Motivation, the impetus that drives the individual to act, is situationally influenced by the context in which the behaviors are expected. Context, when viewed from the point of view of multiple learning theories, shares a common theme–behaviors do not occur in isolation; there is a complex set of factors that contribute to whether or not an individual can set goals and then act to achieve them. Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicates that people act in order to fulfill needs for personal growth (McLeod, 2022). Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory suggests that motivation to act arises from a belief that, in order to act, an individual has to perceive an end reward that is valuable enough to be worth the effort to achieve it (Miner, 2015). Finally, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory proposes that an individual’s willingness to act emerges from the interaction of a network of systems that create a developmental ecology, unique to each individual (Guy-Evans, 2020). While these seeming disparate models have different operational descriptions, all of them ultimately exist within a network of inseparable factors that affect learner motivation and participation in online and blended learning experiences.

Any discussion of whether or not individuals are motivated to learn in online and blended settings requires at the least a mention of the factors that affect an individual’s ability to be successful in a highly technical system. Individuals may or may not be successful for multiple reasons. Some individuals may not be successful due to problems with access–are there devices available, are the devices connected to the internet, and is the individual able to use the technology effectively. For others, lack of success might result from isolation and an absence of immediate feedback from instructors or collaboration with peers which can result in bad habits like procrastination, choosing less challenging options, or missing opportunities for interaction through synchronous meetings or online chats. Missed feedback might also result in lack of clarity on assignments or faulty expectations. For some, however, the benefits of online and blended learning environments–the ability to attend class from whenever and wherever, lower costs, flexible schedules–far outweigh the inconveniences and potential pitfalls. (Lehman & O. Conceição, 2014) The environment in which an individual operates ultimately determines their success in online and blended endeavors.

A Hierarchy of Needs (Abraham Maslow)

Why do people do what they do?  According to Abraham Maslow, individual behavior is tied directly to a hierarchy of needs that governs an individual’s motivation to achieve. Maslow’s earliest model proposed that at ground level, people have specific needs related to physiology–food, shelter, water, sleep. Up one level is an individual’s need for safety, including good health, protection from harm, stability, and even job security. The third level is related to belonging and love, and a person’s need for acceptance and personal connections with others. Esteem needs follow, and correspond to pride and feelings of accomplishment. At the top of Maslow’s original hierarchical model was self-actualization, where the individual feels fulfilled and content with their accomplishments. (McLeod, 2022) In this early model, Maslow believed that as basic needs were met, an individual would become more motivated to achieve higher goals, and therefore strive to do so.  Later, Maslow proposed the addition of cognitive needs, aesthetic needs, and at the apex of the hierarchy, occurring after (or with) self-actualization, transcendence; at this level, the individual pursues altruistic endeavors. (Koltko-Rivera, 2006). In these more recent evolutions of his theory, it is apparent that Maslow amended his beliefs, understanding that the satisfaction of needs at each level is not an all or nothing situation. Instead, he began to see the process of growth as nonlinear, and individuals move up and down on the hierarchy depending on their environment (McLeod, 2022).

Relevance to online/blended learning

Even though Maslow died (d. 1970) before the technological revolution became a classroom phenomenon, his hierarchical theory can provide a lens for thinking about these topics as they relate to students in online/blended learning settings. Overuse of technology can cause physiological problems with eyesight and sleep patterns. Issues related to internet security, cyberbullying, and privacy issues certain affect an individual’s feeling of safety. A sense of belonging can be created when individuals are included in group chats, invited to virtual meetings, are collaborators on interactive sites, or when feedback is given by the instructor to individual students via video, audio, or written entries in an online system. Esteem can be generated by positive analytics on a social media site, or by the publishing of student work on a global platform. Cognition can be developed through a multitude of online applications, such written work, games, simulations, practice quizzes that give immediate results, and online videos that share new ideas and examples of complex topics. Creative applications, online collections, and video and audio playlists provide aesthetic value. Self-actualization can be represented in an online personal portfolio or entrepreneurial website, and the ability to connect and support others around the globe allow people to transcend their place and time on the planet in order to help others in far-off places.  

