Content uploaded by Lena Boström
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lena Boström on Jan 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
40
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 40-59, August 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.3
What about Study Motivation?
Students´ and Teachers’ Perspectives on What
Affects Study Motivation
Lena Boström
Mid Sweden University, Sweden
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9182-6403
Göran Bostedt
Mid Sweden University, Sweden
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-5394
Abstract. One out of every four upper secondary school students in
Sweden interrupts their education, although the intention behind the new
Curriculum for Upper Secondary School (GY 11) was to increase
throughput of students with complete grades. Lack of study motivation
is the most important explanation for students dropping out. This article
analyzes study motivation from students and teachers’ perspectives. It is
based on interviews in three upper secondary school programs that were
analyzed with a qualitative approach and hybrid content analysis. Study
motivation is set in relation to motivational strategies, achievement, and
learning environment. The result showed similarities and differences in
perceptions. Both teachers and students pointed to the importance of
teachers, practical pedagogy, social relations, and the significance of
grades for study motivation. An important difference between
informants was that teachers put more emphasis on life skills and
adapted study groups, whereas students pointed to the physical learning
environment and teachers’ personalities as important. Conclusions in the
study point to complex interplay between internal and external
motivational factors and between situation, person, and learning
processes. This leads to validity of interactive and transactional
motivational perspectives. A broader and more in-depth study is needed
primarily to understand students’ perspectives.
Keywords: increasing motivation; decreasing motivation; students´ and
teachers’ perspectives; study motivation; upper secondary school
1. Introduction
One in every four students in Sweden drops out of upper secondary education.
However, the intention of the new upper secondary school reform, Curriculum
for Upper Secondary School (GY11), among other things, was to increase the
41
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
throughput of students with complete grades. Possible reasons for this trend are
that the new system imposes higher requirements for admission to the upper
secondary school’s national program, Swedish primary school students have
declining knowledge results, and primary school students are less prepared for
the increasing demands in secondary school (Skolverket, 2016). Lack of student
motivation is the most crucial explanation for the drop-out rate. More than half of
the upper secondary school students indicated in a national study (Sveriges
Elevkårer & Lärarnas Riksförbund, 2015) that they experienced low or non-
existent study motivation. The most important factors for increasing student
motivation are stated to be teachers’ subject competence, teacher–student
relationships, educational support, and access to student health. In the study,
teachers also pointed to students’ lack of prior knowledge from elementary school
and the need to learn better study techniques to pass upper secondary school.
Dropping out of upper secondary education has individual and national
consequences. The National Agency for Education has therefore implemented
activities that are close to business (Skolverket, 2016) to prevent drop-outs. The
National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2019) has described the measures,
which include conferences for principals and process support for schools. Several
initiatives and key areas have been identified as necessary, such as early efforts to
develop a systemic approach and to maximize the local scope for action.
Motivation is a prerequisite for learning in school. However, scholars lack the
main actors’ perspectives on these efforts, namely the students and the teachers.
When students have low or non-existent study motivation or if students lack the
necessary prerequisites, schools must find ways to help them achieve the
knowledge goals. This study examines how students and teachers think about
students´ study motivation and how a school can match the students. According
to Skolverket (2019):
“Lack of motivation makes it difficult to take advantage of school education.
Conversely, those who do not qualify for teaching can suffer a lack of
motivation. Assuming a lack of motivation—and thus corresponding
compensation needs—motivation becomes something that needs to be added to
the learning processes. ” (p. 154).
Because the new upper secondary school we studied has not yet achieved the
ambitions that existed with upper secondary school reform regarding increased
throughput, and because causal analysis points to student motivation as an
important explanation, we studied upper secondary school students´ and
teachers’ ideas about student motivation. We gained in-depth knowledge of
students’ thinking about the issue of study motivation and compared their views
with the teachers, who are the other important group of actors in classrooms.
Another important reason for the interest in study motivation is that few national
studies in the field exist (Lundahl et al., 2015) and research on the interaction
between individual and learning environments in Swedish schools is limited
(Blomgren, 2016). Analytical models of learning (in this case, study motivation)
require an understanding of the interplay between individuals, educational
material, and the social context (Imsen, 2006). Another important incentive for the
research area is that there are few contemporary studies based on students as
informants about their study motivation (Giota, 2013, 2017). A recent study
42
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
(Hofverberg, 2020) points to several different perspectives on motivation that
need to be integrated in order to capture the complexity that students' driving
forces constitute and that research should be conducted close to practice in
collaboration with teachers.
The internal factors regarding study motivation are often highlighted in research,
but Håkansson and Sundberg (2012) warned seeing the issue of motivation as a
purely individual trait. They pointed out that motivation is contextual,
changeable, and arises in dynamic relationships between people. Furthermore,
factors such as family background class affiliation and grades (Skolverket, 2019),
socio-economic belonging, gender, and ethnic origin (Skolverket, 2018) are cited
as important for students’ study motivation. Several influencing factors can be
assumed to both support and cause study motivation deficiencies. However, the
responsibility for lack of motivation is often placed on the young people
themselves, especially from many municipal representatives (Lundahl et al.,
2015). Like Håkansson and Sundberg (2012), we believe that internal and external
factors need to be considered in a discussion about study motivation. Thus, to
analyze a lack of study motivation as a cause of low throughput in upper
secondary school, a perspective is required that not only focuses on individual
students but takes into account the entire school and classroom context (Imsen,
2006). This study contributes to the field by applying theories of educational
psychology in practice-related activities in school. This is justified based on
various research results (Giota, 2013, 2017; Hattie, 2009) that show motivational
factors influence students’ study results.
In this article, we analyze study motivation based on didactic aspects and learning
environments. Our interest in the issue of study motivation can be expressed as
an interest in analyzing both internal and external motivational factors. Responses
from students and their teachers from three academic programs in a municipal
upper secondary school constitute the empirical material. The school was located
in the central part of a large city. For 2015, the municipality reported it was eight
percentage points below the value for all municipalities in Sweden.
