What are the main motivation factors and tools at work?

This synopsis examines the place of the concept of motivation in adult education. It first attempts to clarify the relationship between motivation and the related terms used in adult education (needs, motives, appetite). The presentation of the integrative model of motivation, which reviews more than a hundred motivational theories, makes it possible to show the interest of this concept in explaining human activities, in particular those related to training. Finally, the last part of the article is devoted to a presentation of different motivational concepts and theories in order to demonstrate their possible applications in the context of adult education.

Keywords: motivation, commitment, training, need, adult.

Motivation in adult education: a specific question?

Although the term motivation is of recent use (Mucchielli, 1981; Feertchak, 1996), it has given rise to dozens of predominantly Anglo-Saxon theoretical formulations (Fenouillet, 2008, 2009). This extraordinary diversity is partly explained by its ability to explain innumerable human activities that are sometimes specific to a given context, which increases the number of possible models all the more.

Many motivational theories come directly from the world of work, such as the equity theory (Adams, 1963), the value-instrumentality-expectation theory (Vroom, 1964) or even the motivational theory of roles (Miner, 1993), for to cite just a few examples among many others. Other theories mainly come from the school or university world. This is the case of the theoretical current of achievement goals (Nicholls, 1984; Dweck and Legget, 1988; Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996) which postulates that during learning, pupils or students seek either to obtain the best evaluation , or to master the activity. Even if this double orientation can be pursued outside the school world, it is in this context that it takes on its full meaning.

Is this specificity linked to the application context found in adult training? Indeed, this learning context is very close to the academic world in certain respects but stands out strongly from it in others. For example, if the evaluation is present, it is more to evaluate the satisfaction of the learner than to sanction his knowledge. Its inclusion in the world of work, with a learning mission that aims for profitability in one form or another, gives it a special status which therefore necessarily directs the motivation of the learner. Was the observation of these differences sufficient to forge motivational theories specific to adult training?

Of the 101 motivational models identified in a previous synthesis (Fenouillet, 2009), only one model, that of Carré (2001), refers specifically to the particular context of adult education. This model itself borrows heavily from various more comprehensive motivational theories. The specificity of Carré's model is essentially due to the nature of the reasons advanced by learners to explain the presence of individuals in training. Similarly, when Bourgeois (1998, 2008) speaks of motivation in training, he borrows from more generalist models of motivation the concepts that he applies in an adult context. These two authors have in common to address a question that seems specific to the context of adult education: commitment to training.

The double questioning of motivation in adult education

As much as motivation, in the context of adult education, has been the subject of few specific modeling attempts, it seems to carry a double questioning. The authors, who are also interested in adult training, have questioned motivation, on the one hand, on the dynamics of learning and, on the other hand, on commitment to training. If the questioning on learning is common with those raised on the academic world (school and university), that on commitment to training is specific to it. The school world asks very little about the reasons, the motives that make a student commit to or choose a course. On the other hand, this question is central in adult education where career paths are increasingly interspersed with short-term internships,

However, in the French context, the question of commitment to training is far from being a question treated solely from the motivational angle. If, in a special issue of the journal Savoirsdevoted to commitment to training, Santelmann (2007), in his introductory editorial, speaks well of motivation, none of the articles in this issue deal specifically with this question. For example, the evocation of a few motivational phenomena by Aubret and Demouge (2007) above all makes it possible to better understand the biographical factors that explain commitment to training. Similarly, Crochard (2007) prefers to speak of identity processes without ever mentioning the term motivation. If the latter author is so little interested in the motivational theme, it is undoubtedly because he has a mainly economic orientation. In fact, motivation is above all a psychological concept which, not only does it seem difficult to export outside this sphere, but which, moreover,

It should nevertheless be noted that the question of commitment to training did not wait for the motivational concepts to be explored. Frétigné and de Lescure (2007), in a broad review of questions on sociology and training, show that this question has been worked on by sociologists since the 1960s, a time when the Anglo-Saxon publications were only beginning to appear. main motivational theories currently used (Fenouillet, 2009).

Sociology applied to adult training has highlighted a large number of variables capable of affecting commitment to training. Since the first work by Montlibert (1968) on the impact of the socio-professional category of the father on enrollment in evening classes, Frétigné and de Lescure (2007) have listed a good twenty variables in the literature. Among those that have the most weight, it is possible to cite the size of the company, the level of qualification and gender. Men train more than women, high levels of qualification more than low ones and it is preferable to belong to a large group rather than a small company to go on training. If the rate of access to training between men and women tends to fade without disappearing in the latest Céreq study (Lambert, Marion-Vernoux, Sigot, 2009), it remains that a worker (28%) is half as likely as a manager (60%) to access training. Similarly, for an employee of a small company (10 to 19 employees), the frequency of access to training is more than twice as low (24%) as that of an employee of a large company (57%).

These sociological studies put an undeniable fact into perspective: access to training is not linked solely to the will of the employee. Talking about motivation to deal with the question of commitment to training necessarily induces the idea that the employee is the main decision maker in his training. Here again the sociological data are troubling. Table 1 allows us to see that manual workers, those who train the least, are also those who express the least training needs. Table 2 completes the panorama since the smaller a company, the less it collects the training needs of its employees. These data suggest that training needs are far from being independent of the major sociological variables that come under the training sector. They confirm that the commitment to training is not subject to the sole will of the employee, but, on the contrary, is closely dependent on characteristics totally independent of his good will, such as the size of his company. Moreover, this observation allows us to better understand, in addition to the disciplinary aspect, the lack of eagerness shown by research in adult education to truly use the concept of motivation. Indeed, in relation to the weight that sociological variables seem to have, including those (needs) that "seem" to belong to the field of motivation, the others can only play on the margins. as can be the size of his company. Moreover, this observation allows us to better understand, in addition to the disciplinary aspect, the lack of eagerness shown by research in adult education to truly use the concept of motivation. Indeed, in relation to the weight that sociological variables seem to have, including those (needs) that "seem" to belong to the field of motivation, the others can only play on the margins. as can be the size of his company. Moreover, this observation allows us to better understand, in addition to the disciplinary aspect, the lack of eagerness shown by research in adult education to truly use the concept of motivation. Indeed, in relation to the weight that sociological variables seem to have, including those (needs) that "seem" to belong to the field of motivation, the others can only play on the margins.