While these are obvious ways to use technology to meet a student’s needs as described by Maslow’s hierarchy, in any order, any time, in the online or blended learning setting, the problem lies in motivating students to take advantage of them. Researchers have discovered that a mix of content types (fact-based vs. process-based), a combination of individual and collaborative activities, and weaving multimedia options into coursework can serve as motivating factors. In addition, the more applicable the content is to student lives the more motivated and persistent students will be to engage in online activity. Finally, shorter projects with hard deadlines, timelines to help students plan, along with rubrics and checklists can all increase the chances for engagement. (Lehman & O. Conceição, 2014) An engaged student is actively pursuing fulfillment, and the nature of the activity will determine which hierarchical need is being met. This correlation between Maslow’s needs and activities in an online or blended setting is obvious, but simplistic. A deeper look at two other theories–Expectancy Theory and Ecological Systems Theory–will reveal more complex notions of motivation and clarify why any attempt to motivate students must be multifaceted on one hand, and very specific to the individual on the other.

Expectancy Theory of Motivation (Victor Vroom, Lyman Porter, Edward Lawler)

Expectancy Theory was originally proposed by Victor Vroom in 1964. The model equates motivation to a decision making process–an individual chooses whether or not to accomplish a task based on the perceived benefit of putting forth the effort to do so. The theory posits an equation to represent motivation as a multiplicative process: motivational force = expectancy x instrumentality x valence. In other words, if an individual believes they can accomplish goals by working hard (expectancy), then their belief is multiplied by the strength of their conviction that they will, indeed, be able to meet those goals (instrumentality). In turn the belief that they can meet those goals is strengthened by a reward which they value (valence); the more they value a reward or the more beneficial a reward is to them, the more likely it is that they will put in the effort required (motivation). (Miner, 2015)

Context has the capacity to influence behavior in this model in several ways.  First, the process can be influenced by others within the individual’s environment. If the individual is supported and encouraged by others to believe they are capable of reaching their goals, then the individual is more likely to choose to put forth the effort. On the other hand, if the expectations of others are low, then the individual will not be as motivated to put in effort, and the potential reward would be lost. Second, the nature of the task can influence motivation. Is the task meaningful and relevant to the individual? Will it result in significant, recognizable impact? Is the work important? Next, the reward process itself can be motivational. If the reward is directly linked to accomplishing the task, if the reward is given based on accurate evaluation of an individual’s performance (which corresponds to whether or not a person deserves the reward), and if the reward is truly valuable, then motivation increases not only for the individual to continue to work hard, but for others in an organization who are observers of the process. (Miner, 2015)  Finally, in a later rethinking of Vroom’s theory, Lyman Porter and  Edward Lawler suggested that feedback loops inherent in the theory actually increase motivation and encourage individuals to continue performing at high levels (I like doing this, I will get a great reward, I did it and the reward is awesome, so I will do it again). Conversely, if an individual has put in what they perceive as a great amount of effort, but does not receive the expected reward or the reward is less than expected, motivation will decrease as the result of a negative feedback loop. 

Relevance to online/blended learning

While Expectancy Theory was originally intended to guide workplace motivational techniques, it is equally useful for thinking about motivation in the classroom, where the individual is the student, the tasks are classroom activities, and the rewards might be grades. When technology is added as a factor, the correlation isn’t so simple. A task that now involves technology, includes a vast array of resources. It is important to recall issues that may make it difficult for a student to confidently approach the task, which in itself can reduce motivation according to Expectancy Theory. Do they have access? Are they digitally fluent? Are they able to use search engines effectively? Are they able to evaluate the credibility of their sources? The digital world is infinitely more complex than the one in which the instructor was the expert and purveyor of all things to be learned. Students are now thrust into the role of becoming experts and learning on their own, ready or not, at ages where critical thinking may not yet be physiologically possible. With all the digital processes that students need to master in order to satisfactorily complete an online task, the challenge for teachers is enormous. How can teachers help students learn all of these technological processes, at an appropriate level and still help students meet learning outcomes? What about the reward? What rewards are desirable? Grades? How can rewards be restructured to incentivize learning in the classroom? There is not one right or always true answer, because students always have a choice about whether or not to engage–and those choices may change based on the day-to-day context in which they are made.

Correlation to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Questions aside, Expectancy Theory provides a fairly simple formula for use in the online classroom. Expectations (I can do this work) → Instrumentality (the reward is worth working for) → Valence (the reward has value). It is possible to consider this formula in terms of the influence of Maslow’s hierarchy.  In education whether online or face-to-face, the things that are going on at home often delineate the needs that a student has at any given point. A fight with a parent or spouse might affect feelings of love and belonging, impacting whether or not a student can focus on effort in order to complete classwork (instrumentality) and receive high marks (reward). A low-score on a project or assessment may reduce a student’s esteem, derailing their expectations of success. Or a student musician might practice hard (expectancy) to perform well (instrumentality) and be rewarded with an ovation (reward), even though their need for safety may be compromised by cyberbullying. 

