Participants completed the intrinsic motivation inventory (Ryan, Koestner,&Deci,1991), which contains 22 items such as“I felt like I wasdoing what I wanted to do while I was working on the task”and“I felt that it was my choice to do the task.”Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree; Cronbacha¼.86).

Individuals using a badge system are often initially interested in the task (e.g.,reading), receive something tangible in the form of a badge they can view and show others, and are able to see the requirements forreceiving a badge and thus are not surprised when they earn one.

offering tangible, expected rewards to individuals whoare already interested in a topic may cause them to shift motivations from intrinsic (i.e., because they wanted to) to extrinsic (i.e., becausethey want to earn a reward;Lepper et al., 1973). When the reward is present, one may be interested in completing the task, but once thereward is removed one will no longer have a reason to perform a behavior (Lepper et al., 1973).

Cognitive evaluation theory (Deci&Ryan, 1985)predicts that external events can shape one's intrinsic motivation (i.e., doing it because one wants to, and not due to outside pressures) basedon whether individuals process those events as informational or controlling. If a reward provided for a task is seen as an informational, thenit will make one feel competent and in control, leading to higher intrinsic motivation. If a reward is seen as controlling, it makes one feelpowerless and incompetent, decreasing intrinsic motivation. Studies have shown that giving rewards for a task one alreadyfinds interestingends up harming motivation to do that task (Deci et al.,1999, 2001; Lepper, Greene,&Nisbett,1973). Thus, although there may be benefits togamification, it is also important to examine potential drawbacks as it may hamper the motivation educators are trying to cultivate.

creating a gamified system alone was insufficient to cause an increase in these behavioral measures; rather, it depended onindividual users' interest levels (Hamari, 2013)

Introducing React-Static! How it works and why we built it!

Research on motivation makes a distinction between two motivational systems. The approach system engages when people pursue a goal to achieve a desirable outcome. The avoidance system engages when people pursue a goal to avert some threat or calamity.

Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2020, May 6). Testing the Motivational Tradeoffs in Pathogen Avoidance and Status Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/y8ct6

Spiritualität und Mystik wurden dem platten Rationalismus und hysterischen Materialismus entgegengestellt.

There are two things that you can help me out: time and motivation. This is the place where you can find out how to do that.

Your idea should stem from solving someone’s problem. Ideally, your own problem. It’s important that you choose an idea which interests you. Interest is key to fuelling motivation which is crucial when making a web app. It takes effort building web apps and it’s important you have fun during the process.

When you get tired of thinking about a piece of work and feeling bad for not finishing it yet, go "screw it, let's do it" and start with something, anything.

When you know that you don't have to make the greatest thing ever right from the start, it's easier to start. And then it's easier to continue.

Larry Wall famously said he was driven to create Perl by how difficult it was to solve a problem while coding, as well as by an abundance of 'laziness, impatience and hubris'

the impetus may have been more the challenge of creating a language of his own.

Look over your list. Do they contain words like published, awarded, graduated, built, founded or created? Or do they contain mostly adjectives like nice, caring, loving, honest and smart? If you’re in the first sentence it’s likely you’re an SC. If the majority of your responses are in the second sentence you are likely an RC.

Doesn't this already exist? Probably Then why did you do it? Why does anyone do anything?

Why NewPipe is free

Empowering Education: A New Model for In-service Training of Nursing Staff

Description explains the issue / use-case resolved

Learning Domains

establish

With Suspense, you have the ability to suspend component rendering while async data is being loaded. You can pause any state update until the data is ready, and you can add async loading to any component deep in the tree without plumbing all the props and state through your app and hoisting the logic.

Importantly, research shows that good behavior diminishes as rewards are phased out

This has a scientific basis: Robert Cialdini’s principle of consistency stipulates that when someone takes a small action or step towards something, they feel more compelled to finish.

Their responses were consistently related to autonomy, relatedness or competence.

