Ann Bainbridge Frymier

15Students’ Motivation to Learn

Abstract: Increasing students’ motivation is central to improving students’ learning in the classroom. This chapter’s major premise is that instructors at all levels impact students’ motivation to learn through the communication choices they make in their teaching. Four instructor communication behaviors are discussed and include nonverbal immediacy, affinity-seeking, clarity, and confirmation behaviors. These behaviors have consistently been linked to greater levels of student motivation and learning. Research on the relationships between these instructor communication behaviors and motivation and learning is discussed, along with the development of the motivation model as an explanation. The motivation model poses motivation as a mediating variable between instructor communication behavior and student learning. This model is compared to competing models, namely the affective learning model. Instructional scholars have taken different approaches to motivation to explain the impact of teacher communication behavior on student learning. Expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory are explained and discussed. This discussion culminates in a revised motivation model that explains the relationship between instructors’ communication behavior and students’ learning and provides directions for future research.

Keywords: motivation, immediacy, affinity-seeking, clarity, confirmation, expectancy-value theory, self-determination theory, motivation model of instructional communication

Why are students motivated to learn, or not motivated? Is motivation a characteristic of good students, and some people are just better students than others? When faced with a room full of unmotivated students, some teachers blame the students. They believe that if they had a class of “good students,” motivation would not be a problem. Other teachers have a different perspective. When faced with a room full of unmotivated students, they believe they need to teach differently. In other words, they believe they can influence student motivation. It is this view of motivation as something that teachers can influence that is the focus of this chapter. More specifically, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of teacher communication behavior in the motivation-learning relationship.

The concept of motivation has been studied in numerous contexts, predominantly in education. Motivation is often viewed as important to learning, particularly for learning that requires sustained effort. Motivation is the energy that drives performance and has been studied in Psychology since the late 19th century. Early learning theories such as behaviorism (Skinner, 1974) and drive theory (Hull, 1943) emphasized rewards and needs respectively, as the means to motivating desired behaviors. The concept of rewards is prominent in several theories of motivation such as expectancy-value theory (Atkinson, 1957) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1963). Needs, as the source of motivation, have not been as prominent as rewards, but needs are central to Maslow’s (1970) need hierarchy and Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory. These explanations of motivation help us understand why students engage in learning; therefore to understand learning, one must understand motivation. Communication scholars seek to understand the relationship between teacher communication and learning, and they have often turned to motivation theory for answers.

In the 1970s communication scholars began to view teaching as a communication phenomenon. Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey (1978) stated that teaching and communication were synonymous with one another and to understand effective teaching, one needed to understand effective communication. This was a turning point in communication education that led to the development of the research area of instructional communication. Instructional scholars recognized that teachers were the source of the majority of the communication that occurs in any given classroom. The basic hypothesis was that how teachers communicated impacted learning as much as the content they presented (Preiss & Wheeless, 2014). Over the past four decades research on teacher communication behaviors has been very consistent: Teacher use of constructive communication behaviors is positively associated with desirable student outcomes. These behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal immediacy, clarity, relevance, affinity-seeking, behavior alteration techniques, humor, confirmation, and feedback, have led to a general profile of effective teacher communication. Effective teachers engage in immediate behaviors, communicate clearly, make content and assignments relevant, provide constructive feedback while confirming students, respect students, and facilitate enjoyment in their classrooms with humor. Many of these behaviors are inter-related; four of them have received substantial research in relation to student motivation and learning and will be the focus of the following section.

Effective Teacher Communication

Numerous criteria can be used to judge effective teaching, but the facilitation of learning is clearly the most central. Effective teacher communication consists of communication behaviors that facilitate learning. Instructional communication research has consistently found positive relationships between student learning and teacher use of immediacy, affinity-seeking, clarity, and confirmation behaviors. These four behavioral domains are not all-inclusive of effective teacher communication and are not independent of one another. However, research indicates that the enactment of these behaviors often results in effective teaching. Additionally, these four constructs are behaviorally based. For example, teacher credibility has received substantial study, but credibility is a perception students have and not a set of teacher behaviors. Thus, effective teachers are likely to be credible, but the perception of credibility is an outcome of teacher behavior, not a behavior itself.

Teacher immediacy has received a great deal of attention (see Chapter 7 in this volume and Richmond, Lane, & McCroskey, 2006), with results consistently indicating that students respond positively to teacher use of immediacy behaviors across cultures (McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, & Barraclough, 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996). Immediacy is a perception of physical and/ or psychological closeness (Mehrabian, 1971) and is generated primarily by nonverbal behaviors such as eye contact, smiling, physical closeness, appropriate touch, relaxed body position, and vocal variety (Richmond et al., 2006). Using meta-analysis, Witt, Wheeless, and Allen (2006) found significant support for a substantial positive relationship between teacher immediacy and student affective learning, and a lesser relationship with cognitive learning.

