Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425

EPC-TKS 2013

Motivation and locus of control: relational patterns activated in

training for teaching career
Maria-Doina Schipora, Ovidiu-Andrei Schipora*
a
”Stefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Universitatii Street, 13, 720229, Romania

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between situational/contextual motivation and internal/external causal attributions of
students who have chosen a teaching career. The performed study involved 180 students from Faculty of Sciences of Education.
A questionnaire based research was conducted in order to operationalize the motivation and locus of control variables. The
obtained results could be used for improving the initial teacher training curricula.

© 2014 Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor. Published

The Authors. Published byLtd.
by Elsevier Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and
and peer-review
peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility
responsibilityofofPetroleum-Gas
EPC KTS andUniversity of Ploiesti,
Guest Editors Education
– Dr Cristian Sciences
Vasile, Department.
Dr Mihaela Singer and Dr
Emil Stan.

Keywords: motivation; locus of control; teacher training.

1. Introduction

Numerous research studies show the importance of motivation in training process. Without any doubt, this
complex and multidimensional concept belongs to the short “must have” list of educational process. This importance
comes along with different – sometimes complementary and sometimes contradictory - perspectives to deal with
(Jude, 2002). However, some basic, common defining elements are involved in all theoretical orientations:
motivation is a psychological process that boosts, drives and sustains the behavior from the energetic point of view
(Albu, 2002, Zlate, 2000). We chose two orientations for theoretical background of our research – situational
motivation (Paris & Turner, 1994) and hierarchical theory of motivation (Guay, Vallerand & Perreault, 2000,
Lavigne, & Vallerand, 2010 ) – because each of them can be easily translated into educational contexts.
The hierarchical theory of motivation, developed by R. Vallerand úi J. Perreault (1999), indicates that there are
three different motivational levels: global motivation (ideals, major goals), contextual motivation (e.g. school

* Tel.: +40 230 216 147; fax: +40 0230 520 080.
E-mail address: schipor@eed.usv.ro

1877-0428 © 2014 Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti, Education Sciences Department.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.181
 Maria-Doina Schipor and Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425 421

motivation), and situational motivation (involved in particular/precise tasks). According with the fourth postulate of
this theory, several motivational transformations occur in a bottom to top architecture (from inferior, particular to
superior, general levels). This means that repeated positive/negative situational motivation experiences generate a
positive/negative impact on the superior, contextual level (e.g. a student dropout if he repeatedly fails doing
particular educational tasks) (Vallerand, 2001; Stone, Deci & Ryan, 2009).
The situational motivation theory proposes “the context” as a key concept and, doing so, builds the entire corpus
around it. Thereby, motivation is never “abstract” but concrete and inscribed into several contexts. Even more, the
authors’ theory identified four distinctive characteristics of situational motivation:
x motivation is a consequence of personal cognitive (and sometimes affective) evaluations that occur in a precise
moment in time;
x motivation deals with a subjective perception on the situation;
x the subjective perception is contextual, which means that there are many collateral factor able to perform a
change in motivation;
x motivation is unstable because is influenced by unstable factors. (Paris & Turner, 1994).
In this theory, the motivation become a dynamic (it is changed by the context over the time) process that acts as
an interface between a person and a situation. The situation is not a “motivation engine” by itself but it becomes one
when it is interpreted by the person. There are four distinct types of situations that conduct to a “motivational able”
cognitive evaluation: freedom to express personal options, intellectual challenge, control, and collaboration
possibility (Kiviniemi, Snyder & Omoto, 2002).
The study presented in this article treats contextual and situational dimensions of motivation in an interrelated
perspective. Thus, the reasons involved in choosing teaching career form a frame for situational motivation (i.e.
academic tasks) and, further, these tasks are specific contexts that improve motivation for psycho – pedagogical
training (from systemically point of view, these processes make up a closed loop, with positive reaction).
The locus of control theory is a construct build on the concept of “causation” (Manger, Eikeland, 2004). Thus the
fundamental question is “The control/causation for personal outcomes or other events is located internal (the person
is able to control its life) or external (the person has no or reduced possibility to control its life)?” (Schultz, D.P.,
Schultz, S.E. 2005). The domain value for a person locus of control is not a 2-uplu but a continuum interval between
two extreme values. However, several extensions of this theory add another axis such as stability-instability and
globality-specificity scales (Carlson N. R. et al. 2007).