In view of the above problem, the purpose is to describe and analyze the upper
secondary school students’ study motivation or lack of motivation from the
students´ and teachers’ perspectives. The selected issues are as follows:
• What experiences do teachers and students have about what increases
students’ study motivation, and what is the cause of and explanation for
possible low study motivation?
• What differences and similarities exist in teachers and students’
perceptions?
• How is study motivation linked to various aspects of education according
to teachers and students?
43
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
The article initially describes the theoretical framework we used, namely
motivation theory, motivation strategies, and learning environment. Thereafter,
methodological approaches and the results are described. Finally, conclusions and
educational implications are presented in a discussion that returns the result to
the theoretical frameworks. The definitions that have been made are that the
article focuses on students´ and teachers’ perceptions of factors that are directly
linked to the school. Thus, how time outside the school affects students’ study
motivation is not addressed.
2. Theoretical Overview
Study motivation is a multifaceted concept. Therefore, we begin with a general
overview of motivation theory in the school context and then discuss motivation
in relation to three theoretical starting points: achievement, motivational
strategies, and learning environment. These assumptions are not mutually
exclusive but overlap in different respects.
2.1 Motivation Theory
Motivation is a research area found in various disciplines (Woolfolk & Karlberg,
2015). There are different perceptions of what influences student motivation. One
is that the interaction between teacher and student and access to student health
are the most important factors in raising student motivation (Sveriges Elevkårer
& Lärarnas Riksförbund, 2015). There are also different definitions and
understandings of the concept of study motivation. It is often described with the
dichotomous inner and outer motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2002). From within,
controlled motivation arises when an activity feels engaging and rewarding.
Internal motivation factors are about seeking and managing challenges based on
an endeavor to satisfy personal interests and use one’s abilities (Woolfolk &
Karlberg, 2015). In school, students with strong internal motivation show greater
endurance with the tasks, seek more understanding in terms of knowledge, and
try different strategies to achieve their goals (Giota, 2017).
Motivation is more often based on control when the result determines how
motivated the student is, or if there is a reward that attracts (e.g., credits, praise,
or useful skills in working life) or a “punishment” (e.g., missing student support,
delayed studies) that threatens them. External motivational factors imply an
endeavor to meet expectations or demands that come from or are perceived to
come from, outside the individual (Giota, 2017; Woolfolk & Karlberg, 2015).
Externally motivated students adopt more surface learning strategies, often
giving up when rewards and benefits are removed etc. (Giota, 2017). External
motivation can be divided into two subcategories of controlled or autonomous
motivation. Controlled external motivation is about being controlled by someone
else through reward, penalties, or fear of failure. Autonomous external motivation
implies in the context of a school that a student has taken on the values of the
school and makes an effort even if the activity does not give pleasure. Non-
existent motivation is the third aspect of motivation; that is, study motivation is
entirely lacking. Students give up, blame other factors than themselves, and do
not see the relationship between performance and results (Woolfolk & Karlberg,
2015).
44
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Researchers have described the dichotomy of inner and outer motivation as clear
cut, whereas others believe that internal and external factors are interdependent;
that is, students internalize external causes (Vaanstenkiste et al., 2006) or internal
and external factors constitute endpoints on a continuum (Covington & Mueller,
2001). Therefore, because there is an interaction between internal and external
motivation, one can talk about motivation systems (Anderman & Anderman,
2009). The factors interact and, in many cases, depend on each other (Jerkeby,
2019). External motivation can be changed to the internal; they can exist
simultaneously and vary between different times and tasks. Determining when
students are driven by internal or external motivational factors is therefore tricky.
The most important difference is the student’s motives for their actions (i.e.,
whether it is internally or externally motivated; Jerkeby, 2019). For students who
find it challenging to find motivation in school, external motivation is a tool to get
started with the studies. Furthermore, motivation is not a fixed trait that one either
has or does not have. It changes, develops, and varies during the studies, and
there are many factors, both internal and external, that affect it. The interactive
theory of motivation makes it possible to capture and focus on the interaction
between a person and a situation (Stensmo, 2005).
2.2 Achievement and Motivation
The interactive motivation theory focuses on achievements and expectations
(Stensmo, 2005). It is about the desire of individuals to deal with a question and
their fear of failure and how this is affected by the expectations that exist in the
individual. This means that the interaction between the expectations of teachers,
parents, and others, as well as their ambitions, shape students and their
performance goals. Teachers’ significance for study motivation is well
documented in research; that is, how they convey expectations of students (Giota,
2013), organize classroom activities (Hattie, 2009), stimulate engagement and
effort, support individuals and groups, shape classroom climate (Hugo, 2011),
choose didactic work methods (Boström, 2013), teachers´ subject-specific
enthusiasm (Mahler, Großschedl & Harms, 2018) and lead learning (Stensmo,
2005). These are crucial interactive motivational factors along with the inner and
outer motivational factors. To analyze lack of study motivation as a cause of low
throughput in upper secondary school, a perspective is therefore required that not
only focuses the individual student but takes into account the entire school and
classroom situation (e.g., the relationship between student, teacher, and
educational materials (Imsen, 2006).
Another, but partly overlapping, theoretical point of departure is that motivation
is more about transaction than interaction (Perry et al., 2006). Motivation is then
understood not only as an individual trait but is about negotiation of meaning in
social interaction. Thus, motivation becomes an integrated process in a larger
whole, impossible to separate from learning, individual differences, and the
nature of tasks or social context. According to Perry et al. (2006), strong
relationships exist between motivation and (a) communicated expectations, (b)
clear feedback on results, (c) interactions between teachers and students and
among students and their peers, (d) positive climate, and (e) teachers´ leadership.
