=34)
41%
18%
15%
15%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
9%
9%
Low GPA (n=18)
44%
22%
22%
39%
44%
44%
50%
39%
28%
17%
17%
28%
Discussion. This study showed that students with high GPAs are different in their
motivations than those with low, but the conclusions offer little guidance for faculty
members trying to create a full class of high achievers. None of the factors cited by high
performing students seem to indicate the presence of some universal motivators that can
be written into syllabi or woven into pedagogy. Instead, most of the top motivating
factors (caring about grades, wanting to learn) might be established within students
before they set foot into a college classroom. The conclusions are perplexing. Rewards
matter: but only to the students who will tend to receive the rewards anyway. Fear
motivates: but only those students who truly have something to fear. Competition spurs
performance: but only for traditional-aged male students. The faculty member attempting
to build motivational factors into his or her course will find himself or herself as
befuddled as the manager in a business setting who attempts to motivate all of his or her
employees by using the same strategies. A “one size fits all” motivational tool will fail in
academia as surely as it has failed in the world of business.
4) Do the factors that motivate students to study align with the motivational theories of
Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, David McClelland, and/or Frederick Herzberg?
McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
McGregor’s (1985) well-known categorization of management beliefs can
possibly be related to faculty’s attitudes toward students. According to McGregor,
managers tend to classify their employees in one of two categories. Theory X employees
find work distasteful and do all they can to avoid it. Managers who believe that their
place of work is populated with this type of employee feel the need to maintain an
8
autocratic, discipline-driven workplace. Like managers, faculty form beliefs about the
tendencies of their students. Are students believed to adhere to Theory X, and expected to
display signs of laziness and irresponsibility whenever left unsupervised? Do they
demonstrate what McGregor referred to as the “human characteristic dislike for work?” If
so, the implications for faculty are similar to those for management: They should run a
“tight ship,” focus on the disciplinary qualities of grading, and never expect students to
do more than they are required. Of course, McGregor recognized that not all managers
maintain such a dismal assessment of their employees. Managers adhering to Theory Y
believe that workers have an innate tendency toward self-direction and commitment to
objectives. Managers who believe that the average human being not only accepts but
actively seeks responsibility provide their employees with a great deal of freedom and
autonomy in their work. Faculty who subscribe to Theory Y behave similarly: They
develop an open classroom environment in which students would be free to take
responsibility for their own learning.
For this study, several questions on the motivation survey were earmarked as
“Theory X” compliant. (Theory Y was not directly measured, but was presumed instead
to be confirmed by the negation of Theory X.) In the academic arena, a Theory X student
would be one motivated only by the fear of failure. He or she would not care about
learning for the sake of knowledge, and would only study when faced with an upcoming
exam. Table 4 shows the breakdown of students by grades, gender, and program in
response to questions aligning with McGregor’s Theory X.
Table 4. Per cent of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with Theory X
statements
High avg.
Low avg.
Male
Female
Accelerated
Fear
50%
61%
56%
47%
41%
Scholarship* 15%
50%
48%
12%
47%
Family**
38%
56%
60%
35%
25%
Low avg.
67%
61%
58%
70%
66%
Exams
76%
67%
70%
75%
69%
* expressed as fear of losing scholarship
** expressed as fear of disappointing family
_______________________________________________________________________
Although McGregor’s Theory X has fallen out of favor in management circles, the data
in Table 4 imply that fear – particularly fear of failing a course in which the student
currently carries a low average and fear of upcoming exams – motivates most students.
The motivational force of fear is strongest among students who have low overall grade
point averages. Fear, therefore, may be considered a “last resort” motivator. Students who
were not previously motivated to study by loftier goals (such as love of knowledge or
need to achieve) find themselves pressed to study late in the game by a fear of failing.