Because placement on the hierarchy is different for each student, using hierarchical needs as the basis for the motivating participation in online and blended learning environments (with Expectancy Theory in mind) would be most effective when student choice is deliberately given. For example, there is potential for using the hierarchy to determine rewards that will inspire students to reach for and attain desired outcomes. While not every student will desire the same type of reward, offering a menu of rewards that correlate to a range of individual needs (as defined by Maslow) could provide individualized incentives that result in student achievement. In fact, understanding Maslow’s hierarchy can be helpful in designing any work that involves student choices. Student choice is not a new idea; however, these choices are often based on a student’s cognitive needs. When cognition isn’t the driving factor, choices can also be designed to address student needs as defined by Maslow’s hierarchy. When the choices are activities that students believe they can do (expectancy), and they choose a reward they know is worth the effort (instrumentality), then they will be more motivated to learn. The idea of offering needs-based choices also has the potential to address issues specific to online and blended learning. Choices related to digital expertise and fluency (which platforms is the student comfortable with) and access (when and where does the student have time to interface), would impact a student’s expectations and effort. Maslow’s hierarchy can help the educator understand student behavior, and when used to guide choices in developing expectations and setting rewards, has the potential to positively impact motivation. Choices combined with the expectancy model can provide a multifaceted approach to meeting student needs and motivating them to learn. Bronfenbrenner’s model expands this thinking from a linear process of effort and reward, to a complex system of interrelated levels of influence.

Development Ecology Model (Urie Bronfenbrenner)

In his Ecological Systems Theory, Urie Bronfenbrenner espouses that an individual’s development occurs within a complex system affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment. The individual helps modify (construct) the environment by interacting with it. Succinctly, the individual shapes the environment and the environment shapes the individual in a bi-directional reciprocity that defies a simple explanation of developmental processes. In its simplest form, Bronfenbrenner’s model is represented as a series of concentric circles nested inside one another, with each circle representing an environmental system. The inner circle is identified as the microsystem, and is noted as the most influential system because it involves the people and structures closest to the individual  (family, teachers, peers). (McLeod, 2020) These interactions comprise the “proximal processes” which can shape attitudes of an individual which affect all other interactions. For example, if the individual exists in a positive environment, positive responses by the individual to other people and situations outside of their proximal environment are more likely. Immediately outside of the microsystem is the mesosystem, which is comprised of interactions between microsystems (parents to school, teacher to peers). Next is the exosystem which includes those factors that affect the mesosystem, which in turn affect the microsystem and the individual. The exosystem includes an individual’s neighborhood, the where significant others work, and the presence or absence of mass media in the home. Impacting all other systems is the macrosystem which includes culture, wealth/poverty, and ethnicity. Finally, the chronosystem involves major life changes such as marriage, birth and death, or historical events such as the election of governmental leaders or implementation of new laws, which can change the entire trajectory of an individual’s timeline. (Guy-Evans, 2020) Bronfenbrenner’s model attempts to define the context in which students are motivated to make good choices. However, continual interactions between the environments in which an individual lives results in an ecosystem in which the weather is ever changing, which means a student’s engagement cannot be relied upon to be consistent.

Relevance to online/blended learning

School culture establishes a context in which a student may be more or less motivated to perform. However, the student brings to the educational setting effects of other proximal processes that have shaped them. Thus, a school that invests in the use of technology as a tool for learning and growing has established a context in which the student could flourish and benefit from the expanded opportunities that technology in an online or blended setting would offer. However just because they could doesn’t mean they would. Parental expectations, poverty and access to resources at home would all exert influence on how much motivation a student would have toward online and blended learning in general, and technology in particular. And while this seems complex, according to Bronfenbrenner’s model, it’s still an oversimplification. Every system affects every other system, all the time.  Could this model help us understand the nuances of a student’s willingness to participate and persist in online learning? Undoubtedly. Practically, however, using this model to develop methods to motivate students in online and blended learning would be problematic due to the highly variable contexts in which the individual operates. 