Affinity-seeking behaviors used by teachers were examined during the same period as immediacy behaviors. Affinity-seeking is a broader, more comprehensive set of behaviors and subsumes immediacy behaviors. Bell and Daly (1984) defined affinity-seeking as “the active social communicative process by which individuals attempt to get others to like and feel positive toward them” (p. 91) and identified 25 affinity-seeking strategies. Richmond (1990) found that teacher affinity-seeking was significantly and moderately correlated with both perceived affective and cognitive learning. Affinity-seeking was also positively related to students’ motivation to study (Frymier & Thompson, 1992; Richmond, 1990).

Ellis (2000) took the interpersonal construct of confirmation and identified teacher behaviors that led to students feeling confirmed. Confirming communication consists of behaviors that recognize, acknowledge, and endorse a person (Cissna & Sieburg, 1981) and consist of both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. In contrast, disconfirmation involves indifference, imperviousness, and disqualification (Cissna & Sieburg, 1981). In short, confirming communication sends the message that a person is worthy of one’s time and attention. Disconfirming communication sends messages of disregard and insignificance. Ellis (2000) reported that teacher confirmation was predictive of affective learning, cognitive learning, and motivation (Ellis, 2004).

The clarity with which teachers communicate is another teacher behavior that has a positive impact on students (see Chapter 5 in this volume). This construct has been studied from a variety of perspectives and has been defined as, “a cluster of teacher behaviors that contributes to the fidelity of instructional messages” (Chesebro & Wanzer, 2006, p. 95). Teacher clarity involves messages about assignments and course requirements as well as how content is delivered (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998). Chesebro and McCroskey (2001) examined teacher clarity in relation to receiver apprehension, student motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning. Teacher clarity and immediacy were negatively associated with students’ receiver apprehension, and receiver apprehension was negatively associated with students’ motivation to study. These results suggest that students are more relaxed with clear and immediate teachers, and that such teachers create an environment that facilitates student motivation. Zhang and Zhang (2005) replicated Chesebro and McCroskey’s (2001) results among Chinese college students, providing further support for the relationship between teacher clarity and motivation.

There is significant research support for the teacher communication behaviors of immediacy, clarity, confirmation, and affinity-seeking. These behaviors represent different constructs but are interrelated and are often observed occurring simultaneously in effective teachers. Of course, the question that arises is, why are these behaviors effective? Why are these teacher behaviors associated with student learning? Is motivation the answer?

Seeking an Explanation

During the 1980s research on teacher immediacy and affinity-seeking was often met with skepticism. Skeptics viewed the use of immediacy and affinity-seeking behaviors as simply a “Dr. Fox effect.” The Dr. Fox effect refers to a dynamic, charismatic teacher who teaches little content and with little rigor, but whom students love and rate highly (Naftulin, Ware, & Donnelly, 1973; Perry, Abrami, & Leventhal, 1979). Many viewed immediate teaching as the antithesis of rigorous teaching. Real teaching did not require being liked, and the standard motto of the day for teachers was, “Don’t smile until Christmas.” This criticism and skepticism drove instructional scholars to provide an explanation for why immediacy and affinity-seeking were important to learning and not just a means to being popular. Scholars began conducting research to explain why the use of immediacy behaviors influenced learning and for further evidence of the proposed causal relationship. Early on, motivation was identified as a likely mediating variable and explanation for the relationship.

Richmond (1990) was one of the first to examine students’ motivation and included it as an outcome variable in her study on compliance-gaining and power. Richmond was interested in identifying behavior alteration techniques that resulted in students being motivated to engage in learning activities as opposed to performing activities as a result of coercion. She reported that both teacher compliance-gaining behavior and affinity-seeking were related to students’ motivation to study. During this same period, Christophel (1990) examined the impact of teacher immediacy on students’ trait and state motivation. She viewed motivation as part of the learning process and hypothesized that “teacher immediacy may impact levels of learning by modifying student classroom motivation” (Christophel, 1990, p. 325). Results indicated that immediacy was positively associated with state motivation to learn, which in turn was associated with affective and (self-reported) cognitive learning. On the heels of this finding, Frymier (1994a) proposed the motivation model of immediacy to explain why teacher immediacy behaviors were positively associated with student learning (see Figure 1). The motivation model hypothesized that teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy, along with students’ trait motivation, modified students’ state motivation to learn, which directly impacted students’ cognitive and affective learning. Frymier compared the motivation model of immediacy with a learning model that hypothesized state motivation along with teacher immediacy directly impacted student learning (see Figure 2). Using a repeated measures design and path analysis, Frymier (1994a) confirmed Christophel’s (1990) hypothesis that teacher immediacy modified state motivation to learn, which in turn influenced student learning. Frymier (1994b) extended the motivation model to teachers’ use of affinity-seeking. She hypothesized that affinity-seeking and immediacy functioned similarly in the classroom and used path analysis to test the relationships. This model was identical to the motivation model of immediacy, with motivation mediating the relationship between teacher affinity-seeking behavior and learning. Support was found for the motivation model of affinity-seeking over a direct effects model (Frymier, 1994b). Frymier’s (1994a) and Christophel’s (1990) work provided a reasonable explanation for why immediacy was positively related to students’ self-reported learning and helped solidify teacher immediacy as an important instructional construct.