Strong students (those with high grade point averages) are obviously motivated by grades:
the presence of a low average in a particular course spurs 67% of them to study harder.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
9
Abraham Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy of needs is another well-known
management theory of motivation. According to Maslow, motivation arises from
different needs in different individuals. Needs, he argued, can be arranged in a hierarchy,
and individuals progress from one level of the hierarchy to another once the needs on the
lower level are satisfied. The hierarchy consists of five levels – physiological, safety,
social, esteem, and self-actualization. For each (except the peak, self-actualization)
satisfied needs no longer motivate. The implication of Maslow’s work for management
was that there cannot be a “one size fits all” method of motivation; managers must devise
motivators for each worker at the level at which he or she operates.
Maslow’s model can be applied to college students and their motivations to study,
with similar implications. Students might be driven to study by safety needs if they see
their investment in college as a form of financial insurance in their future. They might be
motivated instead by social needs if they enjoy the community of the college and wish to
remain a part of their group or cohort. Perhaps esteem needs drive the competitive
student (who sees his or her grades or honors as evidence of winning an academic race).
Finally, some students may be driven by self-actualization, desiring to prove something
to themselves through their academic successes.
To identify need levels in this study the survey questions were categorized as
complying with social, esteem, and self-actualization motivators. (Safety needs were not
identified because they overlapped with the Theory X analysis above.) Table 5 shows that
different students appear to operate at different levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. The
implications of this division for faculty is the same as the implications for management: a
“one size fits all” pedagogy will not motivate a mixed group of students within a class.
Motivation in the classroom, like in the workplace, needs to be customized according to
need levels.
Table 5. Per cent of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with different need level
statements
High avg.
Low avg.
Male
Female
Accel
Social needs
Like the professor* 56%
Family
38%
72%
56%
58%
60%
51%
35%
59%
25%
Esteem needs
Grades
Promotions
Honors
Dean’s list
Competition
85%
44%
53%
53%
18%
83%
44%
28%
33%
39%
78%
50%
36%
36%
32%
88%
47%
53%
53%
12%
97%
47%
56%
56%
25%
Self-Actualization needs
Feel good
35%
Know material
73%
Self
71%
33%
50%
78%
30%
56%
68%
35%
68%
68%
56%
87%
87%
* Shortened phrases were used in the table. See Appendix A for the full survey statements.
10
The data in Table 5 suggest that students can be classified according to Maslow’s needs
hierarchy. Social needs were prized most by students with low grade point averages; selfactualization needs by accelerated degree students. These tendencies may be a function of
age. Traditional students overall have lower GPAs than accelerated students, so these
students are over represented in the “low average” column on the table. Maslow did not
argue that people move up his needs hierarchy predictably according to life stage, but it is
likely that the younger traditional student would be motivated by lower level needs than
the accelerated, over 25-year old student. This implies that the motivational techniques
used by faculty in traditional settings should differ from those used in accelerated ones.
Although the “one size fits all” approach will not always work, it would probably work
better when students are separated by age than when they are in mixed classes. A faculty
member would be wise to adopt a more democratic environment among the selfmotivated adults and a more autocratic one among the peer-driven traditional population.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
According to Frederick Herzberg (1984), the factors that motivate employees are
not the opposite of those that do not. His classic separation of factors such as pay, work
conditions, and supervision (hygiene factors) from work-content factors (motivators) had
clear implications for the working manager. According to Herzberg, employees can only
be motivated intrinsically by achievement, responsibility, and self-satisfaction. Peripheral
factors, such as company policies and administration, have the potential of dissatisfying
employees if they are not deemed appropriate, but can never motivate them to work
harder. The insinuation of Herzberg’s work was clear: in order to motivate employees,
give them interesting, fulfilling work in which they can take pride.
Can Herzberg’s theory also apply in the college classroom? In an academic
setting, hygiene (extrinsic) factors would include all of the issues surrounding classroom
management, including grades, honors, and the professor. These factors, in two-factor
theory parlance, are analogous with pay in the workplace: they are nice if they are present,
but their presence is not enough to inspire students to study. If Herzberg’s theory were to
hold in the college classroom, only intrinsic factors, which in an academic setting would
include the content of the course and the sense of accomplishment the student would get
in mastering the material, would have the power to motivate students to study.
To test Herzberg’s theory in this study, survey statements were separated into
hygiene factors and motivators. Table 6 displays the breakdown of students agreeing with
the statements in each category.