Comparison to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Just as Maslow believes that an individual (here, the student) changes as needs are met or become unmet, and therefore the individual’s placement on the hierarchy of needs may fluctuate,  Bronfenbrenner would believe that the student is constantly affected by interactions of changing contexts. There seems to be a fairly reasonable correlation of Maslow’s hierarchy to the systems in Bronfenbrenner’s model. Safety and physiological needs seem to correspond to the microsystem, as these needs are met by those closest to the student (proximal processes) such as parents or school. Love, belonging, and esteem are needs that are met as a result of the interaction of parents, peers, and the school–the mesosystem. Students at the level of self-actualization possess self-determination and possess the confidence to withstand the influences of the macrosystem (wealth/poverty, ethnicity), and transcendent individuals are able to influence the macrosystem, and perhaps even the chronosystem, if they are able to instigate an event that can change the trajectory of a person’s life (marriage, birth, winning an election). Of the two comparisons, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model closely parallels Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. However, while the hierarchy can be seen as a continuum, and thus usable as a way to directly influence student behavior, Bronfenbrenner’s model displays the endless variability and interconnectedness of a student and their environment which makes this correlation difficult if not impossible. Instead, this model suggests that creating opportunities to influence a student’s proximal processes would result in positive impacts on student motivation.  For example, providing a device for each student to take home with them, along with neighborhood hotspots, would help ensure equitable access to technology for all students. With access, students would be able to engage in the work they are asked to do.

Synthesis 

Motivation happens. Until it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, there is no one reason why. All three theories can be used to help understand and explain why a student may or may not be motivated in online and blended settings, and being aware of the multitude of outside influences that impact a student’s ability to make decisions, set goals, and acquire the resources and connections needed to get work done is enlightening. Figure 1 summarizes the primary tenets of each theory, with images chosen to represent how the systems function. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, even with its specifically defined levels of interaction, is represented as a network–every level of interaction can and does impact every other level, even when that impact is passed through other players. It is these players–especially those involved in proximal process–that can and do influence motivation of the individual. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is represented as a game board; while the goal of the game is to reach transcendence, circumstances within an individual’s life may result in moving forward or backward along the continuum as needs for various types of support fluctuate. The treasure map represents Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. If there is enough value in the treasure (reward), an individual will be willing to gather their resources and put forth the effort to reach it. Finally, the dice in the middle represent the uncertainties of life. As an individual encounters challenges (seen or unforeseen), it alters the context in which they make decisions. Based on the new contextual parameters, the individual makes new choices about where to focus their attention and efforts.

For a teacher, using these types of models to explain why a student is or isn’t ready and willing to learn in online/blended learning is only a small part of the story. To be impactful for teachers, a theory must have implications for classroom practice. Alone, the Expectancy Theory is a useful model for thinking about motivation. Together, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Expectancy Theory offer even more plausible applications for both online and face-to-face classroom practice. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model, with its simultaneously nested and rotating concentric circles of influence, shows how connected a student’s life is to the broader world, which emphasizes the need for individuals within a student’s proximal system to become part of the educational process so the student is adequately supported.  In the end, motivation is a choice, and it is the job of the instructor to structure the learning environment in a way that acknowledges the different contexts in which students operate, and in so doing, offer opportunities for choice that move students to engage.

Going virtual (or partially so) has presented a unique environment for learning. Technology, once both feared and revered, an engaging factor simply because of its rarity and newness, has lost some of its intrigue by its familiarity. At the same time, its ease of use to generate a plethora of ready-made answers can be overwhelming. Is it possible that the onslaught of educational technology contributes to apathy and disenchantment with learning simply by its omnipresence and its bounty? The answer to this question is discoverable only when the needs of the individual and the expectations placed upon them are analyzed in the context of a multifaceted environment.

References

Christensen, J. (2010). Proposed enhancement of Bronfenbrenner’s Development Ecology Model. Education Inquiry, 1(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v1i2.21936

Christensen, J. (2016). A critical reflection of Bronfenbrenner´s development ecology model. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 69(1), 22–28. 

Elliott, J. G., & Tu2015dge, J. (2011). Multiple contexts, motivation and student engagement in the USA and Russia. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(2), 161–175. 

Fisher, M., & Crawford, B. (2020). “From school of crisis to distinguished:” using Maslow’s hierarchy in a rural underperforming school. The Rural Educator, 41(1), 8–19. 

Guy-Evans, O. (2020, Nov 09). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. http://www.simplypsychology.org/Bronfenbrenner.html

Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of Implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2091–2108. 

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and Unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302–317. 

Lehman, R. M., & O. Conceição Simone C. (2014). Motivating and retaining online students: Research-based strategies that work. Jossey-Bass. 

Mcleod, S. (2022, April 4). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Miner, J. B. (2015). Organizational behavior 1 essential theories of motivation and leadership. Taylor and Francis.

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–258.

Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575–586. 

Wan, Z. H. (2019). Exploring the effects of intrinsic motive, utilitarian motive, and self-efficacy on students’ science learning in the classroom using the expectancy-value theory. Research in Science Education, 51(3), 647–659.