Abstract
Motivation plays a key role in education. This action research study evaluated the effectiveness of the power of choice of proximal academic goals as a strategy for boosting student motivation in an undergraduate composition and rhetoric course. Students were given choices to select easier or more difficult assessment tasks prior to essay examinations. The results indicated that more students in this sample group selected the most challenging tasks when given the choice. The implications of this study suggest that this approach has the potential to be a valuable motivational strategy in academic writing courses.

Keywords: EFL, Motivation, Action Research, Academic Writing

Introduction
Motivation for achieving competence is an endearing characteristic of human nature; however, it is not always intrinsic or self-directed. Teachers are continually challenged to motivate their students to learn and to develop self-efficacy. Furthermore, teaching practitioners who strive for continuous measurable improvement (CMI) are often challenged to find effective strategies to help boost motivation.

It is difficult to find a standardized definition for motivation. However, the word’s Latin root “movere,” which means “to move,” suggests that motivation can be defined as a process that starts with a need that activates behavior which in turn moves someone towards achieving a goal. Luthans (1995) suggests the process of motivation consists of progressive relationships between needs, internal drives, and the achievement of goals.

In educational contexts, goals or objectives are of paramount importance as they drive curriculum design; in addition, they are also a rationale for motivation. An excellent example of the importance of objectives is goal-driven or backward curriculum design as proposed by Wiggins and McTighe (2000). With this approach, curriculum designers start with objectives and then develop tasks that meet course objectives.

In this research study, the effectiveness of providing opportunities for personal choice of academic goals will be examined as a motivational strategy. This approach is based on motivational goal-setting theory. A research survey of experts in psychology and organizational theory at Northwestern University showed that goal-setting theory ranked first for validity and second for usefulness when compared to other motivational strategies (Lee & Early, 1988). In addition, management and organizational behavior theory advise that goal setting is a valuable strategy for increasing motivation (Dailey, 2000).  

The power of choice for selecting proximal goals has the potential to be a very effective motivational strategy for pedagogy and andragogy. A salient example is the highly successful approach to curriculum design introduced by Nunley (2002) known as Layered Curriculum ™. This approach has been successfully applied to multiple subjects including language learning, and has been used throughout the world. In this approach, students can select their own learning goals based on three levels of curriculum objectives that focus on higher levels of understanding (Nunley, 2002).

An example of incorporating the power of choice for an ESL/EFL writing course is providing learners the opportunity to select more challenging compositions that directly correspond to higher-grade bands. In short, more effort reflected by attempting more challenging tasks is acknowledged and potentially rewarded by higher grades. This facile approach can be used to encourage students to attempt tasks that are more challenging without the requirement for multiple curriculum objectives as with the Layered Curriculum ™ method. In addition, if students attempt more challenging tasks, it can be inferred that they generally realize more benefits as learners. As stated by the US Secretary of Education, “Give yourself an even greater challenge than the one you are trying to master, and you will develop the powers necessary to overcome the original difficulty” (Bennet, 1996).

In this research study, a hybrid motivational strategy was examined: the power of choice coupled with the power of proximal goal setting. The general purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of implementing a basic goal-setting choice model in an undergraduate composition and rhetoric course within an EFL/ESL context. The overall objective was to test a strategy for motivating students to do tasks that are more challenging and put more effort into their skill development. The specific objectives of the study were threefold: 1. to determine if students are willing to perform more difficult tasks if given the choice; 2. to determine if students who choose to pursue more difficult tasks realize measurable benefits; and 3. to evaluate the potential of using goal-setting theory for task and/or curriculum design.

Review of literature

The process of learning is underpinned by motivation; therefore, the psychology of motivation is of paramount importance in education. The field of educational psychology provides many important topics for research. Of particular interest is the application of curriculum, lesson, task, and assessment design to facilitate student motivation. Effective strategies that help motivate students to learn can be considered as valuable pedagogical tools that can help optimize the learning process.