One observation from this research was that students’ motivation to study and affective learning were highly correlated, indicating overlap. Rodriguez, Plax, and Kearney (1996) argued that motivation was subsumed by affective learning and proposed an alternate explanation for the relationship between immediacy and student learning. Rodriguez et al. proposed that affective learning mediated the relationship between teacher immediacy and cognitive learning. Using path analysis, Rodriguez et al. tested two models to determine which best fit the data. They compared Frymier’s (1994a) motivation model with cognitive learning as the outcome variable with their affective learning model using both Frymier’s data and data collected for their study (see Figure 3). Rodriguez et al. reported that both models fit the data, but that the affective learning model had smaller residuals than the motivation model (although the difference was not significant). Rodriguez et al. argued that the affective learning model was more parsimonious than the motivation model and therefore the better model. Overall, Frymier’s and Rodriguez et al.’s models were quite similar, with both proposing a mediated relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Questions remained about the relationship between motivation and affective learning and which construct provided the most robust explanation.

Using confirmatory factor analysis, Zhang and Oetzel (2006) concluded that motivation and affective learning were separate constructs. Affective learning refers to the valuing and liking of content. Motivation refers to the energy and effort one is willing to expend. Using data collected from students in China, Zhang and Oetzel (2006) compared the three existing models of immediacy: the learning model proposed by Andersen (1979), the motivation model proposed by Christophel (1990) and Frymier (1994a), and the affective learning model proposed by Rodriguez et al. (1996). Using structural equation modeling, Zhang and Oetzel found that the affective learning model had acceptable fit, whereas the learning and motivation models had poor fit with the data. In response to these results, Zhang and Oetzel proposed the “integrating model” that hypothesized that immediacy had a direct effect on affective learning and cognitive learning, and that motivation mediated the relationship between affective learning and cognitive learning (see Figure 4). These findings were contrary to previous research and may have been a result of the translated measures and cultural differences between American and Chinese college students. However, this model does provide some support for the notion that the relationship between teacher communication behavior and learning is mediated.

In trying to understand the relationships among teacher confirmation behaviors and student learning outcomes, Ellis (2004) conducted an exploratory study. She posited that teacher use of confirming behaviors would reduce students’ receiver apprehension and found strong support for this hypothesis. Ellis then used structural equation modeling to examine the direct and indirect relationships among teacher confirmation, receiver apprehension, student motivation, affective learning, and cognitive learning. The resulting model that provided the best fit to the data was labeled the “learning model” (see Figure 5). The learning model consisted of teacher confirmation having a direct effect on student receiver apprehension, such that teacher use of confirmation behaviors reduced students’ receiver apprehension. Receiver apprehension had a direct effect on motivation and cognitive learning, and motivation had a direct effect on affective learning, which in turn had a direct effect on cognitive learning. Thus, affective learning mediated the relationship between motivation and cognitive learning. This relationship between motivation and affective learning was the opposite of what Zhang and Oetzel (2006) proposed, suggesting that the relationship between affective learning and motivation may be reciprocal. The more motivated a student, the more he or she likes the content; and greater affect generated for the content results in greater motivation. A reciprocal relationship both makes sense conceptually and explains the variation in research results.

In a sense Ellis’ (2004) study provided support both for Frymier’s (1994a) motivation model and Rodriguez et al.’s (1996) affective learning model. Affective learning mediated the relationship between motivation and cognitive learning, indicating that both motivation and affective learning were mediating variables. The introduction of receiver apprehension into the model expanded scholars’ understanding of how teacher communication functions in the classroom. Reducing receiver apprehension may “set the stage” for motivation and learning to occur. This is consistent with Frymier’s (1993) finding that highly apprehensive students were more motivated to study when they had a highly immediate teacher. Thus, effective teacher communication behavior may enhance motivation in part by reducing student anxiety and apprehension.