Blomgren’s (2016) summary regarding students’ perspectives on schoolwork, and
the importance it has for study motivation, is that study motivation is primarily
45
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
shaped by perceptions of success and failure, as well as perceived self-capacity.
This conclusion are similar to Perry et al. (2006).
2.3 Motivational Strategies
Strategies to increase student motivation can be understood and analyzed from
various perspectives (Jerkeby (2019). Motivation strategies interact with each
other in many different ways. If teachers are to contribute to students’ study
motivation, a “toolbox” of different motivational strategies is required
(Augustsson & Boström, 2016).
The following strategies are mentioned by various researchers in the field:
understanding and taking into account the complexity of events, students and
groups in the setting of teaching (Giota, 2013), the design of the tasks to enable
adaptation to individuals and groups (Boström, 2013), constructive evaluations,
taking into account time aspects and didactic diversity (Woolfolk & Karlberg,
2015), various teaching strategies and active work with metacognitive strategies
(Boström, 2013), differences in students' perceived best learning and teaching
strategies (Boström & Bostedt, 2020) and conscious leadership in the classroom
(Augustsson & Boström, 2016; Hattie, 2009). Paying attention to the emotions that
are brought about by success and failure and the teachers’ competence to handle
them at both group and individual level is also relevant in this context (Giota,
2013; Imsen, 2006). Teaching strategies that impair student motivation include
ineffective or no feedback (Giota, 2013), lack of connection, overly complicated
tasks (Hugo, 2011), slow pace, focus on being transparent and not learning, poor
planning, and punitive leadership. Other demotivating factors are unattractive
classrooms and negative mood in the class (Woolfolk & Karlberg, 2015).
Factors that motivate students are also complex. According to Farrington et al.
(2012), decisive factors that influence student learning outcomes are study-
oriented behavior, endurance in studies, academic mindset, constructive learning
strategies, and social ability. One’s self-esteem, experience ways of experience
events, and individual goals (Hugo, 2011; Wery & Thomson, 2013) are crucial to
study motivation, because allowing students to learn in their best individual way
is of decisive importance for the results. Furthermore, previous research points to
the importance of students’ perceptions of work tasks; that is, relevance, utility,
level of difficulty, working methods (Granström, 2012), feedback, and grouping
and group dynamics (Håkansson & Sundberg, 2012; Woolfolk & Karlberg, 2015;
Zimmerman, 2018). Also, students overall “experiences” of teachers’ didactic
competence (Hattie, 2009) and the importance of relationships (Aspelin, 2018) are
also considered to have a positive effect on study motivation.
Positive, neutral, or negative teaching strategies affect student motivation
accordingly. If teachers can match teaching strategies with students’ learning
strategies, then good conditions are created for student motivation and study
results. A concrete example is a student’s need for a clear teaching structure,
which is not always in line with teachers’ perceptions (Boström, 2013). Both upper
secondary school students and university students show a clear need for external
structure to perform better (Boström & Gidlund, 2016). Students are motivated if
they receive clear frameworks, instructions, deadlines, schedules, exemplary
46
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
examples and concretions, and regular feedback (Boström, 2013). This matching
pedagogy seems particularly essential for students in need of support or in a
classroom situation where behavioral problems occur (Gidlund & Boström, 2017).
Grönqvist and Vlachos (2008) found that different types of students are affected
in different ways, but that the match between student and teacher is crucial to
students’ study motivation. However, they emphasized, “Figuring out which
teachers are best suited in different situations is an open question” (p. 15).
2.4 Motivation and Learning Environments
The surrounding physical and social environment also affects students to varying
degrees (Ahlberg, 2001; Valsö & Malmgren, 2019). For many students, study
motivation is formed in the learning environment. According to Blomgren (2016),
this is evident in students’ descriptions of feelings and perceptions of success and
failure. Adapted learning environments with inclusive approaches are especially
crucial for students who have not previously succeeded in school (Gidlund &
Boström, 2017). Definitions of learning environment vary depending on scientific
starting points and disciplines and include different perspectives on learning.
Learning environments are described based on mental, social, and psychosocial
dimensions (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, 2017). Another definition of the
concept which goes further is including psychological, educational, cognitive,
socio-economic, physical, communicative, social, and organizational aspects
(Ahlberg, 2001).
If environments are to motivate students, then they should in some sense be good,
which in research has been described as working methods, attitudes, and the
physical layout of the classroom (Ahlberg, 2001). These factors can help create
good conditions for all students’ sense of participation in activities (Antonovsky,
2005). Insights into and knowledge of how good learning environments are
established are needed to understand student learning processes (Ahlberg, 2001).
The same goes for students, namely that they understand what constructive
learning environments are for them so that they can take responsibility for
learning (Boström, 2013; Jerkeby, 2019). Opportunities to meet students on their
own terms are about the knowledge and understanding of individual differences
and similarities regarding student learning. In a learning environment, mutual
interaction takes place where people affect and are influenced by the social and
physical environment (Björklid & Fischbein, 2011). Learning takes place between
people in a physical context and in a social context. An indispensable ingredient
in the learning process is the tools that teachers use, which can be either physical
or intellectual (Säljö, 2014). A good learning environment must therefore be
initiated, created, developed, and evaluated to best support a student’s study
motivation.
3. Empirical Starting Points
3.1. Upper Secondary School Programs
Three upper secondary school programs selected for empirical material collection
were the Social Sciences Program (SSP), the Health and Social care Program
(HSP), and the Individual Program (IP). The selection principles thus include both
academic and practical programs, as well as a representation of student groups
47
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
with various past successes or challenges in their learning processes. To address
our research questions, in spring 2017, we conducted six group interviews with
12 students, as well as three group interviews with 20 teachers from the three pro-
grams. The study is limited to factors that are directly linked to the school. How
time outside of school affects students' study motivation is not a primary part of
the study's interest. Furthermore, the study is limited to the four participating up-
per secondary school programs and group interviews with teachers and students.