Teachers as Contemporary Managers

Glasser (1988) asserts that teachers are very similar to modern managers because they direct and facilitate learning in the classroom. Both teachers and managers are in a position to offer punishments, rewards, direction and task plans, and these are clearly managerial tasks. Students can be viewed as autonomous learners; however, practical experience shows that extrinsic facilitation and management of learning is necessary.

Traditional management strategies are widely known to focus on the power of the manager as in top-down bureaucratic models. In contrast, contemporary management approaches focus more on sharing power, delegation, and employee empowerment (Bratton, Grint, & Nelson, 2005; Johns, 1996; Luthans, 1995). Similarly, traditional teacher roles are widely known to be more teacher-centered whereas contemporary teaching roles focus more on facilitation, student autonomy, and self-efficacy(Brophy, 1998; Brown, 1987; Cottrell, 2001; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 1995; Nunley, 2002).

Motivation Theory

From a practical perspective, teachers and managers know from experience that motivation is required for success. Experience shows that students often do not enjoy their learning tasks, yet they must maintain motivation to be successful. Motivation is essential for learning.

Motivation theory defines two types of motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic sources of motivation are usually applied by others and involve systems of rewards and punishments. In contrast, intrinsic motivation is usually self-applied and lies in the affective domain of feelings and emotional responses (Johns, 1996; Slavin, 2003). A substantial amount of motivational theory related to education has focused on the value of intrinsic motivation. This school of thought proposes that intrinsically motivating conditions can be facilitated through task design and the application of affective strategies (Cottrell, 2001; Moskowitz, 1978; Slavin, 2003).

A noteworthy motivational sequence for learning is proposed by Wlodkowski (1984). He asserts there are three stages that can help facilitate motivation: attitude and needs in the beginning stage; stimulation and affective strategies in the middle stage; and competence and reinforcement strategies in the final stage. Firstly, the attitude component suggests that teachers strive to facilitate positive attitudes towards learning the subject at hand and to establish expectancy that task demands can be met successfully. In addition, the needs component suggests creating a collaborative rather than competitive environment. In the second stage, stimulation requires the stimulation of learners’ attention, and the affective component suggests creating a positive group atmosphere. In the third stage, the competence component suggests creating activities that facilitate feelings of accomplishment and progress as products of effort. Finally, the reinforcement component suggests creating activities that will point to the positive results of tasks and that will lead to praise and/or rewards.

A similar motivational model is proposed by Glasser (1988). Glasser highlights the following motivational elements: survival, love and belonging, power, and freedom. This model is very similar to Wlodkowski’s sequence as it addresses essential affective concerns. Firstly, the survival element relates to feelings of comfort and security. Secondly, the love and belonging element suggests a positive group atmosphere that is less competitive and more collaborative. Thirdly, the power element relates to feelings of empowerment that are related to achieving one’s goals. Finally, the last element, freedom, relates directly to student autonomy and opportunities for students to make choices.

The last two elements are of particular interest: power and freedom. Power relates to empowerment and satisfaction in making progress towards one’s goals. This concept suggests that as students make progress, they feel a sense of power from improving their skills and gaining more knowledge. Power, therefore, can be viewed as highly motivating. Next, the element of freedom is also highly motivating. If students are given opportunities to make choices, they are more likely to become more intrinsically motivated to reach their goals.

Goal Setting Theory

Research shows that setting goals and making commitments to achieving goals increases motivation and performance (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Latham & Locke, 2002). Goal setting is generally successful when the goals have the following elements: proximal as when they represent a task to be done in the near future; specific, for example, write one paragraph with no more than one mistake rather than global (do a good job); and challenging as when goals are difficult but reachable. In addition, management and organizational behavior theory proposes a similar “SMART” model for setting motivating goals. SMART is an acronym that represents specific, measurable, achievable, resource-based, and time specific. (Dailey, 2000).