Motivation: a cumbersome concept?

Based on a sociological vision, it is difficult to understand why it would ultimately be necessary to bother with the concept of motivation. As Dubar (1980) says, the economic weight is so important in the commitment to training that it is useless to bother with “interest” or “motivation” for training. Moreover, it should be noted in passing that most sociological studies seem to prefer the term need. Moreover, in recent years, the term appetite has come to increasingly compete with it when it comes to explaining employees' commitment to training.

This term, for certain actors and authors, ideally completes the sociological analysis that the figures in Table 1 seem to indicate. appetite for training”. Indeed, in view of the figures in table 1, it is quite possible to say that ultimately if a worker is not going to receive training, it is mainly because he has no appetite for training. It is this kind of reasoning that leads Vincent Merle, for example, to say (2004, p. 135, quoted by Frétigné, 2007, p. 57) that "to train, you must first have the appetite to train […]. Demands for more training or for greater equality of access to training regularly come up against a lack of appetite for training”.

While the concept of motivation seems almost supernumerary compared to a vision in terms of so much more operational needs, appetite delivers almost turnkey an action plan to engage the employee in training: it is enough to give him "l 'appetite' for his training. However, it should be noted that Table 2 also indicates that it is necessary for the company to take the trouble to take into account the “appetite” of the employee. Other factors must also be taken into account, such as the "sensitivity" of the hierarchy. Frétigné (2007) tells us that "the higher the hierarchical position, the more this felt need for training is the subject of a request for entry into training from the hierarchy and positively taken into consideration: 44% for operational staff , 57% for mastery, 78% for management” (p. 19). This moderating effect of the hierarchy, just like the company's consideration of training needs, are factors that do not fit well with a wage initiative for training commitment. With such factors, this initiative seems to be under control, to say the least.

Frétigné (2007) also notes that the term appetite is used concomitantly with those of need, desire, desire and that it ultimately provides relatively little information on commitment to training as such. For him, his irruption in the field of professional training has more to do with ideology, evidence, than real scientific research. It is true that the term has not given rise to a very complete definition and today “still” lacks a valid operationalization. To corroborate the lack of scientific thickness noted by Frétigné, it is possible to add that it is not used by any motivational theory. Under such conditions,

One of the possible answers is perhaps precisely this question of thickness. With its scientific references which number in the thousands and the dozens of theories that intend to model it, it seems obvious that one should not be satisfied with writing the term “motivation” in order to use it wisely. To say, for example, that the commitment to training depends on the employee's motivation does not amount to providing an answer but rather to opening up a debate. Contrary to the terms need or craving, that of motivation is not sufficient in itself. It is necessary, at the very least, to specify what motivation we are talking about, or even to explicitly state the nature of this motivation. This problem arises less when it comes to need, motive or appetite.

From motives to causes and vice versa

When we compare motivation with the other explanatory factors that sociologists use to define the causes of commitment to training, this complexity appears a little better. For example, the size of the company, the gender or even the socio-professional category, which can be considered as causes of commitment to training, can, if not relatively easy to define (such evidence does not necessarily self-evident for a specialist in each of these fields), at least give rise to a consensus more easily. The motivation is far from approaching such simplicity, especially in operational terms.

Therefore, the use of terms, which at first glance seem less complex, is tempting to understand such a phenomenon. Motive, need and appetite carry within them the hopes of this simplicity. If all these notions can claim a certain part of motivation, none can replace the concept in itself, which for lack of anything better, remains at present the most unifying term when it comes to approaching this specific dynamism. to each individual. Although they have the merit of apprehending in their own way a certain conception of motivation, they all make the mistake of yielding a little too easily to this insistent request formulated by research in adult education vis-à-vis motivation, namely having an operational variable to “measure” the effect of motivation on commitment to training.

Is motivation a variable and therefore a cause in the same way as gender or company size to explain commitment to training? Several authors have posed this question in practically similar terms and have chosen to distinguish causes from motives (Courney, 1992; Boutinet, 1998; Vonthron, Lagabrielle and Pouchard, 2007). For Boutinet (1998), “commitment to a training process, as with any existential decision, sends the adult back to an inextricable web of causes and motives. The causes identifiable in terms of determining variables will tend to constrain and preform the decision, or even to reduce it to a simple formalism. In this case, we will speak of decisive situational constraints: the trainee goes on training to be able to continue to benefit from the allowance already received, to follow training allowing him to keep his job or to access a more qualified job offered, to have an acceptable social status... These causes are intended to coexist with reasons, justifications that the trainee gives himself: arranging a professional transfer; improve by taste in such and such a skill; take a distance with one's company in particular... When the weight of the causes becomes decisive in relation to that of the motives, we can speak of a contradictory injunction: the external pressures come into contradiction with the space of autonomy that any individual project of training, verbalized in the statement of reasons” (p. 94).