2. Methodology

The objective of study is to identify the relations between causal attribution patterns (control) and situational and
contextual motivation of students considering the following independent variables: age, gender, academic
specialization and, further, these relations can serve to improve teacher training process. Since we choose a
descriptive design for our research, there is no possibility to identify the direction of motivation orientation (from
inferior to superior levels or vice versa).
Subsequent with this objective, we formulate three research hypotheses:
1. There is a significant relation between contextual and situational motivation levels in the context of teaching
career;
2. The relations between causal attribution and contextual motivation patterns are differentiated by the independent
variables values;
3. The relations between causal attribution and situational motivation patterns are differentiated by the independent
variables values.
The study was based on survey method and a questionnaire with 23 items (referring to descriptive aspects of
didactic career motivation) was used (details about questionnaire development can be found in Schipor, 2004). The
first 15 items (Likert five points scales) refers to different characteristics of teaching career and so, the responders
indicated the levels in which each item contribute to choosing such a profession – contextual dimension of
motivation. The situational motivation was operationalized by the next eight items (each of them with three possible
answers) which was elaborated starting from two motivational factors proposed by Gardner: the effort and the
422 Maria-Doina Schipor and Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425

affective factor (Gardner & Smythe, 1981). The 40 items locus of control scale (Nowicki–Strickland, 1973), was
applied together with previous presented questionnaire.
The sample (N=180) consists from students enrolled in first year at Faculty of Sciences of Education, “Stefan cel
Mare” University of Suceava and the configuration of independent variables was as following:

x Academic specialization: Letters Sciences (N=30), History and Geography (N=30), Electrical Engineering
(N=30), Economic Sciences, (N=30), Pedagogy of Primary and Preschool Education (N=30), Mechanical
Engineering (N=30).
x Age: 18-20 years old (57%), 21-25 (35%), 26-30 (2%), over 31 years old (5%). This distribution was influenced
by the fact that all students was enrolled in first year of psycho-pedagogical training.
x Gender: female (63%), male (37%).

3. Results and interpretation

3.1. First hypotheses

In order to describe the general framework for the first hypothesis, we present the overall descriptive results
involving contextual motivation for didactic career (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Average elections regarding contextual motivation for didactic career

The distribution of elections regarding contextual motivation for didactic career shows the following four, most
important reasons: the desire to help others (altruism variable, M=4.31 and the minimum value 3 – little), the need
for personal development (self-development variable, M=4.07), the possibility to obtain respect (esteem variable,
M=3.92), and the possibility to act in a creative manner (creativity variable, M=3.91 and minimum value 2 – very
little).
The graphics bellow shows the average frequency of elections regarding situational motivation in accord with the
effort and the affective factors.
 Maria-Doina Schipor and Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425 423

Fig. 2 Situational motivation – affective (top) and effort (bottom) factors

As it can be seen, the motivation for participation at training activities from the effort variable point of view is
manifested especially by an intense preparation of seminaries (preparation for seminaries variable, M=2.54) and
(surprising) less through an effective implication on seminaries activities (implication on seminary activities
variable, M=2.20). From affective point of view, the situational motivation is manifested especially by interest for
psycho-pedagogical disciplines (interest variable, M=2.67).
Using Pearson correlation coefficient we have found the following significant correlations between situation and
contextual motivation variables:
1. Tend to invest more energy in training activities (effort factor) those students who look at the didactic career:

x as a frame for self-development (r=.215, p<.oo5);

x as a context for applying psycho-pedagogical aptitudes (r=.337, p<.oo1);
x as a modality to boosts personal creativity (r=.213, p<.oo5).

2. The same situational motivation variables are related with implication (affective factor) in training activities:

x self-development (r=.215, p<.oo5);

x psycho-pedagogical attitudes (r=.337, p<.oo1);
x creativity (r=.213, p<.oo5).

3.2. Second hypotheses

The second hypothesis deals with the relation between contextual motivation and locus of control and the
application of Pearson correlation coefficients shows no significant overall relation. However, when we go down on
the independent variable level, we can distinguish some particular significant correlations as following:
1. Age variable, 18-21 years old:
x Those persons with an external locus of control tent to consider financial stability (r=.272, p<.005) and vacations
(r = .206, p<.005) as a good reason for teaching career;
x An internal locus of control correlates with psycho-pedagogical aptitudes (r=.207, p<.005).
2. Gender variable:
x Men with an external locus of control want to be teacher in order to compensate their schoolboy experiences
(r=.254, p<.005);
424 Maria-Doina Schipor and Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425

x Both man and women with an external locus of control tends to choose didactic career for financial stability (F:
r=.239, p<.005; M: r=.266, p<.005).
3. Academic specialization variable:
x The students from History and Geography specialization with an internal locus of control appreciate financial
stability (r = -.575, p<.005);
x The students enrolled in Electric Engineering field, look at teacher profession as an opportunity to exploit their
creativity potential (r=-.413, p<.005);
x Economic Sciences student take teaching career as a way to manifest their independence (r=-.413, p<.005);
x The students with Pedagogy of Primary and Preschool Education specialization tend to become teachers
especially for academic context (r=-.435, p<.005) and esteem (r=-.392, p<.005).