How to Design Education for Adults

Adults & Learning: How to Provide for Working Professionals

Engaging  Adult  Learners

Overview of Learning Theories

The desire to assist in disaster events in some way is broad [12, 18], but the mechanisms for enabling action in the form of on-line work or commitment, as with other causes, can beunclear [22, 28, 30].

Following Orlikowski [29], this analysis unites both practice-based [35]and structurational-basedinterpretations of coordination and social organization [8] to understand the nature of collective work in large, distributed,and emergent groups—groups that havesome existing common motivation to help but have little prior precedent for how that work might be conducted[21]

In the domain of pet advocacy, the latent potential for crowd interaction comes fromintrinsic and extrinsic motivations—we focus on how that potentialwas transformed intoa viable form of distributed, decentralized cooperative work.

Years of traditional education teaches students that what really matters is their grades, not their learning. Students know that while teachers might give lipspeak to “learning,” in the end, the grade is what everyone — teachers, parents, administrators, other students, and society at large — cares about.

Working hard requires opportunity and encouragement in addition to intrinsic desire — indeed, opportunity and encouragement can often spark that intrinsic desire.

The UbD framework helps focus curriculum and teaching on the develop-ment and deepening of student understanding and transfer of learning (i.e., the ability to effectively use content knowledge and skill)

The W3C model allows for users to add a motivation to their annotation.

Motivations

Motivation and Purpose

The intent behind the creation of an Annotation or the inclusion of a particular Body or Target is an important property and represented by a Motivation resource.

Peer production successfully elicits contributions from diverse individu-als with diverse motivations – a quality that continues to distinguish it fromsimilar forms of collective intelligence

Resolving the tensions between different motivations and incentives presentsa design challenge for peer production systems and other collective intelli-gence platforms. The complex interdependence of motivations, incentive sys-tems, and the social behaviors that distinct system designs elicit has led Krautand Resnick (2012) to call for evidence-based social design and Benkler (2009,2011) for cooperative human system design.

Evidence from this newer body of research shows that motivations are di-versewithincontributors and that different contributors have different mixesof motivations.

The most important insight provided by some of this newer workis that contributors act for different reasons, and that theories based on a sin-gle uniform motivational model are likely to mischaracterize the motivationaldynamics.

In particular, these neweraccounts have focused on social status, peer effects, prosocial altruism, groupidentification, and related social psychological dimensions of group behavior

hat said, a growing number of stud-ies also suggest that these motives interact with each other in unpredictableways and, as a result, are vulnerable to “crowding out” when the introduc-tion of extrinsic incentives undermines intrinsic motivation

Other foundational research on motivation in peer production by Lernerand Schankerman (2010) and others has explored why organizations, firmsand governments, rather than individual users, choose to participate in opensource software.

Despite their differences in emphasis,scope, and genre, all of these surveys support the claim that motivations inpeer production are diverse and heterogeneous.

Frequently cited motivations in foundational work by theseauthors, von Hippel and von Krogh (2003), von Krogh (2003), and others in-cluded: the use value of the software to the contributing developer; the hedo-nic pleasure of building software; the increased human capital, reputation,or employment prospects; and social status within a community of peers.Other early accounts analyzing examples of peer production beyond FLOSSsuggested additional motivations. For example, Kollock (1999) emphasizedreciprocity, reputation, a sense of efficacy, and collective identity as salientsocial psychological drivers of contribution to online communities and fo-rums.

A second quality of peer production that challenged conventional economictheories of motivation and cooperation was the absence of clear extrinsic in-centives like monetary rewards. Traditional economic explanations of behav-ior rely on the assumption of a fundamentally self-interested actor mobilizedthrough financial or other incentives. In seeking to explain how peer produc-tion projects attract highly skilled contributors without money, much of theliterature on peer production has focused on questions of participant moti-vation.

A newer wave of work has stepped back from this approachand sought to explain how multiple motivational “vectors” figure in the cre-ation of common pool resources online – an approach that underscores a coreadvantage of peer production in its capacity to enable action without requir-ing translation into a system of formalized, extrinsic, carrots and sticks.