While a cause has an effect that can be qualified as a first approximation of "mechanical" on the commitment to training, the motive, and therefore the motivation, depends on other "causes", directly linked to the dynamics individual, which should be identified to measure its impact on commitment to training. Boutinet's thesis is that the patterns are only the visible part of the individual project. The “cause” of the commitment to training is therefore not the reason but the project. However, this project itself, which characterizes a dynamic specific to the individual, can only be expressed if the constraints external to it are not too strong. In this perspective, the motives are therefore part of a vast process that should be described in order to hope to go back to the causes.

What is motivation?

This distinction between motive and cause seems to imply that motivation is not the variable which would make it possible to explain, understand or predict always and in all circumstances the behavior or the choices of the individual. Many motivational theories, moreover, provide an explanation of this split since, for these, motivation is itself explained by causes. To put it another way, the use of the notion of motive or even of need in no way guarantees that the researcher relies on a cause of the behavior. The reason, generally requested after the fact, can for example simply be a justification. It is at this level that the use of the concept of motivation, rather than that of need or motive, can prove to be of great use. However, to understand it,

In the context of this brief, motivation is defined as a hypothetical protean intra-individual force, which may have multiple internal or external determinants, and which helps to explain the direction, triggering, persistence and intensity behavior or action.

It is necessary to distinguish motivation, which remains a hypothetical internal phenomenon, from its determinants, which can also be internal but also external. For example, if the threat of a sanction (external determinant) can explain the change in behavior of an employee, it does not characterize the nature of the force (or motivation) which modifies the behavior. This threat of sanction must have an internal relay, for example in terms of fear, shame or anxiety, to explain the nature of the force (or motivation) which brings about the behavior change.

There is no single form of motivation. Motivation is primarily a generic term, generally used in the absence of a more definite specification of the exact nature of the force which produces a behavior or an action. Depending on the context, other terms may be used to describe the nature of this force more precisely: "goal", "need", "emotion", "interest", "desire", "envy" and many others. Again.

The theoretical conceptions which make it possible to explain the motivation of the individual are multiple (at least a hundred) and for many multifactorial. The variables that make it possible to understand the origin of motivation are not only innumerable, but can also be internal (such as attributions or automatic processing of certain information) or external (such as a reward).

Such theoretical richness is linked, on the one hand, to this protean nature of motivation and, on the other hand, to the fact that it is sometimes considered as a process and other times as a state. This double complexity makes it difficult at present to have a global vision of what it is. For example, if we take the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) which explains why the individual resists anything that threatens his freedom, it is difficult to make the connection with, another example, the theory of flow (Csikszentmihalyi et alii, 2005) which describes a state of happiness and an intentional process that makes this state a perpetual quest. Yet both of these theories do explain a possible dynamic of behavior and are well considered motivational theories.

To solve this double complexity, some authors have proposed different forms of classifications. However, these classifications mostly give a partial view considering motivation more as a state than as a process. The integrative model (Fenouillet, 2009), which will now be presented, is based on a work of classification which reviewed 101 motivational theories. The ambition of this model is therefore to propose this global vision of motivation which integrates all the aspects that we have described previously.

An Integrative Perspective of Motivation

The integrative model starts from the postulate that beyond the nuances, it is possible to make connections between the motivational theories on the basis of the concepts, either that they use, or that present strong similarities between them. It is therefore possible to define “conceptual categories” which characterize a family of motivational concepts while the theories use “theoretical concepts” which are attached to these categories.

By proceeding in this way, the limit that would be imposed by a classification method assuming “relatively” airtight categories at the level of theoretical conceptions can be exceeded because it is, in a way, their constituents (the theoretical concepts) that are taken into account.

The model is based on another postulate which consists in saying that the conceptual categories and the theoretical concepts related to a specific theory can be grouped within several “conceptual sets”.

Moreover, he considers that these conceptual sets can be ordered thus: the concepts of a set imply others or cannot occur before those of another set. For example, physiological needs arise before 'inducements', just as psychological needs are present before the motives they engender. In the same vein, the choice only makes sense if there are pre-existing motives or needs.

Each grouping of a set of concepts thus becomes a step that occupies a specific place in a larger collection. In other words, this model seeks to map out a sort of psychic process such as the set of motivational theories put together seems to make it appear, and gives the whole thing a certain coherence.

It would be difficult in the few lines of this article to detail all the theoretical considerations underlying this integrative proposal (for more details see Fenouillet, 2009, 2008), but it is possible to briefly describe the seven conceptual sets from the perspective of a more general vision of motivation.

Grounds

If there was a fundamental question concerning motivation, it would be to ask what is the “motive”, the “cause”, the “why” of our behavior? Early research on motivation primarily attempted to answer this question. The "motives" of our actions were first approached by providing a nomenclature of instincts (McDougall, 1908; James, 1890) which evolved into different lists of needs (Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943) until the years 1950 when authors began to consider something other than simple enumerations. Motivational models became more complex in the 1950s and 1960s and it became more difficult to simply understand motivation.

The distinction introduced by Campbell et alii (1970) made it possible to pinpoint a split between two theoretical forms known as “process” and “content”. For process theories, motivation is the result of an interaction between a certain number of significant variables. Content theories mainly seek to identify what, in the environment or in the individual, is able to stimulate behavior.

The first two conceptual sets of the integrative model are based more specifically on this notion of content proposed by Campbell et alii (1970). However, it is the term motive that was retained because it shares the same Latin root with that of motivation: movere which introduces the idea of ​​moving, the heart of motivation being constituted by dynamism.

Two conceptual sets of motives should be distinguished according to a structural organization which is explicitly or implicitly put forward by the authors.