In 2006, Allen, Witt, and Wheeless conducted a meta-analysis of research on immediacy, cognitive learning, affective learning, and motivation. They noted the overlap in motivation and affective learning and essentially combined Frymier’s motivation model and Rodriguez’s affective learning model for the meta-analysis. Allen et al.’s results confirmed the model that motivation/ affect mediated the relationship between teacher immediacy and students’ cognitive learning. Returning to the original question of why teacher communication behavior is associated with student learning: motivation theory provides a more robust explanation than affective learning. Affective learning is the development of appreciation for and valuing of content (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) and is clearly related to motivation; however, the explanation is limited. An affective learning explanation emphasizes the enjoyment and liking generated by teacher communication behaviors. Yet teachers know intuitively that emphasizing fun does not necessarily result in learning. This explanation also separates affective and cognitive components, which is counter to contemporary views of learning. Anderson et al. (2001) noted that “nearly every cognitive objective has an affective component” (p. 300), and Claxton (2015) argued that current work in neuroscience indicates that emotion and cognition are inseparable. Although the correlation and regression coefficients provide some support for an affective learning explanation, there is little theoretical justification for such an approach. Alternatively, there are several theories of motivation that provide rich and nuanced explanations of learning. Four approaches to motivation have influenced communication scholars and can help explain how and why teacher communication behavior impacts students’ learning.

Theories of Learner Motivation

Motivation is generally defined as the energy one brings to a task. Where that energy derives from is the focus of most theories of motivation. Brophy (1987) stated, “Student motivation to learn is a student tendency to find academic activities meaningful and worthwhile and to try to derive the intended academic benefits from them” (p. 205). A unique aspect of Brophy’s approach to motivation was his identification of two types of motivation: trait and state. Trait motivation to learn is an enduring disposition to strive for learning and mastery that crosses situation and time. State motivation to learn is specific to a situation and relates to mastering the knowledge and skill being taught in that situation (Brophy, 1987). Brophy’s approach hypothesized that students’ level of motivation could vary by class, such that a student may have high motivation in one class and low motivation in another. This conceptualization of motivation placed the source of trait motivation within the student, and the source of state motivation in situational variables such as the task or teaching approach. This perspective is similar to the more commonly used intrinsic and extrinsic types of motivation.

Several theories of motivation include the concept of rewards, with rewards often being described as intrinsic or extrinsic. Extrinsic motivators are derived from the environment, other people, or the task itself. Completing an assignment to receive points, a teacher’s praise, or a privilege are all examples of extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic motivation is similar to Brophy’s state motivation; however, extrinsic motivation focuses on the reward or punishment associated with a task, whereas state motivation focuses on the situation. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation is similar to Brophy’s trait motivation. Intrinsic motivation is considered internal to a person. Both intrinsic and trait motivation consider the individual as the source of the energy and drive that makes one motivated. Intrinsic and trait motivation are viewed as relatively constant across situations.

Instructional communication scholars have drawn heavily on Brophy’s approach to motivation, particularly the distinction between state and trait motivation. Both Christophel (1990) and Frymier (1994) measured state and trait motivation and both found that trait motivation had a negligible relationship with student learning; however, state motivation was positively correlated with immediacy and with perceived affective and cognitive learning. The concept of state motivation fit well with instructional communication scholars’ view that teachers motivated students through their communication choices. Instructional communication scholars viewed teacher communication as the driving force of learning in the classroom and that student responses were strongly influenced by the teacher; or in other words, teachers created a situation that was motivating for students. Research results on state motivation supported the proposition that teacher communication behavior created energy in students to learn. Brophy’s (1987) work on state and trait motivation was rooted in expectancy-value theory, and a closer look at this theory helps explain how teacher communication behaviors likely function in the classroom.

Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-value theory posits that people will expend effort on a task to the extent that they expect to be able to perform the task successfully, and that they value the rewards received for their performance (Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009). Expectations for success and the value of the task being performed are the two key components of this theory, and the relationship between these two components is multiplicative. If either is missing, motivation to perform the task is substantially reduced (Brophy, 1987). To motivate students, teachers must make activities enjoyable and help students appreciate the tasks to develop value, and they need to help students succeed so that they develop success expectations.