I saw Eliot Higgins present in Paris in early January, and he listed four ‘Ps’ which helped explain the different motivations. I’ve been thinking about these a great deal and using Eliot’s original list have identified four additional motivations for the creation of this type of content: Poor Journalism, Parody, to Provoke or ‘Punk’, Passion, Partisanship, Profit, Political Influence or Power, and Propaganda.This is a work in progress but once you start breaking these categories down and mapping them against one another you begin to see distinct patterns in terms of the types of content created for specific purposes.

To understand the current information ecosystem, we need to break down three elements:The different types of content that are being created and sharedThe motivations of those who create this contentThe ways this content is being disseminated

Meaningful work drives engagement

In hindsight, I read these acts as cries for help, a kind of academic self-medication. I was bored, not because I’d mastered the required material – I got more than my share of non-A grades – but because the things I was asked to do were generally uninspiring. Perhaps nothing was more uninspiring than preparing for an AP exam.

the right to exclude is not a necessary incentive – it is but one way to secure money in exchange for the fruits of one’s labor

An overwhelming number of companies (64%) indicated that their number one reason for implementing social tools is to support a culture of learning. The next two main motivations are to encourage collaboration and innovation (54%) and connect employees to organization experts (42%).

I joined #clmooc for fun. 

Rather than slowing down my learning, my learning accelerated.  Rather than having less time to do things, I was finding I had more time to do things. 

cribe and influence human motives

We noticed that this increment in productivity was a consequence of the student s’ involvement in the planning, estimation and controlactivities in each sprint. This practice reinforced the commitment and the responsibility of each student and favored the leaders’ development, which also contributed to motivate the team.

A teacher’s presence in learning activities and as part of community in online learn-ing environments is motivational (McIntyre 2011).

This is supported by Schwier’s (2007) views that ‘communities cannot be created; rather they emerge when conditions nurture them’ (p.18). These social interactions among students maximize students’ motivation and peer collabo-ration in learning (University of Texas 2013)

The design and the way courses are structured can be vital factors that are associated with students’ motiva-tion and positive/negative experiences of learning online.

the elements—tools and community—seemed to mediate stu-dents’ active participation and motivation in the process of achieving their (subject) learning objectives (object). Tool mediation, which is a key principle of Activity Theory, highlights that human activity is mediated by various tools

Either way, student motivation and engagement are closely related elements of student learning that can have an impact on learning outcomes. Beer etal. (2010)state that in spite of the fact that there is no universally accept-ed definition of what comprises engagement, student and college success, student retention and student motivation are always linked to engagement.

Identifying Factors Influencing Students’ Motivation and Engagement in Online Courses

this gets more difficult if the topic isn’t that interesting to me

In addition, the discontinuity between classroom theory and practical learning had implications for both the quality of learning and the learners' levels of motivation.

A recent organization of the experimental literature (Deci 8z Ryan, in press) revealed that events which are experienced as supporting autonomy and promoting or signifying competence-thus facilitating an internal perceived locus of causality and perceived competence-tend to increase intrinsic motivation as reflected, for example, by behavior that persists with a minimum of external support. We refer to these initiating or regulatory events as informational. Events that are experienced as pressure toward particular outcomes-thus co-opting choice and facilitating an external perceived locus of causality-tend to undermine intrinsic mo- tivation, restrict creativity (Amabile, 1983), and impair cognitive flexibility (McGraw & McCullers, 1979). We refer to these events as controlling. Finally, events which are experienced as conveying that the person cannot master an activity-thus promoting perceived incompetence-undermine intrinsic motivation and tend to leave one feeling helpless (e.g., Boggiano & Barrett, 1984). We refer to these events as amotivating.