Some theories advance explanations that aim to reveal the absolute origin of the behavior, at least from a psychological point of view, while for others this question is relegated to the background. This distinction therefore makes it possible to say that there are primary motives which are placed at the psychological origin of the behavior and secondary motives which generally prefer to be interested in the most immediate motives or which admit that other motives underlie those that they advance. This distinction between two forms of motive is also consistent with that made in different theories between need and incentive (Hull, 1943; Atkinson, 1964). The two types of motives are not contradictory, and there are many authors who explicitly adhere to the hierarchical conception of Carver and Scheier (1982) who,

Another difference between primary motives and secondary motives would be related to the fact that the theories of the first set come together to say that the origin of motivation is internal, whereas for certain theories of the second set, the influence of the environment can be decisive in what explains the triggering of motivation. For example, the need is a primary motive whose origin is rather to be sought intuitively in the organism. Conversely, to understand the triggering of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), it is necessary to take into account certain aspects of the environment.

The primary motives, which aim to explain the origin of motivation from a psychological point of view, are of two orders: instincts and needs.

The secondary reasons appeared mainly in works falling within the cognitive psychology, and this from the second half of the XX E century. This work has been extraordinarily rich and has seen the emergence of many forms of motivation. Twelve secondary motives are listed under the integrative model: value, purpose, interest, self-esteem, drive , dissonance, emotion, curiosity, intention, seeking control, personality trait and original motives.

Prediction

The first researches now encompassed in the plethoric field of motivation endeavored to propose lists of instincts or needs making it possible to understand why the individual adopts such behavior or carries out such activity. However, beyond this explanation of the reason for the action, it appeared, from the 1930s in the work of Tolman (1932), that to understand the motivation of an animal, it was also necessary to take into account in some way out his "vision of the future". For example, it is not enough to put a reward at the end of a labyrinth for an animal to try to reach it (and therefore for the animal to have a motive), it is essential beforehand that it knows that this reward is here.

This taking into account of the “future” joins the work on the level of aspiration carried out this time in humans. In this type of research, the individual must perform an activity (for example, throwing darts at a target) which requires a certain skill on his part and therefore, potentially, leads to failure if by chance he does not reach the level required to succeed. The level of aspiration can only be built if the individual has several tries since it is the individual himself who sets the objective (number of darts that must hit the center of the target, for example) that he wants to equal or exceed. The perception of success or failure depends on the goal the individual is striving to achieve. Failure occurs if he falls short of the level of achievement he has set for himself.

For Lewin, Dembo, Festinger and Sears (1944), the objective that the individual sets depends on his previous results (scores). Generally, the level of aspiration decreases when the individual fails and increases when he succeeds. The model they propose is therefore partly based on the subjective probability of success or failure.

The conceptualizations of Tolman (1932) and Lewin, Dembo, Festinger and Sears (1944) share the idea that the “presence” of a “certain” future is capable of motivating both man and animal. Even if the nature of this presence can be concretized through the use of a relatively wide terminology, it was the notion of "purpose" which characterized it originally, through the work of Tolman (1925) on the goal seeking). The goal has the particularity of being a projection into the future. It should however be noted that a goal can be considered under two facets which can be dissociated: the anticipation of a final state (which can be considered as a motive) and the anticipation of the realization of this final state (the prediction ). It is precisely on this second aspect that bears the subjective probability of failure or success, introduced in the model of Lewin, Dembo, Festinger and Sears (1944). Subsequently, it is the term expectation that will prevail and be used in many motivational models.

For humans (but also to a certain extent for animals, as studies on learned resignation have shown), it is not enough to have a goal, a reason to be motivated, it is also necessary to consider its realization. The theory of learned resignation (Peterson et alii , 1993) perfectly illustrates what happens when the individual feels that he is not able to achieve his goals: he loses all motivation. For an individual to be motivated, it is therefore necessary for him to have a motive, but also for this motive to have a future.

Decision

For Weiner (1992), “an axiom of almost all theories of motivation is that the organism seeks to increase pleasure and decrease pain” (p. 356). This basic principle of motivation, called "hedonism", implies that all decisions are based on costs and benefits. The first theories of motivation therefore sought to explain what the nature of these benefits or costs consisted of. Atkinson's model (1957), based on the calculation of approach and avoidance motivations, makes it possible to determine the preferences of individuals for such and such a choice within the framework of risk-taking behavior .). For this model as for many others, there is no specific decision-making process apart from the motivational determinants. Atkinson (1957) also considers that one of the two major challenges of motivation is its ability to "account for the selection of an action by the individual from among all the possible alternatives" (p. 359, free translation). ). In other words, if one option has a greater benefit than another, it necessarily wins the decision of the rational individual.

Since the research carried out by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1984; Tversky and Kahneman, 1986, 1991, 1992), we now know that there are inconsistencies in the choices of individuals which break with rationality. In other words, the best alternatives in terms of cost/benefit are not always chosen. Analyzed from a purely logical angle, the decisions of the individual may therefore appear to be irrational. A certain number of motivational models either now integrate choice as part of the motivational process, or explain how this very special moment, that of decision-making, breaks with mathematical logic without however escaping other forms of rationality” that they propose to conceptualize.