Brophy (1998) suggests that teachers should encourage their students to take goals seriously and commit to accomplishing them. Goals can be listed and students can be asked to select a choice that corresponds to an expected level of effort. This approach aligns with the concept of performance contracting as proposed by Tollefson et al. (1984).This approach facilitates teacher-student interaction about goal setting and it formalizes students’ commitments to goals. In addition, Slavin (2003) also suggests that teachers should provide opportunities for students to select their own goals to boost intrinsic motivation and increase self-efficacy.

Methodology

Overview
The sample group in this study consisted of undergraduate students in their first or second year at a Thai international college. These students were enrolled in English Communication (EC II) courses as part of their general education requirements. Participants in this study were studying academic writing and were assessed with essay examinations. Before written exams, students were presented with three choices: A, B, or C. The students selected which goal they wanted to pursue in preparation for an exam. Each goal required progressively longer and more challenging compositions with more research and preparation effort. As the preparation time for the exam was limited, the goal setting was proximal and time-specific. As the requirements for the task were presented in detail, the goals were specific and measurable. In addition, because the goals required progressively longer compositions with more research, the goals were challenging and resource-based. Therefore, this goal-setting model clearly followed the basic requirements outlined by goal-setting theory.

Population/Sample
Three EC II classes (group i: 20 students, group ii: 19 students, and group iii: 20 students) with a total of 20 male and 39 female subjects were selected for the study. In total, 129 choices made by 59 students were analyzed. The study group included students from the following bachelor degree programs: Business, Biological Science, Computer Science, Food Service, Finance, Marketing, Social Science, International Business, and SE Asian Studies.

Location
This study was conducted at a Thai International College known for the rigor of the English programs and the quality of graduates. English studies are organized into four English Communication levels: EC I, EC II, EC III, and EC IV. The context for this study was EC II, which is an academic English composition and rhetoric course. In this course, the following rhetorical patterns are introduced, practiced, and assessed: cause and effect, response, and argumentation.

Sampling Technique
To expedite the sampling and analysis of results, the results from the three classes were combined and studied as one group.

Procedures
The English Communication Level Two (EC II) class utilized an effective approach for written assessments. A number of topics, typically three, were identified as possible examination topics and students prepared outline cards with source information and references. On the day of the examination, one of the examination topics was selected to be the examination topic.

The EC II assessment method for written assessments provided an opportunity to study the power of choice of proximal goals. Students were presented with the choice to write longer and more challenging compositions for the possibility of a higher grade. The basic ‘C” level was designated as a five-paragraph academic essay with three support points and at least five references. Next, the “B” level was defined as a more detailed essay with six paragraphs and at least seven references. Finally, the “A” level was defined as a seven-paragraph essay with at least eight references.

The procedure for grading the essay examinations was as follows. Firstly, a grading rubric that focused on content and language control was used. The content grade was calculated using the following criteria: organization (35%), research (30%), and style/conventions (35%). After a content grade was assigned, a tally of language control errors across a random 25 lines of text was performed; each error resulted in a deduction of 1.5% from the total content score. Therefore, the final essay score was calculated by the following formula: (total content score) – (number of language control errors x 1.5%). Furthermore, for this study, there was one essay grader, which was the teacher in charge.

The graded exams were analyzed for the following characteristics: 1. What choices the students made; and 2. How their target (chosen) grades correlated with their actual grades.

Results

The choices the students made are shown in Figure 1. This histogram shows that out of a population of 129 choices, 64 students selected an “A” goal, 48 students selected a ‘B” goal, and 17 students selected a “C” goal. The results are noteworthy as they show that approximately 50 percent of the students selected the most challenging task, 37 percent selected the moderate-level task, and 13 percent selected the least difficult task. The findings clearly indicate that in this sample group, more students selected the most difficult task when given the choice. This result suggests that when given the choice, more students in this study gravitated towards more challenging tasks.