The throughput figures for students at the upper secondary school in 2016 were
about 8% below the national average, whereas the municipality’s Child and Edu-
cation Board’s goals and resources plan (X Municipality, 2016) set high targets in
terms of increasing the proportion of students completing their upper secondary
studies in the course in 3 or 4 years. Thus, there was a clear political orientation
that affects the children and education administration and the work of the munic-
ipal upper secondary school. In the local business plans for 2015–2016, a crucial
area of development was found to increase student motivation. Such work was
perceived by those responsible for the programs as helping to raise the results in
the upper secondary school. The political ambitions of the upper secondary school
are also reflected in an operational priority from the administration.
3.2 Data Collection and Data Processing
The design of questions for the group interviews was adapted from Blomgren
(2016). The teachers interviewed consisted of those gathered at a work-place meet-
ing for the teachers’ college for the intended program or those who volunteered
to participate. The students were selected by teachers based on the criteria that the
group of students would include both boys and girls and students with varying
academic success. The interviews were conducted on-site at the school and were
recorded and transcribed. The interviews lasted between 40 min and 1.5 hr. The
transcribed interviews comprised approximately 250 A4 pages of text.
3.3 Method
We used a hybrid content analysis method (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Ris-
ing Holmström et al., 2015). We conducted group interviews as a data collection
method. All contributors were informed about the project’s aims and current eth-
ical research principles (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). At the start of the interviews, all
informants were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could
cancel the interview at any time.
The interviews focused on organizational conditions, perceptions of interpersonal
processes, and individual characteristics. To achieve the purpose, we used a
hybrid content analysis that began with deductive analysis based on selected
theories and perspectives, and then moved on to an inductive analysis and finally
connected the theoretical starting points with the empirical material in the result.
A deductive (targeted) content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was initially
used to answer the research questions. The analysis was based on predetermined
themes when the interview material was analyzed (Mayring, 2000) and was
characterized by a more structured process compared with unconditional coding.
The deductive content analysis enables comparisons with results from previous
48
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
research and the results of discussions based on different selected theoretical
perspectives (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). This article tests theories in the field of study
motivation that see motivation as a social and contextual interplay (Hugo, 2011;
Perry et al., 2006). The analysis of the interviews was based on four themes:
motivation, motivational strategies, learning environments, and more. Based on
the four themes, a categorization matrix was developed that was then
systematically used in the analysis of the interviews.
After an initial deductive analysis phase of the interview responses, the analysis
turned into an inductive approach (see Figure 1). With selected themes as breaks,
the categorization matrix was developed. Data were sorted via an inductive
process (i.e., the text “spoke freely” within each theme and generated categories).
After a close reading, the parts of the text that expressed identifiable ideas or
positions (units of meaning) were condensed by coding within each theme. The
empirical content was examined methodically, the texts were interpreted step-by-
step, and data were classified to distinguish patterns. The empirical material was
broken down into meaning-bearing units, which were condensed into shorter
sentences and then abstracted into codes, describing the content of the meaning-
units. Codes with similar content were combined into themes and organized into
categories. To make the analysis transparent, codes and categories were combined
in an analysis scheme. These categories were interpreted and presented in their
respective themes with some telling quotes, and finally, the two informant groups
were compared. The two researchers discussed the results of analysis thoroughly
until we reached consensus, a process that resulted in the further refinement of
categories and a final thematisation. To offer credible, generalisable results, we
have reported our methodological approach, means of categorisation and
analytical method herein.
Figure 1: The analysis process
The analysis process was not linear but had more of an iterative character, where
the process moved back and forth between the different phases. Through
reflective dialogues between the researchers, the data processing was carried out.
The participants were coded in the transcribed material with the numbers T1–T20
for teachers and S1–S12 for students to distinguish them more efficiently during
the processing of the data set.
49
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
4. Results and Analysis
The results are presented and analyzed based on the study’s purpose and its three
research questions. The presentation of the result is based on the developed theme
and categorization matrix. In the four themes (i.e., motivation, motivational
strategies, learning environments, and more), there are common and distinctive
categories within both the teacher and student groups, but also between them.
The categories that were condensed were teachers, students, structure, social
relations, and results.
4.1 Motivation
Regarding the upper secondary school students’ study motivation, several
influence categories were found. Teachers were the most important motivator,
according to the informants:
“I would say that perhaps the teacher’s most important task is to work with
and improve and develop students’ motivation. But I would also like to say
that it is the students’ most important task to become aware that their own
motivation is so incredibly crucial, and that motivation is something that can
change.” (T8).
Teachers are perceived as the single most important factor that affects students’
study motivation and through their leadership they can influence students’ inner
motivation is confirmed by other research (Hattie, 2009; Hugo, 2011; Håkansson
& Sundberg, 2012). The approaches that describe constructive teachers are clarity
and the ability to give constructive feedback and push students and to be
“interesting".
Students’ responsibility for study motivation was a prominent theme in the
empirical material. However, students and teachers’ images differed from each
other. The teachers placed more emphasis on the students’ inner motivation, with
descriptions that study motivation can be controlled from within and the
importance of students being responsible, wanting to learn, and seeing the
benefits of going to school. In the teachers’ answers, there was also a strong belief
that students work towards goals and sub-goals and know the purpose of their
studies.
The students, on the other hand, did not discuss to any great extent their inner
motivation. Two study-motivating aspects for them were to experience the
benefits of learning and participation in the planning of teaching. The interviews
did not provide unambiguous or comprehensive answers regarding the students´
strategies for building their inner motivation. However, the empirical material
showed that the teachers “views on how students should muster study motivation
differed from the students” (T9). Important questions include whether students
learned or understood the importance of mental strategies or whether teachers
understand students’ cognitive strategy.
