Several major theories have been established in research on motivation in education to describe, explain, and predict the direction, initiation, intensity, and persistence of learning behaviors. The most commonly cited theories of academic motivation include expectancy-value theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, interest theory, achievement goal theory, and attribution theory. To gain a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences among these prominent theories, we present an integrative framework based on an action model (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018). The basic model is deliberately parsimonious, consisting of six stages of action: the situation, the self, the goal, the action, the outcome, and the consequences. Motivational constructs from each major theory are related to these determinants in the course of action, mainly revealing differences and to a lesser extent commonalities. In the integrative model, learning outcomes represent a typical indicator of goal-directed behavior. Associated recent meta-analyses demonstrate the empirical relationship between the motivational constructs of the six central theories and academic achievement. They provide evidence for the explanatory value of each theory for students’ learning.

In this meta-analysis, we examined the effects on students’ motivation of student-centered, problem-driven learning methods compared to teacher-centered/lecture-based learning. Specifically, we considered problem-based (PBL), project-based (PjBL), and case-based learning (CBL). We viewed motivation as a multifaceted construct consisting of students’ beliefs (competence and control beliefs), perceptions of task value (interest and importance), and reasons for engaging in tasks (intrinsic or extrinsic). In addition, we included students’ attitudes toward school subjects (e.g., science). We included 139 subsamples from the 132 included reports (83 PBL, 37 PjBL, and 19 CBL subsamples). Overall, PBL, PjBL, and CBL had a small to moderate, heterogeneous positive effect (d = 0.498) on motivation. Moderator analyses revealed that larger effect sizes were found for students’ beliefs, values, and attitudes compared to students’ reasons for studying. No differences were found between the three instructional methods on motivation. However, effect sizes were larger when problem-driven learning was applied in a single course (when compared to a curriculum-level approach). Larger effects were also found in some academic domains (i.e., healthcare and STEM) than in others. While the impact of problem-driven learning on motivation is generally positive, the intricate interplay of factors such as academic domain and implementation level underscores the need for a nuanced approach to leveraging these instructional methods effectively with regard to increasing student motivation.

Formative assessment can be seen as an integral part of teaching and learning, as formative assessment affects students’ learning and vice versa. Students’ motivation can theoretically be placed at the centre of this reciprocal relationship, as formative assessment is assumed to affect students’ need satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness, and consequently their autonomous motivation. In the current study, two assumptions were tested empirically: formative assessment contributes to students’ autonomous motivation and students’ need satisfaction functions as a mediator in this relationship. The results provided support for those assumptions and indicated that more perceived use of formative assessment is associated with more feelings of autonomy and competence, and more autonomous motivation. The current study demonstrated the benefits of studying formative assessment as practice and provides encouragement for teachers to start applying formative assessment in their classroom. The theoretical model provides teachers with guidelines for an optimal implementation of formative assessment and provides researchers with a framework to study the phenomenon of ‘formative assessment as practice’ in more depth.