11
Table 6. Percent of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with motivator and hygiene
factor statements.
High avg.
Low avg.
Male
Female
Accel
Hygiene factors
Professor
Easy A
High average
Low average
Midterms
Price
Grades
Honors
Deans List
Scholarship
56%
21%
44%
67%
76%
47%
85%
53%
53%
15%
72%
33%
39%
61%
67%
50%
83%
28%
33%
50%
58%
40%
42%
58%
70%
44%
78%
36%
36%
48%
51%
21%
47%
70%
75%
53%
88%
46%
46%
12%
59%
22%
47%
66%
69%
59%
97%
56%
56%
47%
Motivators
Interesting
Feel good
Knowledge
Self
82%
44%
73%
71%
78%
39%
50%
78%
82%
30%
56%
68%
75%
35%
68%
68%
84%
56%
87%
87%
With the exception of the statement that studying makes them “feel good” (which
very few students agreed with), the statements classified as motivators did show high
levels of student agreement, especially among higher GPA and accelerated students. On
its own, this agreement would seem to confirm Herzberg’s two-factor theory and imply
that the professor who wishes to motivate students should build interesting courses that
the students should want to master for the knowledge they would gain. However, the
agreement with many of the statements classified as hygiene factors, particularly those
related to grades, shows that students are also motivated to study by factors Herzberg
claimed could not motivate. The spillover of hygiene factors into motivators encountered
in this study is not necessarily a negation of Herzberg’s theory, though. Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) themselves conceded that deleterious context factors in
the workplace, such as poor administrative practices or low job security, could bring
about poor job attitudes (p. 113). This impact, in most settings, is difficult to unravel
from job satisfaction emerging from the content of the job itself. Similarly, in an
academic setting, it appears difficult to unravel the motivation that arises from the content
of the class from the measurement of performance in that class. A student who is failing a
course may find it difficult to concede that the content of the course is interesting and that
the study of the subject is satisfying in its own right.
12
McClelland’s Need to Achieve
David McClelland (1971) believed that human needs fall under three distinct
categories: the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power.
Like Maslow (1968), McClelland believed that needs were the sources of all motivation.
McClelland, unlike Maslow, argued that one level of need was preferred to all others. In
his controversial article, That urge to achieve, McClelland claimed that there should be a
cultural preference for the need for achievement because individuals motivated by
achievement are most likely to be professionally successful. Moreover, societies with a
prevalence of achievement-oriented members are more economically advanced than
those societies lacking such individuals.
It would appear that McClelland’s theory would be highly transferable to an
academic setting. Students enrolled in colleges and university, presumably, are
positioning themselves to be among the professional high achievers McClelland
described in his theory. Are college students motivated by the need to achieve?
To test McClelland’s theory, the researchers identified eight statements from the
motivation survey representative of an achievement motivation. Table 7 shows the per
cent of students in various categories agreeing or strongly agreeing with these statements.
Table 7. Per cent of students agreeing or highly agreeing with achievement
statements
High avg
Low avg
Male
Female
Accel.
Easy A
High avg.
Exams
Grades
Promotions
Honors
Deans List
Self
21%
44%
76%
85%
44%
53%
53%
71%
33%
39%
67%
83%
44%
28%
28%
78%
40%
42%
70%
78%
50%
36%
36%
68%
21%
47%
75%
88%
47%
53%
53%
68%
22%
47%
69%
97%
47%
56%
56%
87%
Table 7 shows that the accelerated degree students demonstrate a higher need for
achievement than traditional students (much as they showed higher levels of selfactualization in Maslow’s schema). High GPA students also agree more with statements
referring to grades and honors, but this could logically be because high grades and
awards are within the reach of those students. Grades and exams, across the board, have
the power to motivate, but it is impossible to say whether the need for achievement
underlies their power. Grades might be seen as evidence of achievement for the high
performing student, but they may also be a source of fear of punishment for the lower
GPA student. Further research is necessary to unravel the achievement motivation from
other sources of motivation among college students.