Regarding the category of arrangements, students and teachers consistently
showed that a more practical and laboratory arrangement of lessons has a positive
effect on study motivation. This is in line with the results Boström and Bostedt
(2020) present in a new study on vocational classes´ study motivation.
50
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Motivational teaching planning was described as “learning for working life” (T4).
The results are not entirely in line with international and national research on
learning strategies (Boström, 2013; Niemivirta, 2004). This research indicates that
at group level, there are differences in what are called perceptual preferences; that
is, learning-by-doing (Dewey, 1897) is an approach that may suit some students
well, others not. Boström (2013) showed, for example, that students in an upper
secondary school’s vocational program preferred teaching that is based on
learning-by-doing to a greater degree than students in academic programs.
Work-place learning was an example of how teaching methods in or about real -
life generate higher study motivation and higher student attendance compared
with regular school lessons. According to T2, having “courses that you can do close
to reality, it often becomes . . . easier for the students to become study-motivated.” If the
approach was not sufficiently well-planned or too monotonous, students’ study
motivation decreased. The design of assignments was also crucial for students’
study motivation (cf. Hugo, 2011; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2012). Another aspect
of the teaching structure concerned the upper secondary school common subjects,
which were not as popular with the students in the vocational programs as they
were in the academic programs. These subjects lowered the study motivation. The
time aspect was also emphasized by the students as an essential factor in
increasing or decreasing motivation: “Time is more important than methods . . . but
this is where you get a little time for certain things” (S5).
Teachers and students agreed on the importance of grades for study motivation,
namely that the presence of grades can both increase and decrease motivation: “If
I get a high grade on one task, I will be motivated for the other. Grades give motivation”
(S2); “If I get bad grades/. . ./ or if I am behind, then I cannot work at all. It will be a
vicious circle” (S4).
In summary, the results showed that study motivation could be seen as both a
controlled and autonomous external motivation-driven phenomenon (cf. Imsen,
2006; Woolfolk & Karlberg, 2015). In the teacher interviews, the perception
emerged that the students did not reflect sufficiently on what they had learned,
even though information was submitted so they would not fail. This is a strategy
that demonstrates control via external autonomous motivation (Wery &
Thomson, 2013). If students do not reflect on what they have learned, then it can
be seen as a rejection of the school’s mission to stimulate students’ metacognitive
competence.
4.2 Motivational Strategies
Motivational strategies were perceived as active behaviors or actions to create
motivation in the students, which can include students’ thoughts, feelings, and
actions, but also teachers’ actions or surrounding structures or cultures (Jerkeby,
2019). Similar themes that emerged about motivation can also be discerned
within this theme (i.e., teachers, students, structure, and results). Here, however,
social relations are also added as a category.
Teachers’ behaviors were of strategic importance, according to both teachers and
students, which is in line with current research (Håkansson & Sundberg, 2012;
51
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Hattie, 2009; Hofvenberg, 2020; Jerkeby, 2019). One difference between teachers
and students was that they emphasized different teaching behaviors as important.
The teachers pointed to their knowledge competence, the importance of being up
to date on the subject, and the ability to enthuse the students and to see and build
on students’ strengths (cf. Mahler et al. 2018). The students emphasized teachers’
personal qualities in the treatment as important for study motivation (e.g., teachers
should be happy, understanding, and have the competence to provide support,
but should not stress the students). According to the teachers, students’
motivational behaviors were that they are responsible and curious. Behaviors that
reduce or remove motivation are, according to some of the teachers, different types
of defense mechanisms or “repressed dissatisfaction” (T12).
Students consistently mentioned that finding enjoyment in school work was a
motivational strategy: According to S8, “Study motivation means to do what is fun.
So it’s fun if you want to do it. If it’s boring, it’s not fun”. This was also commented
on by teachers: “Everything should be pleasurable. In general, I think students today are
pleasure-driven young people” (T20). Here we can discern generational differences
between teachers who prefer learning to be serious and young people who are
motivated by the teaching being pleasure-filled. This is a challenge to deal with
in everyday pedagogical practice.
According to the teachers and students, the motivation to study decreased or
increased depending on the structure of the courses (e.g., through good planning
and participation). Planning includes teachers’ lesson and course planning, joint
planning, and the students’ planning. The students emphasized the importance
of being able to choose a variety of working methods: “When I am motivated, there
is a variation in the teaching, with varying tasks and subject areas” (S6). Another
motivational strategy was “to get rid of the stamp of boredom” (T3).
Social relationships as motivational strategies recurred in the student and teacher
interviews. If teachers and students can build good relationships, then the study
motivation is affected in a positive sense. The pedagogical task is facilitated with
good relationships, for example, by giving feedback and making the right
demands. Similar to Hattie’s (2009) results, the interviews showed that
relationships between teacher and student were the most important study
motivating factor. According to T1, “One must build relationships, and the biggest
obstacle to reaching students who do not have motivation, it is the absence. Because if they
are not in place, then it is very tough to motivate them.” Results in the form of grades
as a motivation strategy were problematized by both teachers and students. The
overall picture was that grades could create study motivation, but that they could
further inhibit motivation if they were low. “The whip, it is to reach the good grades
then, because you should be able to apply to university or what-ever” (S10). The grades
as a structurally inhibiting and stress-related factor were also problematized by
the informants. The new grading system created excitement and stress for the
students, and the demands are very high. In this study, grades can be seen as an
area where motivation can arise as controlled external or autonomous external
motivation (Imsen, 2006; Woolfolk & Karlberg, 2015) and its effect on study
motivation can be both promoting or inhibiting.