Expectancy-value theory is rooted in Atkinson’s (1957) work on achievement motives, expectancies for success, and incentive values. Eccles (2005) further developed expectancy-value theory by developing broader definitions of key concepts. Expectations and values are a result of one’s experience and abilities, the cultural milieu, and others’ expectations for them (Wigfield et al., 2009). More specifically, expectancies for success are individuals’ beliefs about how well they will do on a task. Expectancies for success are conceptually different from beliefs about competence or ability. I could perceive myself as having the competence and ability to complete a math problem, but might expect to do poorly because of the time constraints imposed. Thus, expectancies are based on multiple factors and are always evolving. Value refers to the qualities of the task that influence a person’s desire to perform the task. Task value is a perception or set of beliefs a person has about a particular task. Eccles (2005) describes four components of task value: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Attainment value is related to one’s identity. Tasks have high attainment value when they are central to one’s sense of self. For example, a young woman who defines herself as an honors student may view the task of taking calculus as having value because completing the class would confirm her identity of honors student. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment one gains from performing a task. A person might spend hours shooting baskets because of the enjoyment derived from the task. When you are so engaged in an activity that you lose track of time, the task likely has intrinsic value for you. Utility value refers to the usefulness of the task with regard to future plans. For instance, getting good grades may allow a student to play on the school’s basketball team. In this case the task has value because it is viewed as necessary for completing some other valued task. The final value, cost refers to what an individual has to give up to perform the task and how much effort will be required. A task might be perceived as costly in time, as being difficult, or as requiring a lot of work. The more costly, the more valued the task. Tasks that are easy or quick have less value.

Expectancy-value theory predicts that individuals will be motivated to perform a given behavior to the extent that they expect a reasonable level of success and the behavior has value (Wigfield et al., 2009). It is fairly logical that students put forth more effort on tasks that they value and for which they are likely to succeed or obtain some valued reward. If students do not understand the purpose of an activity or do not think the outcome is of value, their motivation will likely wane. Similarly, if students expect to fail at a task or see little opportunity for success, their motivation will likely decline.

Expectancy-value theory is useful in explaining the relationship between motivation and teacher communication behaviors in the classroom. To feel motivated, students must value and appreciate the tasks they are being asked to perform. When a teacher approaches the learning tasks with immediacy and other positive communication behaviors, students are likely to perceive the tasks as having value. Immediate teachers implicitly send the message that the tasks at hand are important and of value: perhaps increasing attainment value. Clarity behaviors may help students understand the utility of the task, further enhancing value. Teachers engaging in positive communication behaviors also help develop expectations for success among students. Behaviors such as immediacy, affinity-seeking, caring, and confirmation create an environment that is encouraging and supportive. Success seems much more likely when we feel supported and cared about. Additionally, teachers who engage in positive behaviors are better liked, which makes their praise and attention more valuable rewards for students. Thus, because they value the learning tasks and expect to succeed, students develop motivation to learn when they have teachers who communicate effectively.

ARCS Model

Another theoretical approach to motivation that has influenced communication scholars is Keller’s (1983) ARCS model of motivation. The ARCS model consists of four major components: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (Keller, 1983, 1987b) and is rooted in expectancy-value theory. The ARCS model was created to provide a link between theory and practice. Attention is the first step in the motivation process and indicates that teachers must gain the interest of their students. If students are not paying attention, they will not understand the task, thus reducing its value. The second step of relevance is “the learner’s perceptions of personal need satisfaction in relation to the instruction, or whether a highly desired goal is perceived to be related to the instructional activity” (Keller, 1983, p. 395). To be a motivated learner, a student must perceive the learning situation as meeting personal needs, or in other words, perceive the work as relevant to his or her life. The third step of the ARCS model, confidence, refers to the expectations a student holds concerning the course material and learning tasks (Keller, 1983). Students who believe they have the ability to receive high marks on an assignment, for example, will be more motivated to learn the content than students who do not believe they can succeed. The final step, satisfaction, recognizes that the outcome of the situation will influence whether the student will want to repeat the behavior in the future (Keller, 1987a). The attention and relevance steps are closely linked to the task value component in expectancy-value theory. Making content interesting and relevant build task value. The confidence and satisfaction components are aligned with the expectancy component of expectancy-value theory.

Frymier (1994a) used Keller’s ARCS model to explain why teacher immediacy had a positive impact on student learning. She argued that the positive nature of teacher immediacy creates positive expectations in students, creating confidence, and therefore motivation. Frymier also argued that immediate teachers garnered students’ attention, consistent with Kelley and Gorham’s (1988) attention-arousal perspective. Students are also more satisfied with classroom communication when they have an immediate teacher (Myers, Goodboy, Members of COMM 600, 2014). As a result, immediate teachers are thought to enhance motivation because they gain students’ attention, build confidence, and create satisfaction. Frymier (1994a) speculated that teacher immediacy did not enhance students’ perceptions of relevance, but later research demonstrated a positive relationship between immediacy and relevance, as well as between relevance and motivation (Frymier & Shulman, 1995). Therefore, the ARCS model, which is rooted in expectancy-value theory, explains why teacher communication behavior impacts students’ learning, further supporting a motivation model of teacher communication.