For many theories, which do not all refer to motivation although they explain the dynamism of behavior, it is at this level that commitment would be located. The pioneering work of Lewin (1947a) shows that the simple fact of involving housewives in a collective discussion, to encourage them little by little to make the decision to modify their consumption, is more effective in the long term than other purely motivational. As Lewin explains, “motivation alone is not enough to drive change. The latter presupposes a link between motivation and action. This link is at the level of the decision […]. It seems to be linked to the fact, at least in part, that the decision-making process that takes only a few minutes is capable of affecting driving for months to come.cognitive freezing  [2] which is partly due to the individual tendency to maintain his decision at all costs and partly to the effect of commitment to the group  [3]  ” (1947b, p. 37, free translation).

This effect—qualified as a “cognitive freeze” because it characterizes this form of engagement—is explained by the fact that the type of deliberation is not the same according to the different phases of the action. Heckhausen (Heckhausen, 1986; Heckhausen and Gollwitzer, 1987; Achtziger and Gollwitzer, 2008) distinguishes between the pre-decisional phase, during which the individual deliberates on the various motivations that push him to act, and post-decisional phases, where reflection of the individual is no longer to know why he acts but how to do it. In other words, once the individual has made the decision to engage in action, he no longer questions the motivation that led him to take action. He is engaged.

Strategy

For the first motivational theories, the questions posed by motivation were more theoretical than practical. Above all, it was a question of putting forward credible explanations in relation to the scientific knowledge of the time of the “reason(s)” for the behavior. For this, a nomenclature, whatever the basis (instincts or needs in the early days as we have seen above) could prove to be sufficient. However, the question of motivation very quickly became the subject of multiple applications and very concrete experiments. At this stage, it quickly became clear that while motivation is an essential condition for achieving certain levels of performance, it is not necessarily sufficient to achieve them.

Research on “goal assignment” (Latham & Locke, 2007) reveals that the presence of a goal is not enough to achieve certain levels of performance. For motivation to have an impact on performance, the individual must know how to go about performing the activity. If the individual does not know the best strategy to implement, motivating him by assigning a goal can even be counterproductive (Earley and Perry, 1987). Similarly, the complexity of the activity can easily mask the beneficial effect that motivation could have on performance (Huber, 1985). This same observation is found in school activities (Cosnefroy and Fenouillet, 2009). Indeed, since the introduction by Flavell (1979) of the concept of "metacognition", it appears that school activities require the learner to implement strategies that will enable him to regulate his learning (Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman, 2002; Boekaerts, 1996, 2006). However, for the theories of self-regulation, the problems posed by school learning are not limited to a pure use of cognitive strategies, it is necessary that the learners are first motivated (Zimmerman, 2002).

Behavior and result

The last two categories are intimately linked because, to understand motivation, it is not always enough to observe the behavior of the individual, it is often necessary to understand its intentionality, which implies knowing the result sought by The behaviour.

It does seem to be established that it is impossible to observe motivation directly (it is a hypothetical construct), since it can only be deduced from behavior. For behaviorists, the drive could be apprehended thanks to behavioral indicators such as the speed measured in feet per second to reach the other end of a maze. In humans, things are a bit more complicated.

The range of human behavior is very wide. For Nuttin (1991), the term behavior has a double meaning: “in the restricted sense, we designate above all the action that the subject exerts on a situation (the reaction to a stimulus in the behaviorist model) […] in a more broadly, the term behavior refers to all psychological functions and processes” (p. 39). This second dimension of behavior is explained by the meaning that a given situation can have for the human being. “The phenomenon that psychology is ultimately called upon to explain is behavior as it presents itself to us, that is, behavior as it is perceived and performed by human beings. in the social context, that is to say: as a significant response to a situation which also has meaning” (Nuttin, 1991, p. 38). Indeed,

Many motivational models implicitly assume that it is necessary to understand the intentionality of behavior in order to understand its motivation. For example, in certain situations, the fact of not acting is clearly motivated, however this motivation can only be apprehended through its purpose and therefore the meaning it has for the individual.

Deci and Ryan (2002) in this same register speak of “instrumentalization of behavior”, in other words behavior is an instrument that makes it possible to obtain or avoid something (extrinsic motivation with external regulation). For these same authors, a-motivation, that is to say the absence of motivation, cannot be characterized by an absence of behavior but by "the absence of an intention to act" (Deci and Ryan, 2002, p.17).

From motives to motivations for engaging in training

The brief description of the different sets of the integrative model shows that although motivation is indeed a complex phenomenon, it remains very useful for understanding the individual dynamics of commitment to training.

First of all, the model shows that the questioning of commitment in training has always considered motivation as a content and not as a process. Training needs, training motives or even training appetite are states which are considered by the integrative model of motivation as primary or secondary motives. The list of training needs or reasons for commitment proceeds in a way to a surface analysis, whereas most motivational models now make it possible to understand more in depth the dynamics that are reflected through the reasons cited by individuals.

If we disregard the psychometric characteristics inherent in the validation of any questionnaire in psychology, the items of the surveys on the motives or the needs for commitment to training are indeed quite close to those which are developed within the framework of different motivational theories. . The items of the motivation questionnaire of Vallerand, Blais, Brière and Pelletier (1989) or that of the orientation of educational goals of Midgley et alii(1998), to take just these two examples, analyze the motives that learners are likely to give for carrying out different school or university activities. The difference between these two questionnaires and a training needs questionnaire lies in the interpretation of these items which refer, in the context of motivational theories, to psychological dimensions whose structure is validated by the presence of different motivational factors. It is these factors that are explanatory and predictive of the individual's behavior and not the motives directly.

In this perspective, the motive is explained by the presence of psychological factors which, depending on the motivational theory considered, can be of different natures. These factors are considered as motivations, the motives are only reflections of them. An approach consisting in truly taking into account the motivation for engaging in training should therefore not be limited to listing the reasons. It must start from the underlying motivational factors in order to effectively speak of the motivation of individuals.