52
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
4.3 Learning Environments
Descriptions of the learning environment within the teacher group focused on the
importance of adaptations for different groups of students at the individual level
and from the perspective of disabilities, in other words, a special educational
perspective (e.g. Ahlberg, 2001). This did not appear at all in the student group.
Some teachers emphasized that smaller groups of students were a motivating
factor. However, this view did not emerge in the interviews with the students. On
the other hand, well-being, security, and the class were described as essential
aspects in the learning environment by both informant groups. Well-being was
both about being comfortable with the teacher and the class, but also in the
physical sense, namely being comfortable on the premises. The effect of the
external environment on students’ study motivation was even described as
underestimated. Security was also emphasized in the interviews with the two
groups: “If you feel safe and comfortable and you enjoy being here, then homework and
assignments are easier” (S1). Both teachers and students emphasized the importance
of the class or group in the learning environment as an influencing factor for
students’ study motivation. The results above confirm previous research on good
learning environments (i.e., that social inclusion is important as a basis for safe
learning; Ahlberg, 2001).
4.4 Other
Within the theme, there were several distinctive perceptions between teachers and
students. The teachers emphasized that a consensus between school and parents
is crucial to creating a good basis for students’ study motivation. It was seen as
important that the teachers take the initiative for cooperation: “We have a reasonable
consensus with the parents. That we call home and tell now is going well. Trying to push
together. That it is not just that we have a discussion together, but we invite them” (T11).
From a student perspective, teachers considered it crucial that parents are not
“codependent” on their children’s negative school behaviors. Parents can under-
stand or even sanction students’ failures because they may have behaved in a sim-
ilar way when they were young. Regarding social relations, there were similar
views among teachers and students. The right peers were stated to be decisive for
study motivation in such a way that they could influence the study motivation
positively, and with the wrong peers, the influence became negative. However, it
seemed difficult to break away from a group of friends who do not want to study:
“If I hang out with some friends and they do not even want to work, I lose the motivation.
It is difficult to change friends. It’s up to me if I should follow them /. . . / I still have my
own responsibility” (S10).
A distinctive perception between students and teachers in the category of social
relations was the teachers ‘marking of “correct” parental support for students’
study motivation. The right parental support was described as a dialogue between
teachers and parents, where the parents do not sanction the students’ absences or
negative behaviors and where they influence their children’s positive views of the
school. The opposite was parents who more or less had given up or contributed
to a reduced study motivation for their children. The students expressed that pa-
rental support could vary. Some students had parents who supported them; oth-
ers did not have this support. A dilemma that the students described was that
53
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
supportive parents could also lead to perceived pressure for the students to con-
tinue to perform well. This could be perceived as a negative or problematic expec-
tation structure.
4.5 Students´ and Teachers’ Equal and Different Perceptions
In summary, it can be stated that the four themes of the analysis partly overlap.
The same applies to the five categories that were condensed based on the units of
meaning in the interviews. Apparent differences and similarities emerge in the
comparisons between students and teachers in terms of codes within each cate-
gory. This provides indications of the answers to the research questions about stu-
dents’ study motivation. Figures 2 and 3 below give an overview of the codes that
were condensed from the empirical data in each group.
There is a complex interplay between results and motivation regarding what
teachers and students put in the concept of study motivation. Study results affect
motivation and vice versa both in a positive and in a negative sense. Grades also
affect the study motivation in different directions.
Figure 2. Picture of condensed codes within each theme of the teacher interviews
The importance of teachers in promoting students’ academic motivation is
evident. Teacher leadership is also a crucial factor in study motivation. However,
there is a difference between the interview groups; teachers point more to the
importance of knowledge, whereas students emphasize more personal qualities
such as being understanding, happy, and giving support.
An substantial similarity between teachers and students regarding study
motivation is that lessons or subjects that have more practical (life-skill-oriented)
content are motivating and that the students have and see the benefit of the
54
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
knowledge. A major difference between teachers and students’ responses is that
the teachers emphasized “life skills” in learning more, such as strategies regarding
goals, objectives, and sub-objectives, whereas the students did not touch on these
strategies at all. A consistent view between teachers and students is the
importance of well-being and security in the learning environment and that the
class, groups, or peers should offer a motivating environment. The teachers
pointed out the importance of adaptations and smaller groups in the learning
environment. The students believed that the external learning environment, such
as rooms and benches, also plays an essential role in study motivation.
The significance of social relations is confirmed by Ahlberg’s (2001)
communicative relation-oriented theory, which focuses on the concept of learning
environment in a broader sense. It concerns cognitive, perceptual, socio-
emotional, and socio-cultural aspects, as well as communicative and linguistic
interactions. Regarding the surrounding environment, both teachers and students
pointed out the importance of the right peers as a motivating factor. Peer friends
can help increase or decrease study motivation. Distinctive within this theme was
that teachers pointed to the right parental support, whereas the students pointed
out that parental support can vary and have different effects.
Figure 3. Picture of condensed codes within each theme of the student interviews
5. Conclusions
In this final part the conclusions reflect the research questions, and implications
from the results of the study are described.
5.1 Research conclusions
To understand the phenomenon of study motivation, we require a synthesis of
theories (Blomgren, 2016; Wery & Thomson, 2013) and practical studies in
collaboration with teachers (Hofvenberg, 2020). Motivation can be analyzed from
55
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
an interactive (Stensmo, 2005) or a transactional perspective (Perry et.al 2006). The
perspective in this article is broader than a mere focus on individual
characteristics.
The first and the second research question about teachers´ and students´
experiences about factors increasing/decreasing students’ study motivation, and
differences and similarities between the populations, are answered in the study
from different aspects.