Self-Determination Theory

Early research on learning and motivation by Hull (1943) and Murray (1938) identified needs as important factors in motivation, but a focus on rewards tended to dominate motivation research for a number of years. The development of self-determination theory brought needs back into the spotlight. Deci and Ryan (2000) differentiated “basic” human needs from goals, motives, and desires. For example, the need for achievement is viewed as more situational and related to the basic needs, but is not in itself a basic need. Self-determination theory posits that basic psychological needs are the primary driver in human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and defines basic needs as “innate, organismic necessities” (p. 229). There are three basic psychological needs that must be met for a person to be intrinsically motivated. These needs are competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When these needs are nurtured and satisfied, healthy development occurs, which allows for intrinsic motivation to occur. If the needs are impeded and unsatisfied, intrinsic motivation decreases and individuals will compensate with less functional responses such as ego-defensiveness or withdrawal. Additionally, all three needs must be nurtured for optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, extra nurturing of one need does not make up for neglecting another. The nurturing of needs may be quite direct, such as seeking out friendship to satisfy the need for relatedness. However, behavior may not be explicitly linked to the basic needs when the needs are satisfied; rather individuals will do what they find interesting and important (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Although satisfaction of all three needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence) is important, autonomy seems to be particularly important. Autonomy refers to volition and the freedom of choice. Being able to organize an activity as desired satisfies the need for autonomy. Ryan and Deci (2009) summarize research indicating that greater control by teachers (less student autonomy) is linked with less intrinsic motivation and less learning. Autonomy needs are satisfied when students have greater choice and feel volition over their activities. For example, being able to decide what topics to include in this chapter and how to organize them, satisfies my need for autonomy. Competence reflects the need for mastery and feeling able to do things. When we feel able to perform a task effectively, we feel competent. Relatedness refers to having a secure relational base. We need to have close, secure relationships with others in order for our need for relatedness to be satisfied. In the learning context, these important interpersonal connections may be forged with the teacher and/ or other students.

Self-determination theory posits that in a given situation, experiencing satisfaction of all three basic needs results in greater intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2009). If need satisfaction is thwarted, intrinsic motivation declines. Intrinsic motivation is defined as activities individuals find interesting and would engage in regardless of any external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is driven by need satisfaction and not by personality or other individual characteristics. Behaviors driven by intrinsic motivation do not need to be rewarded (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In fact, rewarding behaviors that are intrinsically motivated can reduce motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2009). For example, if a child who is intrinsically motivated to read because it satisfies her needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is offered extrinsic rewards such as stickers and prizes for reading, the child’s intrinsic motivation for reading may actually decline.

When teachers rely on extrinsic rewards to motivate students, intrinsic motivation is undermined because autonomy is undermined. However, it is possible for extrinsically motivated behaviors to be internalized (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Deci and Ryan (2000) described internalization as similar to intrinsic motivation and defined it as “an active, natural process in which individuals attempt to transform socially sanctioned mores or requests into personally endorsed values and self-regulations” (pp. 235–236). These two forms of motivation are similar, but intrinsic motivation is rooted in interest (engage in behavior because of interest in the activity) while internalization is rooted in value (engage in the behavior because it is important; Ryan & Deci, 2009).

Internalization of extrinsically motivated behavior occurs on a continuum that ranges from external regulation to integration (Ryan & Deci, 2009). External regulation involves behavior that is controlled by some type of external rewards or punishments. A student who reads a chapter only to earn points is an example. Next on the continuum is introjection, which is partial internalization. Engaging in a behavior to avoid guilt, embarrassment, or anxiety would be an example of introjection (Ryan & Deci, 2009), such as reading a chapter to avoid being humiliated in class. The next step on the continuum is identified as regulation, which is when an individual identifies with the value of the behavior. A student who reads the chapter because he believes the content is important has identified with the value of the behavior. The most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is integration (Ryan & Deci, 2009). With integration a person has identified with the behavior and integrated it into her values and sense of self. Both intrinsically motivated and integrated behavior are performed without external rewards. Students who approach learning tasks with intrinsic or integrated motivation will work independently and put forth effort to complete the task.