13
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study arose from the question “What makes students study?” Research
concluded that there is not a single answer to this question and that it is difficult to neatly
align student motivation with any single classic management motivation theory. The
recommendation for faculty that arises from this study is that they should use multiple
motivational methods in each class setting. A faculty member wishing to motivate his or
her class should challenge the strong students (to appeal to their urge to succeed and to
prove something to themselves), provide connections to real-world applications for those
students motivated by the useable content of the course, and continue to administer
regular exams since, regardless of need level, most students are motivated to study most
when nervous about an upcoming test. Overall, the recommendations for faculty
members are not much different than those given countless times to managers working in
business settings: avoid a one-size-fits all motivational approach and recognize that
students in the classroom, like employees in a corporate setting, are individuals who are
motivated by various tactics. Effective teaching, like good management, hinges upon
personalizing the motivation to fit the individual.
14
Appendix A
Motivation Among College Students
General Instructions
This questionnaire asks you about your study habits and the motivations that lie behind
them.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you may withdraw at any point.
Please do not write your name so that your responses will be anonymous.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
(Please circle the responses that apply to you.)
Gender:
(a) Male
(B) Female
Age:
(A) 16-21 yrs
(B) 22-25 yrs
(C) 26-30 yrs
(D) Over 30
Status:
(A) Freshman
(B) Sophomore
(C) Junior
(D) Senior
Enrollment
(A) Full time
(B) Part time
GPA
(A) 2.0 – 2.5
(B) 2.51 – 3.0
(C) 3.01 – 3.5
(D) 3.51 – 4.0
Do you work?
(A) Yes, full time
Student athlete?
(A) Yes
(B) Yes, part time
(E) Accelerated
(C) No, I do not work
(B) No
Do you pay for school yourself?* (A) Yes, all of it (B) Yes, some of it (C) No, I do not pay anything
* This also includes loans in your name (even if the payments have been deferred until after graduation).
15
College Students’ Motivation to Study
Listed below are some statements that address college students’ motivations to study. Using the scale provided below,
rate these statements to the extent to which they are most applicable to you. Please circle the best answer choice for
each statement.
Strongly agree
1
Agree
2
Agree Somewhat
3
Not sure or N/A
4
Disagree Somewhat
5
Disagree
6
Strongly Disagree
7
I STUDY MORE…
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
When I find the material to be interesting and practical
When I like the professor
When the class is difficult and I’m afraid of failing
When the class is easy and I can get an easy A
When my average in the class is high
When my average in the class is low
When midterms and finals are approaching
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
I AM MOTIVATED TO STUDY…
Because I have paid so much for my courses
Because studying makes me feel good
Because I want to get good grades
Because I actually want to know the material
Because I believe I can apply what I learn to my present/future job
Because excelling in school can help me get a promotion at work
Because I want to graduate with Honors
Because I want to make the Dean’s List
Because I don’t want to disappoint my family
Because I don’t want to lose my athletic/academic scholarship
Because I want to prove something to myself
Because I want to outdo my classmates and friends
MY TOP REASONS FOR NOT STUDYING ARE…
I have no time to study because of work and family obligations
I have no time to study because of sports and school activities
I would rather go out or hang out with my friends
The facilities at school are not conducive to study
My house/dorm is always noisy
I can get by just fine without studying
I would not do well in the course anyway
I’ll never even remember or use the content of the course later on
I hate the course or topic
My professor is “cool” or “easy”
Studying bores me and is a waste of my time
I never get any kind of recognition for doing well anyway
16
REFERENCES
Davis, T., & Murrell, P., Turning teaching into learning: The role of student
responsibility in the collegiate experience. ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report
#8, 1993.
Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (2004/1959). The motivation to work. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McClelland, D. (1966). That urge to achieve. In D.A. Kolb, J.S. Osland, & I.M. Rubing
(Eds.), the organizational behavior reader. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGregor, D. (1985). The human side of the enterprise. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tweedell, C. (2000, October). A theory of adult learning and implications for practice.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Educational Research Association,
Chicago, Ill.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). High school and college completion in the states.
Retrieved June 14, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov.
17