The teachers appear as a very important group of actors for the students’ study
motivation. Teachers play a crucial role for study motivation, i.e. particularly in
how they convey expectations to students and organize classroom activities This
conclusion is also found in Stenmos’ (2005) and Giota´s (2017) argumentation that
teachers function as motivators by stimulating commitment and effort,
strengthening teaching conditions, supporting individuals and groups, and
shaping the classroom climate. The teachers’ approach, choice of didactic working
methods, leadership etc. are an important interactive motivating factor. This is
also confirmed in Blomgrens study (2016) where motivation is also linked to
pedagogical approaches, learning environments, didactic issues, and the
importance of teachers, and links this with planning of teaching, learning, and
views on knowledge. Blomgren clarified that teachers’ didactic action competence
is crucial for a successful school operation (cf Augustsson & Boström, 2016). In
contrast to Mahler et al. (2018) and Blomgren (2016) we found no evidence that
teacher's subject-specific enthusiasm was crucial for study motivation. The
students in this study instead emphasized the teacher's personality as a
motivating factor, while the teachers emphasized teachers' subject competence as
crucial.
The study clearly demonstrates the need for a practically oriented and laborative
pedagogy (cf. Boström & Bostedt, 2020; Boström 2013) such as pedagogy built on
learning-by-doing (Dewey, 1897). The students especially emphasized that when
the pedagogy was adapted to their way of learning, it was motivating. Thus,
teachers' leadership in the didactic space is an important competence for teachers
to be able to motivate students (Augustsson & Boström, 2016). Also need for
variation in teaching, was also confirmed by the results.
The result show a number of learning strategies which support study motivation
at a collective level, but these do not emerge as clearly at the individual. The
teachers emphasized the importance of adaptations and smaller groups in the
learning environment, whereas the students believed that the external learning
environment also played an important role in the study motivation. According to
Blomgren (2016), it is particularly important that “… students’ ability is strengthened
by support that aims to get students to use effective learning strategies and make an effort”
(p. 243). Blomgren, however, did not clarify what effective learning strategies are
meant to include. In this study, a number of strategies have emerged, such as
students' needs for structure, the teacher's personality, participation in planning,
choices and appropriate learning methods.
56
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
In addition, the empirical results show that teachers and students have slightly
different views on students’ ability and insight into taking responsibility for their
own learning. The teachers believed in the students' own responsibility whereas
students prefer to highlight pleasurable learning. We believe that the discrepancy
between students ‘and teachers’ views should be clarified, problematized, and
used in a constructive way to further explore the issue of study motivation.
The third research question about how is study motivation linked to various
aspects of education according to teachers and students, is highlighted both in
the theoretical framework used and the results of the study: motivating or
demotivating factors, motivational strategies that support or inhibit students,
learning environments that support or hinder students' study motivation and
“other” factors. Good learning environments are thus important in school, as
well as in other work-places or learning situations (Björklid & Fischbein, 2011).
To best support students’ ability to take responsibility for their own learning,
knowledge is needed about the ways that good learning environments can be
established because people interact, influence, and are influenced by the social
and physical environment
5.2 Implications
A broader perspective, on study motivation as a composite phenomenon that
affects internal and external motivational factors and the relationships between
them, then becomes significant. One conclusion drawn from the empirical
material is that teachers need to encourage inner motivation, while at the same
time ensuring that external motivation promotes learning (Anderman &
Anderman, 2009; Wery & Thomson, 2013). It is preferable to seek out lack of study
motivation in such factors as environments, learning strategies, teaching
planning, individual ambitions, home-school interaction, didactic choices, and the
physical environment (Giota, 2017). Both internal and external motivational
factors thus need to be taken into account.
To reconnect with motivation theories, the empirical evidence in this study points
unequivocally to the validity of the interactive, as well as the transitive
perspective. It proves that well-being and security in the learning environment
are important and that the class/ group/peers constitute a motivational context
for the students. The conclusions in this article point to the validity of the
interactive motivational perspective, in which the student’s own choice and
responsibility for school work and learning (internal motivational factors) must
be linked to external motivational factors. There is an interaction between
situation and person (interaction), in which processes concerning negotiations of
meaning in the social interaction (transaction) take place. Motivation can thus be
seen as a process integrated into a larger whole, impossible to separate from
learning, individual differences, the nature of tasks, or societal context.
Important research questions for further studies are to a) broaden the study to
further study programs to find variations, b) conduct observational studies in the
classroom to examine teachers' and students' interaction, c) deepen the interviews
57
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
with students with, for example, case descriptions or d) conduct case studies at
different schools to examine school cultures.
6. References
Ahlberg, A. (2001). Lärande och delaktighet [Learning and participation]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2009). Motivating children and adolescents in Schools.
Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Antonovsky, A. (2005). Hälsans mysterium [The mystery of health]. Stockholm: Natur och
Kultur.
Aspelin, J. (2018). Lärares relationskompetens [Teacher’s relationship skills]. Stockholm: Liber.
Augustsson, G., & Boström, L. (2016). Teachers’ leadership in the didactic room: A
systematic literature review of international research. Acta Didactica Norge -
tidsskrift for fagdidaktisk forsknings- og utviklingsarbeid i Norge, 10, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.2883
Björklid, P., & Fischbein, P. (2011). Det pedagogiska samspelet. [The pedagogical interaction].
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Blomgren, J. (2016). Den svårfångade motivationen: elever i en digital lärmiljö [The difficult-to-
capture motivation: Students in a digital learning environment]. (Diss) Göteborg:
Göteborgs Universitet.
Boström, L. (2013). Hur lär sig elever på sex olika yrkesprogram? En studie om skillnader
och likheter i lärstilar. [How do students learn in six different vocational
programs? A study of differences and similarities in learning styles]. Utbildning &
Lärande, 4(1), 48-65.
Boström, L., & Bostedt, G. (2020). Hur lär sig elever på två olika yrkesprogram? En studie
om skillnader och likheter i lär- och undervisningsstrategier av betydelse för
elevers studiemotivation. [How do students learn in two different vocational pro-
grams? A study about differences and similarities in learning and teaching strat-
egies of importance for study motivation]. Kognition og Pædagogik, 116, 100-115.