Taking psychological factors into account, which would be a better approach to the motivation of individuals, can be used to illustrate the distinction made by Boutinet (1998) between motive and cause. For this author, the motives refer to the meaning of the training in the eyes of the trainee, while the causes are linked to the situational constraints that will force the decision to enter training. Within the framework of Deci and Ryan's theory of self-determination (2002), this distinction is clearly identifiable in terms of motivational factors which themselves can be organized into several levels (as we have seen in the distinction between primary and secondary reasons).

For these authors, self-determination, that is to say the autonomy available to the individual to carry out an activity, directly influences his motivation. The most self-determined motivations are linked to the senses and the individual's interest in a given activity, while the least self-determined motivations are directly linked to the constraints that weigh on him. Self-determined motivations refer directly to Boutinet's "motives" and weakly self-determined motivations are linked to the "causes" of this same author. Self-determined motivations have very different effects from non-self-determined ones and can for example be clearly predictive of learning level or persistence (Deci and Ryan, 2000). As various studies on adult education have shown (Carré, 2001; Vonthron, Lagabrielle and Pouchard, 2007; Lagabrielle, Vonthron and Pouchard, 2008), this motivational theory is therefore of great interest in explaining commitment to training.

Interest and limits of training needs

However, although the questionnaires are based on motives, in the context of adult training, it is rather the term “need” that is widely used. This use, from a historical point of view, is quite understandable since the first theories of motivation were based on this same concept (Fenouillet, 2008, 2009). When we see the evolution of motivational theories since the 1950s, we can however wonder if the use of this concept is still justified today in the context of adult education?

In practice, asking employees about their training needs amounts to making a list of the reasons or motives they would have to take such or such training. A list that seems very unrelated to the concept of need, at least in its modern conception.

In addition to its age, the almost systematic use of this concept in the context of training can also be explained by its ease of use. Indeed, unlike many psychological concepts, need is based on a main idea that is easily understood by specialists and non-specialists alike: lack. The treasure of the French language(2008) defines the need as follows: situation of lack or awareness of a lack. This state of lack is so perceptible, with regard to hunger or thirst for example, that it is almost tangible. The chronicity of these two states makes it easy to establish them and it is thanks to this dynamic that research on conditioning has been able to make rapid progress. In the context of adult training, the joke that it is useless "to want to give a drink to a donkey that is not thirsty" is often used to illustrate the need to understand the training needs of employees.

With regard to the use of states of hunger or thirst by conditioning theories, it is important to remember that it was only later, well after the principles of conditioning had been advanced, that Hull (1943 ) proposed an explanatory theory of this internal dynamism which he named drive. The latter is based on a homeostatic vision of physiological functioning for which any deficit in the organic tissues triggers mechanisms whose objective is the return to equilibrium (Cannon, 1939). Hull (1943) therefore attributed to this feeling of lack, which we all feel daily, a physiological justification. The works of Maslow (1943) are also based on this notion of “lack” but by confining it to the physiological in order to propose an extension of it which is based this time on satisfaction; a notion that is still found today in various theories of motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2002 or Alderfer, 1972, for example). As Maslow (1943) put it, “…satisfaction becomes a more important concept than that of deficiency in explaining motivation theoretically, once the organism is freed from the more or less relative domination of physiological need, this allows the emergence of other more or less social objectives” (p. 375). This distinction between two major forms of needs is also present in Pittman and Zeigler (2007). They insist on the vital meaning of lack present in the notion of physiological deficiency.

They consider that “certain needs are clearly required, necessary and, without them, the organism would quite simply cease to exist sooner or later […] sexual relations, however, although necessary for the existence of a species , are needs in the sense that they are strongly desired and have biologically clear bases but they are not necessary for the survival of the individual in the same sense as food, water or air may be […] when psychological theorists […] talk about basic human needs, they usually don't mention organic deficit, but rather control, understanding or even self-esteem. One wonders what is currently hidden behind the use of the term “need”. One possibility is to consider that basic needs are essential to continue to exist; the whole thing being to correctly appreciate the temporal scale of this possibility, whose measurement can be estimated in terms of year, decade, hour or minute according to the considered need. (p. 475, free translation). For these authors, the need for social relations is particularly important at the start of life, because it is others who allow us to survive. Many believe that there are, alongside physiological needs, psychological needs that are just as essential to the survival and development of the individual (Nuttin, 1991; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Krapp, 2005). Deci and Ryan (2000) clearly agree with this distinction by considering that there are “two very different intellectual traditions in the use that empirical psychology makes of the concept of need […]” (p. 228). For these authors, the first tradition dates back to Hull (1943) with his conception of basic physiological needs based on the deficit of non-nervous tissues. The second has its roots in the work of Murray (1938) on psychogenic needs.

Currently, the definition of need remains clearly associated with lack and seems to refer more to a more physiological than psychological vision. Paradoxically, since the middle of the 20thcentury, scientific research has established that homeostasis cannot explain hunger or thirst (see Berridge, 2004, for a review). This research also highlights the fact that it is possible to dissociate the feeling of hunger from the physiological imperatives linked to lack (which is particularly obvious in anorexia). Different theoretical references consider in this respect that lack is not the central mechanism which makes it possible to explain even simple needs such as hunger or thirst (Rolls, 2005; Berridge, 2004). Moreover, various authors of books or review articles on this question, from a physiological and neurological point of view (Rolls, 2005; Berridge, 2004; Gorman, 2004), do not speak of a need to qualify the dynamism of the states of hunger or thirst but of… motivation!