A set of data-plot graphs was generated to show the relationship between target grades and actual grades received. Figure 2 displays a data plot of the actual grades 64 students received when choosing an “A” goal. As shown in the graph, the mean is 82 percent, the maximum value is 94 percent, and the minimum value is 52 percent. Figure 3 shows a data plot of the actual grades received by 48 students who selected a “B” target. The mean for this group was 73 %, the maximum value was 88 percent, and the minimum value was 50 percent. Figure 4 displays a data plot of the actual grades that 17 “C” goal students received. For this group, the mean was 68%, the maximum was 79%, and the minimum was 50%.
The findings in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 show the tendency that measurable benefits are realized by students who attempt more difficult tasks. The measurable benefits are reflected by the mean grades received, which clearly increase for goals with higher levels of difficulty.

Conclusions and recommendations
The main objectives for this study were to determine if students are willing to perform more difficult tasks if given the choice, to determine if students who choose to pursue more difficult tasks realize measurable benefits, and to evaluate the potential of using goal-setting theory for task and/or curriculum design.

With regards to the first objective, more of the students in this study chose to pursue the most difficult task when presented with the choice. In this study, 50 percent of students selected the most difficult task, 37 percent selected the moderate task, and 13 percent selected the least difficult task.

With regards to the second objective, the majority of students realized measurable benefits by selecting a more challenging task. The actual grade mean for an “A” target was 82%, and the actual grade mean for a “B” target was 73%.
It can be inferred that the students who selected the more challenging tasks were motivated to practice and prepare more before assessments, which helped to facilitate the improvement and learning of writing and research skills. Therefore, it can be inferred that these students were generally more motivated to learn. This is a clear demonstration of the potential of using the power of choice coupled with goal setting as a motivational strategy.
With regards to the third objective, this study clearly shows the potential of the power of choice for proximal goal setting as a useful strategy for task and curriculum design. Setting proximal goals before tasks or assessments and at different stages in a course can help motivate students to put more effort into their work.

The implications of this study suggest that goal setting and providing opportunities for learners to select their own goals can help motivate students to learn.
Practical applications of the power of choice are centered on providing students with more opportunities to select their own proximal goals. Incorporating this motivational strategy into course and curriculum design is not labor intensive. For example, in an ESL/EFL writing course, three tasks that are progressively more difficult and correlate to higher grade bands could be presented to students before starting a task or assessment. As shown in this research study, composition length and research effort can be readily applied, as they are specific and measurable.

Recommendations for further study are focused on the research of the effectiveness of the power of choice of proximal goals for different courses and types of students. For different courses, the power of choice could be studied for effectiveness in public speaking, reading, literary analysis, or non-English related courses such as mathematics. For different types of students, research could be done for different student ages, such as high school students, or for different types of majors within an undergraduate program. Finally, it is suggested that this study be replicated with a larger sample size and more-detailed tracking of individual students to facilitate the comparison of final course grades received with a control group where the power of choice was not applied.

References
Bandura, A.  & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Bennett, W. (1996). Self-discipline: The book of virtues. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1st Touchstone Ed edition.

Bratton, J., Grint, K., & Nelson, D. L. (2005). Organizational leadership. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Brown, D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Cottrell, S. (2001). Teaching study skills and supporting learning. New York: Palgrave.

Dailey, R. (2000). Organizational behavior. London: FT Knowledge.

Diaz-Rico, L. & Weed, K. (1995). The cross-cultural language, and academic development handbook. Needham Heights, MA: Longwood.

Glasser, W. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York: Harper Perennial.

Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behavior: Understanding and managing life at work. Concordia University: Harper Collins.

Latham, G. & Locke, E. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

Lee, C. & Early, P. (1988). Comparative peer evaluations of organizational behavior theories. Boston: College of Northwestern University.

Luthans, F. (1995). Organisational behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions Management & Organisational Series.

Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class: a sourcebook of humanistic techniques. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Nunley, K. (2002). Layered curriculum: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom. South Jordan, UT: Brains.Org

Slavin, R. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tollefson, N. Tracy, D., Johnsen, E. Farmer, W., & Buenning, M. (1984). Goal setting and personal responsibility for LD adolescents. Psychology in Schools, 21 224-233.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wlodkowski, J. (1984). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.