Self-determination theory is useful in explaining why teacher communication behaviors positively impact student motivation, and in turn, student learning. Teacher clarity reduces barriers to learning. When students understand what is going on in the classroom, their feelings of competence and autonomy increase. Feeling confused and uncertain about what is expected or what to do makes a person feel unable to perform, thus thwarting satisfaction of competence and autonomy needs. In addition, a lack of clarity increases the likelihood students will fail simply because they do not understand, which further reduces feelings of competence. Teacher immediacy, affinity-seeking, and confirmation facilitate the development of positive student-teacher relationships, which help satisfy relatedness needs. When students feel supported and safe in the classroom, communication between themselves and the teacher increases, meeting relatedness needs. Teacher confirmation also helps satisfy competence needs. Being acknowledged, endorsed, and recognized (the three confirmation behaviors) builds students’ feelings of competence and perhaps their sense of autonomy. Thus, teachers who engage in effective communication behaviors create learning environments where students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, opening the door for students to develop intrinsic motivation for learning. Using path analysis, Goldman, Good-boy, and Weber (2015) provided support for this thinking. They found that students’ need satisfaction mediated the relationship between instructors’ communication behavior (accessibility, course-related practices, and interpersonal competence) and students’ intrinsic motivation. Effective teacher communication also likely increases motivation by encouraging integration. Students are more likely to identify with clear, immediate, confirming teachers and integrate the lessons into their values and sense of self. Self-determination theory provides a robust explanation for why teacher communication behavior positively impacts student-learning outcomes via motivation.

The usefulness of self-determination theory in both predicting and explaining the impact of teacher behavior on students was demonstrated by Kerssen-Griep, Hess, and Trees’ (2003) study of instructor feedback. These scholars examined three types of facework during feedback that aligned with the basic needs identified in self-determination theory. Solidarity facework refers to affiliation and collaboration. A teacher who engages in solidarity facework while providing feedback communicates to the student that “we’re in this together.” This form of facework aligns with the relatedness need. Approbation facework addresses students’ need for competence by casting their abilities in a positive light. Tact facework is tentative in nature so as not to reduce one’s autonomy. Kerssen-Griep et al. found all three types of facework to be associated with intrinsic motivation, and solidarity facework was the most consistent predictor. From a self-determination perspective, solidarity facework may meet needs for relatedness as well as confidence needs. The support communicated by solidarity builds confidence and therefore motivation. Self-determination theory provides a rich yet succinct explanation for why teacher communication behaviors are positively associated with student learning outcomes.

Future Directions and Conclusions

In the 1990s, Christophel (1990) and Frymier (1994a, 1994b) proposed the motivation model to explain the relationship between teacher immediacy and affinity-seeking and student learning. Since that time, substantial evidence has been accumulated to support the proposition that teacher communication behavior impacts students’ motivation which in turn influences learning. Given what is known today, Frymier’s (1994) motivation model of immediacy can be revised and reintroduced as the motivation model of teacher communication behavior.

Expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory both explain why teachers who engage in immediacy, affinity-seeking, clarity, and confirming behaviors positively impact students. These theories also provide the conceptual infrastructure to make predictions about which teacher behaviors will and will not enhance student motivation and lead to learning. For example, the teacher behavior of listening has not been studied in instructional communication. The motivation model predicts that listening behaviors that support autonomy and relatedness needs will enhance motivation and learning. Therefore, listening for the purpose of critically evaluating a student’s participation would not likely enhance motivation, but listening to understand would. Motivation theory also provides guidance on how to communicate with students. Both self-determination and expectancy-value theories can be applied to all levels of instruction to guide teachers on specific communication behaviors such as listening, feedback, providing directions, responding to requests, and many others. Specifically, teachers need to design instructional activities and communicate in a way that supports students’ basic needs, demonstrates the value of learning tasks, and develops positive expectations.

Adding receiver apprehension to the motivation model further strengthens it. As indicated by Ellis (2004), teacher communication behaviors can increase or decrease student apprehension. Anxiety and apprehension act as a barrier to motivation and learning, which is well documented by research on communication apprehension (see McCroskey & Richmond, 2006 for a review). Confirmation (Ellis, 2004) and clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001) are negatively related to receiver apprehension. Including apprehension enhances both the explanatory and predictive power of the model. However, not all students suffer from apprehension; therefore, effective teacher communication behaviors would likely impact both receiver apprehension and student motivation by meeting students’ basic needs as shown in Figure 6. The motivation model of teacher communication behavior maintains motivation as a mediator between instructor communication behavior and learning consistent with Christophel and Frymier’s original motivation model, but expands it to include more than teacher immediacy and is theoretically more robust.

Before the revised motivation model can be tested, the relationship between motivation and affective learning must be more thoroughly understood. The primary challenge to the motivation model has been the role of affective learning in the model. Two issues arise. First, involves the conceptual relationship between motivation and learning. These constructs may be opposite sides of the same coin and have a reciprocal relationship. Little conceptual work exists for affective learning. Perhaps the two constructs are not separate, but simply two interpretations of the same phenomenon. Affective learning is the appreciation and valuing of content. Motivation to learn is more complex, but valuing content is clearly a component of motivation, particularly from an expectancy-value perspective.