Currently, the concept of need finds itself in a paradoxical situation. While its definition is based on a physiological basis, specialists in this field prefer the term motivation and those who still use it, like designers of adult training devices, give it a meaning that has considerably removed from this notion of deficiency which, in the final analysis, was justified by physiology.

This paradox is linked to the fact that if researchers in psychology or in training still speak of physiological needs, the latter remain relegated to the background. The ambition of many motivational theories lies in the desire to improve the understanding of motivation through the satisfaction of psychological needs. Maslow's theory relies almost exclusively on detailing these different psychological needs. However, these psychological needs, to be validated by the various motivational theories, are based on the reasons advanced by individuals for carrying out such and such an activity. Once again, it is not these reasons that directly represent the needs, they are only their emanation.

Illustration of a possible use of motivational theories

It is important to note that the question of motivation in the context of adult education is currently the subject of two relatively separate questions: one concerns commitment to training and the other learning. The question of motivation for learning in training does not seem to have been the subject of modeling specific to adult training. In this field, the authors who deal with training willingly use the theories developed in the school world. However, it is not this axis of questioning that causes the most ink to flow when it comes to addressing motivation in adult training, but that of commitment to training. As we have seen above, it is mainly from the angle of static content and essentially using the concept of need, that the question of commitment to training has been dealt with. If it remains interesting to question the motivation under the angle of the needs or the motives (on the other hand, the term of appetence does not seem to be of the least utility as we could see it previously), it seems a pity not to use all the motivational concepts of the same order (primary motive and secondary motive) to question the commitment to training as well as the learning that results from this commitment. The integrative model can be used to guide the researcher or practitioner, to tap into the “almost too” wide range of models available. the term appetite does not seem to be of the slightest use as we have seen previously), it seems a shame not to use all the motivational concepts of the same order (primary motive and secondary motive) to question the commitment to training and the learning that comes from that engagement. The integrative model can be used to guide the researcher or practitioner, to tap into the “almost too” wide range of models available. the term appetite does not seem to be of the slightest use as we have seen previously), it seems a shame not to use all the motivational concepts of the same order (primary motive and secondary motive) to question the commitment to training and the learning that comes from that engagement. The integrative model can be used to guide the researcher or practitioner, to tap into the “almost too” wide range of models available.

In this perspective of concrete use, it is possible to cite some of the different conceptual categories, specifying what they could contribute to the understanding of commitment or learning in training, while illustrating this contribution to using a few theories that we will outline below.

Value

Commitment to training can be considered from the angle of the value of training for the employee. Vroom's model (1964) and the concepts of instrumentality (which can be defined as the probability that the result of training will produce an effect such as obtaining a promotion) and valence (which can be defined as the value of this promotion for the individual) represent a first approach. Schwartz (1994) offers another based on what he calls “basic values”. In a relatively recent study, Schwartz (2006) arrived at a nomenclature of 10 basic values ​​empirically validated across 68 countries. In the context of companies that can display very different values,

Goal

Fishbach and Ferguson (2007) define goal as a cognitive representation of a final state that can impact evaluations, emotions, and behavior. The goal pursued by the individual during his training can be analyzed from the angle of different motivational theories. First of all, many studies have shown that the representation of the final state as such has an effect on the efforts made by individuals to achieve this goal (Cosnefroy and Fenouillet, 2009). In this sense, goals contain information on this final state and allow individuals to determine the means (plan, strategy, objects) to be implemented to achieve it (Latham and Locke, 2007). The goals also represent the visible part of the project so dear to Nuttin (1991). Moreover,

Interest

The concept of interest has been used for a long time to orient individuals in trades closest to their personal preferences. Holland's theory (1966, 1997), which comes directly from the field of professional interests, makes it possible to describe a structure of interest that is strongly anchored in the personality of individuals. For example, it explains why some people are attracted to group activities while others will be more oriented towards more conceptual ones. This theory could therefore be used to guide the construction of training activities. Similarly, the most modern conceptions of interest can explain the effect of the characteristics of the material or of the training situation. The theory of Deci and Ryan (2002) explains that the contexts which favor the autonomy of the learner and his perception of competence will favor the emergence of interest. Finally, the distinction proposed by various authors between individual interest and situational interest (Schiefele, 1991, 2009; Hidi and Harackiewicz, 2000; Ainley, Hidi, and Berndorff, 2002; Krapp, 1999, 2002) may prove valuable in explaining how create learning situations that are likely to be interesting for the greatest number. These various authors suggest differentiating between individual interest and situational interest. Individual interest can be defined as a stable disposition over time towards certain subjects or areas. Situational interest is context-dependent and considered a transient phenomenon. Being able to test individual interest in certain topics (such as the attraction to mathematics present only in some people) can be useful when they are the subject of training. However, independently of the attraction for these same themes, the conceptions developed in the context of situational interest explain on which contextual elements it is possible to play, this time, from a more pedagogical point of view to increase interest. training, regardless of the type of training.

Self esteem

In the school context where evaluations are carried out with a bang, the question of self-esteem is central to understanding student motivation. A bitter failure in an assessment can, for example, leave an indelible mark that will permanently undermine a student's motivation for school. In the context of adult education, motivational models can therefore be of great interest in understanding the difficulties posed by the introduction of knowledge assessment. For Nicholls' theory (1984), self-esteem is linked to the perception of one's skills. Self-judgment is directly or inversely linked to the effort that the individual provides. This theory shows that in certain situations, when the individual anticipates a failure when understanding or evaluating his knowledge, he has every interest in making as little effort as possible. Indeed, for his self-esteem, the person has every interest in suffering a failure by having made the least possible effort. So, paradoxically, when the knowledge to be acquired is difficult (especially when the person is new to the field), learners may be led to make as little effort as possible in order to protect their self-esteem. themselves.