Boström, L., & Gidlund, U. (2016). Students’ need for structure—the forgotten learning
styles preference. In N. Preston (ed.), Assessment, performance and effectiveness (pp.
12-20). Nova Science Publishers.
Covington, M. V., & Mueller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An
approach/avoidance reformulation. Education Psychology Review, 13, 157-176.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. Retrieved from
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing
62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Farrington, C., Roderick, E., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T., Johnson, D., &
Beechum, N. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive
factors in shaping school performance: A critical review. Chicago: University of
Chicago Consortium and Chicago School Research.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Gidlund, U., & Boström, L. (2017). What is inclusive didactics? Teachers´ understanding
of inclusive didactics for students with EBD in Swedish mainstream schools.
International Education Studies, 10(5), 87-99.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n5p87
58
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Giotta, J. (2017). Den svårfångade motivationen, elevers välmående och skolprestationer
[The hard-captured motivation, student well-being and school achievement].
Lecture 2017-10-30, Sundsvall.
Giota, J. (2013). Individualisering i skolan – vilken, varför och hur? [Individualization at school -
which, why and how?] Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie, 3. Stockholm.
Granström, K. (2012). Tre aspekter på lärares ledarskap i klassrummet. In G. Berg, F.
Sundh, C. Wede (eds.), Lärare som ledare [Teacher as leader](pp. 27-48). Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Grönqvist, E., & Vlachos, J. (2008). Hur lärares förmågor påverkar elevers studieresultat [How
teachers ‘abilities affect students’ learning outcomes]. IFAU. Rapport 2008:25
Håkansson, J., & Sundberg, D. (2012) Utmärkt undervisning. Framgångsfaktorer i svensk och
internationell belysning [Excellent teaching. Success factors in Swedish and international
lighting]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hofvenberg, A. (2020). Motivation, students, and the classroom environment. Exploring the role
of Swedish students´ achievement goals in chemistry. (Diss) Umeå: Umeå Universitet.
Hsieh, H.-S., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Hugo, M. (2011). Från motstånd till framgång - att motivera när ingen motivations finns [From
resistance to success - to motivate when there is no motivation]. Stockholm: Liber.
Imsen, G. (2006). Elevens värld. Introduktion till pedagogisk psykologi [The student’s world.
Introduction to educational psychology]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Jerkeby, S. (2019). Att redan vara motiverad – om hinder och möjligheter för lärande [To be
motivated already - about barriers and opportunities for learning]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Lundahl, L., Lidström, L., Lindblad, M., Lovén, A., Olofsson, J., & Öst, J. (2015) Osäkra
övergångar. Resultatdialog 2015 (pp. 107-116). Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Mahler, D., Großschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2018): Does motivation matter? – The relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students’ performance. PLOS
ONE, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207252
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).
Niemivirta, M. (2004). Skillnader mellan flickor och pojkar i inlärningsmotivation. Skola-
kön-inlärningsresultat [Differences between girls and boys in learning motivation.
School-gender-learning results]. Helsingfors: Utbildningsstyrelsen.
Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classrooms as context for motivating
learning. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (ed.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 1-64). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Rising Holmström, M., Häggström, M., & Kristiansen, L. (2015). Skolsköterskans
rolltransformering till den hälsofrämjande positionen [The role of the school
nurse in transforming the health-promoting position]. Nordic Journal of Nursing
Research, 25(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0107408315587860
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci
& R. M. Ryan (ed.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Skolverket. (2016). Uppföljning av gymnasieskolan [Follow-up of upper secondary school].
Skolverket: Stockholm.
Skolverket. (2018). Från gymnasieskola till högskola [From upper secondary school to university].
Rapport 466. Stockholm: Skolverket.
59
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Skolverket. (2019). Redovisning av Skolverkets uppdrag om att genomföra verksamhetsnära
insatser för att förebygga avhopp från gymnasieskolan [Report on the National Agency
for Education’s assignment to implement business-related initiatives to prevent dropping
out of upper secondary school]. Dnr 7.2.1-2016:32
Stensmo, C. (2005). Ledarskap i klassrummet [Leadership in the classroom]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Sveriges Elevkårer & Lärarnas Riksförbund. (2015). Från avhopp till examen - en
undersökning bland gymnasieelever och lärare om faktorer som påverkar
genomströmningen i gymnasieskolan [From drop-out to graduation - a survey among
high school students and teachers about factors that affect the throughput in high school].
Stockholm.
Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (SKL). (2017). Olika är normen. Att skapa inkluderande
lärmiljöer i skolan [Different is the norm. To create inclusive learning environments in
the school]. Sveriges kommuner och Landsting.
Säljö, R. (2014). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in practice. A socio-
cultural perspective]. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Vaanstenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory. Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Valsö, M., & Malmgren, F. (2019). Fysisk lärmiljö: optimera för trygghet, arbetsro och lärande
[Physical learning environment: optimize for security, work peace and learning]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). God forskningssed [Good research practice]. Vetenskapsrådet.
Wery, J., & Thomson, M. (2013). Motivational strategies to enhance effective learning in
teaching struggling students. British Journal of Learning Support. 28(3), 103-108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12027
Woolfolk, A., & Karlberg, M. (2015) Pedagogisk psykologi [Individualization in a school con-
text]. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
X Municipality, (2016). Mål och resultatplan 2016 [Goal-and result plan 2016]. Barn- och
Utbildningsnämnden.
Zimmerman, F. (2018). Det tillåtande och det begränsande. En studie om pojkars syn på studier
och ungdomars normer kring maskulinitet [The permissive and the restrictive. A study
on boys ‘views on studies and adolescents’ norms about masculinity] (Dissertation).
Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