The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality

The significance of autonomy versus control for the maintenance of intrin-sic motivation has been clearly observed in studies of classroom learning.For example, several studies have shown that autonomy-supportive (in con-trast to controlling) teachers catalyze in their students greater intrinsic moti-vation, curiosity, and the desire for challenge (e.g., Deci, Nezlek, & Shein-man, 1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Students who are overly controlled notonly lose initiative but also learn less well, especially when learning is com-plex or requires conceptual, creative processing (Benware & Deci, 1984;Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Similarly, studies show children of parents whoare more autonomy supportive to be more mastery oriented—more likely tospontaneously explore and extend themselves—than children of parents whoare more controlling (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997)

In fact, the majority of the research on the effects of environmental eventson intrinsic motivation has focused on the issue of autonomy versus controlrather than that of competence. And this issue has been considerably morecontroversial. The research began with the demonstration that extrinsic re-wards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Lepper, Greene, &Nisbett, 1973), which we interpret in terms of the reward shifting peoplefrom a more internal to external perceived locus of causality. Although theissue of rewards has been hotly debated, a recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koes-tner, & Ryan, in press) confirms that virtually every type of expected tangiblereward made contingent on task performance does, in fact, undermine intrin-sic motivation. Furthermore, not only tangible rewards, but also threats(Deci & Cascio, 1972), deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), direc-tives (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), and competition pressure(Reeve & Deci, 1996) diminish intrinsic motivation because, according toCET, people experience them as controllers of their behavior. On the otherhand, choice and the opportunity for self-direction (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac,Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) appear to enhance intrinsic motivation, as theyafford a greater sense of autonomy

ntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions andNew Directions

ngiblerewards significantly undermined intrinsic motivation, particularly for interestingtasks (–0.68) compared with uninteresting tasks (0.18). I

78.9% of the pupils who actually received grades would have preferred written comments, and 86.3% of those who received comments were satisfied with this mode of evaluation

in the grades group, 26.7% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores, and 34.4% attributed it to the importance of success, whereas among those who received no feedback only 7.2% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores and 40% attributed it to the "positive" aspect of need achievement, the desire to succeed.

We expected that receipt of indiviaualized, specific, non-normative information about task performance, includ- ing both positive and negative comments, would maintain or even enhance subsequent motivation.

One aspect that merits further study is the search for information about one's com- petence and success in a task (Festinger, 1954; Suls & Miller, 1977). Such information seems vital to a sense of mastery and self-determination because without it one can- not assess one's mastery in any given task. Thus one would expect the availability (and/or expectation) of feedback to be an important factor in task motivation in general and in determining interest, or intrinsic motivation, in particular. Specifically, one would expect intrinsic motivation to be greater for tasks perceived as supplying information about competence and to be undermined when no such informa- tion is expecte

InastudybySwann&Arthurs(1998),alargenumberoftheirstudentsseemedtotakeaninstrumentalviewoflearning,conceivingassessmenttasksasobstaclestoovercomeinthepursuitofgrades.Formativefeedbackwasviewedasameanstonegotiatetheseobstacles.InanearlierstudybyBeckeretal.(1968)ofAmericancollegelife,assessmentdemandswereubiquitous,andstudentbehaviourreectedtheinstrumentalandpragmaticstrategiestheyadoptedtocopewiththeparticularteachingandassessmentpracticesimposedonthem.Butisthistruefortoday’sstudentinthecontextoftheUK?Amajorityofthestudentsinourstudyperceivehighereducationasa‘service’,andfeltthatfeedbackconstitutespartofthatservice.Asonestudentnoted:TheywayIseeitiswe’repaying£1,000.It’smoreofaservicenow.Ifhighereducationisviewedasaservice,thenstudentsarearguablytheconsumersofthatservice.Butwhatdotheyexpecttheservicetoconsistof?Moststudentsinourstudylinkfeedbacktoattainingbettergrades.Thesestudentsperceivefeedbackcommentsasidentify-ingwhattheyaredoingrightandwrongand,therefore,helpingthemtoimprovetheirperformanceinsubsequentassessedassignmentsandexaminationsinordertoraisetheirmarks:Partofwritingtheessayquestionintheexamishavingtherighttechnique,andwhilstitwouldbeusefultosaythat‘yeah,you’rebringingingoodpartsoutsidethesubjectandit’sgoodthatyou’vebroughtinthis’,itwouldalsobegoodtoknow‘well,don’teverusethislanguageintheexam’causeit’sgoingtocountagainstyou’

n addition, we examined whether there were differences in reactions to grades for papers versus exams. The two-way interactions between goals and type of feedback and the three-way interactions among goals, types of feedback, and grades were tested. Neither the main effects nor the interaction terms were significant, and including these terms did not alter the results for goals and goal interaction term