Emotion

For many motivational models, it is undeniable that motivation is linked to emotion. Atkinson's (1964) theory identifies pride in success and shame in failure as two major components of human motivation. Bandura (2003) believes that emotion, through the individual's interpretations of peripheral manifestations, has an impact on the feeling of self-efficacy. From a purely Darwinian perspective, Fredrickson (1998, 2001) offers a list of emotions while pushing evolutionary reasoning further. The theory of constructive enlargement of positive emotions that she proposes postulates that five positive emotions (joy, interest, satisfaction, pride, love) share the fact of momentarily opening the repertoire of actions and thoughts of the individual, And this, in order to build personal resources, whether physically, psychologically or physiologically. From this perspective, positive emotions acquire evolutionary meaning since they allow species to perfect their adaptation to the environment.

Curiosity

Very close to the interest of many authors, curiosity has however been the subject of specific motivational modeling that can be used in training, particularly when constructing training material. Berlyne's theory (1960) remains in this area still currently unavoidable. He believes that anything that contributes to increasing the level of activation/excitement can have an impact on attention and the orientation of the body's responses. Among the multiple factors likely to have an impact on the level of activation of the organism, Berlyne conceptualizes different elements that he calls "collative variables": "[...] we are going to call them collative variables, because for evaluate, it is necessary to examine the similarities and differences,pattern and the other elements that accompany it (complexity), between different responses activated simultaneously (conflicts), between stimuli and expectations (surprises), or between expectations aroused at the same time (uncertainties)” (Berlyne, 1960, p. 44, free translation).

Control

Within the framework of the integrative model, control is present in two aspects. On the one hand as a motive, the search for control, and on the other hand as a prediction, the expectation of control. The search for control is what clearly motivates the individual for Pittman and Pittman (1980), since they show that when the individual loses control, he tends to formulate more attributions to seek, explain and eventually find what control he has lost. Knowledge represents an obvious means that responds to this search for control. The expectation of control for its part, if it is not a sufficient condition to explain motivation, nevertheless remains a central element. Research on learned resignation (Maier and Seligman, 1976) show that if the individual no longer thinks he can control the results of his actions, he stops acting, resigns himself. If in the school context, this model can make it possible to apprehend school failure, in the world of training, it could prove to be most useful for understanding the populations who suffer from long-term unemployment. The model of learned resignation explains very well why, in this particular context, the individual (after months or even years of unsuccessful actions to get out of his situation) can be totally apathetic in training. it could turn out to be very useful for understanding the groups that suffer from long-term unemployment. The model of learned resignation explains very well why, in this particular context, the individual (after months or even years of unsuccessful actions to get out of his situation) can be totally apathetic in training. it could turn out to be very useful for understanding the groups that suffer from long-term unemployment. The model of learned resignation explains very well why, in this particular context, the individual (after months or even years of unsuccessful actions to get out of his situation) can be totally apathetic in training.

Intention

Motivational theories rarely appeal to intention, which is generally associated with the action of the will and therefore with volition. However, this concept can prove useful for understanding why, in certain cases, the individual acts in accordance with what is predicted by various external incentives such as those present in the environment, while in other situations, either his or her will. opposes it, or it proves to be too weak to implement the appropriate action. In the context of adult training, the theories of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and planned behavior (Ajzen and Albarracin, 2007) have already shown the interest they could have in understanding commitment. in formation (Vonthron et alii , 2008).

It is difficult to list all the possibilities offered by motivational theories to help understand engagement or learning in adult education. However, the few examples presented can allow the reader to grasp the potential there would be to grasp one or the other of these theories – unfortunately too briefly exposed in view of their respective richness.

Finally, it should be noted that while commitment to training is undoubtedly a problem specific to adult training, it could also be interesting to consider certain aspects of learning in training from the same angle. From this perspective, it would be desirable to extend the specific questioning of motivation in training by not limiting it solely to the issue of commitment. Indeed, if the different motivational models from the school world can be adapted to the questions of adult education, it remains that it is however a very particular context. Evaluation is undoubtedly one of these particularities. While in the school setting learners are subject to systematic assessment, constant and have no say in evaluating their training system, the opposite is the rule in adult training. The impact of evaluation on motivation is far from negligible, as we have seen previously with regard to self-esteem. Insofar as adults in training are ultimately assessed very little in the context of their training, but frequently participate in the improvement of their training system, it would be necessary to measure the impact of this specificity on secondary reasons such as the self-esteem or the perception of control to take just these two examples. The impact of evaluation on motivation is far from negligible, as we have seen previously with regard to self-esteem. Insofar as adults in training are ultimately assessed very little in the context of their training, but frequently participate in the improvement of their training system, it would be necessary to measure the impact of this specificity on secondary reasons such as the self-esteem or the perception of control to take just these two examples. The impact of evaluation on motivation is far from negligible, as we have seen previously with regard to self-esteem. Insofar as adults in training are ultimately assessed very little in the context of their training, but frequently participate in the improvement of their training system, it would be necessary to measure the impact of this specificity on secondary reasons such as the self-esteem or the perception of control to take just these two examples.

Finally, we have only approached motivation here from a relatively restricted angle, that of primary or secondary motives. The integrative model shows quite clearly that motivation is increasingly viewed as a process. Research on adult training should be more oriented towards a conception of motivation not based on one factor or another, but on a combination of factors that would be able to explain the individual dynamics of commitment to training.