3.3. Third hypotheses

In order to test the relation between locus of control and situational motivation (effort and affective factors), we
used the same statistical method (i.e. Pearson correlation coefficient). The students with an internal locus of control
tend to manifest a pronounced situational motivation taken into consideration the affective point of view. They have
a greater availability to spend energy for training activities than their counterparts (i.e. students with an external
locus of control) (r=.-.207, p<.005). The same persons tend to evaluate in a positive way training process while their
counterparts tend to load that process with a negative affective state (r=.-.207, p<.005).
At the independent variables level, this statistical method shows different correlation pattern between situational
motivation and locus of control:

x Age variable: significant correlation for 18-21 (r=-.206, p<.005) and for 22-25 years old (r=-.283, p<.005) and no
significant correlation over 25 years old (one possible explanation could be the reduce number of subjects);
x Gender variable: Women with internal locus of control tend to obtain higher scores for both effort and affective
factor (r=-.332, p<.005) while men present no significant correlations for the same variables;
x Academic specialization variable: Students from Letters Sciences (r=-.476, p<.005) and those enrolled at
Pedagogy of Primary and Preschool Education specialization (r=-.504, p<.005) manifest a significant correlation
so that an internal locus of control goes hand in hand with a higher level of affective and effort implication while
the students from the other specializations manifest no correlation between the same variables.

4. Conclusions

The results of our research offer the evidence of general/specific relations between situational motivation,
contextual motivation and locus of control (causal attribution patterns). These relations can be fructified in order to
enhance the efficiency of teacher training process because motivation is probably the best way to perform the
transition from the “adapting to a scenario” education to the proactive, “creating the scenario” education.
Our results have a high potential educational impact especially because it addresses one of the most important
elements of educational puzzle, which is motivation. Better investment of “always limited” psychical energy will be
on the short priority list of every player from educational area.

References

Albu, G. (2002). Searching for authentic education. Iasi: Polirom, Romania.

Carlson, N.R., et al. (2007). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour - 4th Canadian ed.. Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.
Jude, I. (2002). Educational psychology and motivational optimum. Bucharest: Didactic and Pedagogic Press, Romania.
Kiviniemi, M., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2002). Too Many of a Good Thing? The Effects of Multiple Motivations on Stress, Cost, Fulfillment,
and Satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 732-743.
Gardner, R.C., & Smythe, P.C. (1981). On the development of the Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37,
510-525.
 Maria-Doina Schipor and Ovidiu-Andrei Schipor / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 128 (2014) 420 – 425 425

Lavigne, G., & Vallerand, R.J. (2010). The dynamic processes of influence between contextual and situational motivation: A test of the
Hierarchical Model in a science education setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2343-2359.
Manger T., Eikeland, O.J. (2004). Asbjørnsen, Arve, Effects of Social-Cognitive Training on Students’Locus of Control. School Psychology
International, (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), 23(3), 342–354.
Nowicki Jr., S. and Strickland, B.R., 1973. A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 40, 148–154.
Abstract-PsycINFONtoumanis, N., Blaymires, G. (2003). Contextual and situational motivation in education: a test of the specificity hypothesis.
European Physical Education Review, 9(1), 5 – 21.
Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situated Motivation. In P. Pintrich, D. Brown, & C.E. Weinstein, (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and
learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 213-237.
Schipor, M.D. (2004). Motivation from the prospective teacher point of view. Sciences of Education – Dynamics and Perspectives, 348-361.
Schultz, D.P., Schultz, S.E. (2005). Theories of Personality (8th ed.). Wadsworth: Thomson.
Stone, D., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of
General Management, 34, 75-91.
Vallerand, R.J., & Perreault, S. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport: Toward a hierarchical model. In R. Lidor, & M. Bar-Eli
(Éds.), Sport psychology: Linking theory and practice. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology Inc.
Vallerand, R.J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. Roberts (Éd.) Advances in
motivation in sport and exercise, 263-319). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Zlate, M. (2006). Psychology - fundamentals. Bucharest: University Press, Romania.