. Even in the context of high grades, a per formance-avoidance goal is related to decreased motivation, highlighting just how aversive evaluative situations are with this goal orientation. Pe

ulnerability to helpless behavior in the context of failure on experimental tasks. In contrast, and also consistent with Dweck's prior work (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; El liott & Dweck), mastery goals were associated with enhanced motivation during the critical phase of processing evaluative information on an important task, and this effect was not moderated by the level of the gra

rades. Students self-reported their grades. Grades for the English and history classes were the grades students received on the first major paper of the semester. Grades for the other courses were the grades students received on the first major exam of the semester. Grades were converted into a 13-point scale with F = 1 and A+ =13. We also assessed students' perceptions of their grades to address the pos sibility that it is the students' perceptions of their grades as successful, or not, that are more important than their actual grades. After reporting their exam or paper grades on the survey, students were asked, "In your opinion, how well did you do on the exam or paper?" The format for this item was 1 (not at all well) through 7 (very well). Students' perceptions of how well they did were highly correlated with their reported exam or paper grades (r = .77, p < .001), indicating that stu dents who received higher grades tended to feel they did w

Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed (a

uccess and failure are attrib uted to effort (Ames, 1992). Even in the face of failure or obstacles, a mastery goal is associated with persistence (Ames, 1984; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1995; Stipek & Kowalski, 1989). When oriented toward a mas tery goal, success (in the case of high grades) bolsters motivation, whereas a lack of progress (in the case of low grades) signals more effort is needed and thus does not diminish motivation. Therefore, we expected a mastery goal to be associated with increases in self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and a decrease in preference to avoid challenge regardless of high or low grades.

n recent years, some research has indicated that performance-ap proach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation nega tively (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). In particular, when the approach versus avoidance nature of performance goals is considered, performance-avoidance goals are maladaptive, whereas performance-approach goals are often positively associated with achievement and show a positive or neutral relation to motivation

iener and Dweck (1978) demonstrated that performance-oriented students exhibited a learned helpless pattern after ex periencing failure.

In the present research, we examined how students' goals relate to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value in response to grades in the classroom

Manual for thePatterns of Patterns of Adaptive Adaptive Learning ScalesLearning Scales

achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Butler,1987; Nicholls, 1984) has consistently argued that grades engendera performance focus, as performance achievement goals are ge-nerically considered as normative in content (Elliot & Murayama

Why Grades Engender Performance-Avoidance Goals:The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation

All learning, he argued, is driven by intrinsic interest:

“If you set your goals ridiculously high and it’s a failure, you will fail above everyone else’s success.”

Findings indicate that adults get more out of positive activities than adolescents and college-aged students. That said, the college-age sample may be misleading, says Layous, because many undergrads are required to participate in studies for course credit, not by their own volition. In other words, a disproportionate number of students in these studies may lack the all-important motivation that their older counterparts have.

In one study, Lyubomirsky posted online two nearly identical requests for study participants. The only difference? One version told participants the study was meant to increase their happiness, while the other simply told them they’d take part in a cognitive exercise. After performing the same happiness-inducing activities, the people who signed up for the happiness study—the group Lyubomirsky saw as more “motivated” to become happier—gained more from the study than those who signed up for the other exercise.

Sirois suggests that interventions that focus on increasing self-compassion may be particularly beneficial for reducing the stress associated with procrastination because self-compassion allows a person to recognize the downsides of procrastination without entangling themselves in negative emotions, negative ruminations, and a negative relationship to themselves. People maintain an inner sense of well-being that allows them to risk failure and take action. 

Often because we fear failing at the task and dread all the negative self-evaluations that might result from that failure.