The second issue involves the measurement of affective learning and motivation. Communication scholars have most often used either Christophel’s (1990) 12-item student motivation scale or Richmond’s (1990) 5-item motivation scale. Both scales ask participants to use bipolar adjectives to assess their motivation to study for a specific class using adjectives such as motivated-unmotivated, excited-bored, and involved-uninvolved. Affective learning is typically measured using Mottet and Richmond’s (1998) scales, which also use bipolar adjectives. Affective learning sub-scales assess participants’ evaluation (good-bad) of the content and teacher and the likelihood (likely-unlikely) of using the content or taking another class with the teacher. The motivation scales ask participants to assess their motivation, interest, and excitement for studying the content of the course. Hence, these scales are quite similar. Additionally, a self-report survey methodology has dominated research examining the relationship between affective learning and motivation, which may account for some of the relationship. At this point, it is impossible to untangle the impact of measurement and research design on the observed relationship between motivation and affective learning. Both motivation and affective learning clearly involve an element of emotion; both are correlated with teacher behavior and cognitive learning.

Goldman et al. (2015) have taken initial steps to address this concern by developing an intrinsic motivation to learn measure. Using confirmatory factor analysis, Goldman et al. determined that their measure of intrinsic motivation and Christophel’s (1990) 12-item measure were distinct, but highly correlated. They argue that their measure is more closely aligned with motivation theory, particularly self-determination theory.

One thing is clear from the research; behaviors such as immediacy, clarity, affinity-seeking, and confirmation are much more than a means to popularity. Teachers who engage in these behaviors are not seducing students to think they have learned when they have not, as early critics argued. Rather these teachers’ communication choices facilitate student engagement in learning. A revised motivation model of instructor communication both explains the existing research and provides a path forward for instructional communication scholars.

References

Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372. doi:10.1037/h0043445

Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 91–115. doi:10.1080/03637758409390188

Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). New York, NY: Random House.

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The relationship between teacher clarity and immediacy and students experiences of state receiver apprehension when listening to teachers. Communication Quarterly, 46, 446–455. doi:10.1080/03634520109379232

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68. doi:10.1080/03634520109379232

Chesebro, J. L., & Wanzer, M. B. (2006). Instructional message variables. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 89–116). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Cissna, K. N., & Sieburg, E. (1981). Patterns of interactional confirmation and disconfirmation. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 253–282). New York, NY: Praeger.

Claxton, G. (2015). Intelligence in the flesh: Why your mind needs your body much more than it thinks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Eccles, J. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26, 264–291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00758.x

Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi:10.10/0363452032000135742

Frymier, A. B. (1993). The relationship among communication apprehension, immediacy and motivation to study. Communication Reports, 6, 8–17. doi:10.1080/08934219309367556

Frymier, A. B. (1994a). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133–144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922

Frymier, A. B. (1994b). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87–105. doi:10.1080/00909889409365391

Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?”: Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996

Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388–399. doi:10.1080/03634529209378900

Goldman, Z. W., Goodboy, A. K., & Weber, K. (2015, November). The measurement of college students’ psychological needs and intrinsic motivation to learn. Paper presented at the annual convention of National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Hurt, H. T., Scott, M. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Communication in the classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reogeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 2–10. doi:10.1007/BF02905780

Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26, 1–7. doi:10.1002/pfi.4160260802

Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 198–207. doi:10.1080/03634528809378719

Kerssen-Griep, J., Hess, J. A., & Trees, A. R. (2003). Sustaining the desire to learn: Dimensions of perceived instructional facework related to student involvement and motivation to learn. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 357–381. doi:10.1080/10570310309374779

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211. doi:10.1080/03634529609379049

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Understanding the audience: Students’ communication traits. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 51–66). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multicultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 44, 297–307. doi:10.1080/01463379609370019

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of COMM 600 (2014). College student learning, motivation, and satisfaction as a function of effective instructor communication behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 79, 14–26. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2013.815266

Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E., & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630–635.

Perry, R. P., Abrami, P. C., & Leventhal, L. (1979). Educational seduction: The effect of instructor expressiveness and lecture content on student ratings and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 107–116. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.107

Preiss, R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (2014). Perspectives on instructional communication’s historical path to the future. Communication Education, 63, 308–328. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.910605

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39, 182–195. doi:10.1080/03634529009378801

Richmond, V. P., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Teacher immediacy and the teacher-student relationship. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 167–193). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). New York, NY: Routledge.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55–75). New York, NY: Routledge.

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2006). The relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning: A meta-analysis. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 149–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). A cross-cultural test of immediacy-learning models in Chinese classrooms. Communication Education, 55, 313–330. doi:10.1080/03634520600748599

Zhang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2005). Teacher clarity: Effects on classroom communication apprehension, student motivation, and learning in Chinese college classrooms. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 255–266.