c e p s Journal | Vol.

5 | No2 | Year 2015 115

Relations between Students’ Motivation, and

Perceptions of the Learning Environment

Marko Radovan*1 and Danijela Makovec2

• In this research, we have examined the characteristics of university stu-

dents’ motivation and its connection with perceptions of the learning en-
vironment. Higher education teachers often find it challenging to decide
how to organize their lectures and what instructional strategy they should
use to be most effective. Therefore, we endeavoured to determine which
characteristics of the learning environment best predict the motivational
orientation of students and their satisfaction with the course. The survey
included 120 postgraduate students of the Faculty of Arts at the University
of Ljubljana. In order to measure their motivation, we employed several
scales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et
al., 1991). For the purpose of this research, we created a new questionnaire
for their evaluation of the learning environment. The results revealed a
high correlation between the intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy, and
control beliefs. The most important factors of the learning environment
that are connected with the formation of intrinsic goal-orientation and
the enjoyment of education are the perception of the usefulness of the
studied topics, a feeling of autonomy, and teacher support. To an extent,
these findings are supported by the findings of those authors who recom-
mend using those methods of teaching that are in compliance with the
student-centred understanding of teaching and learning.

Keywords: Learning environment, Achievement Goal orientation,

Course satisfaction, Higher education didactics, University students

1 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia;

[email protected]
2 Teaching Assistant; Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
116 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

Povezave med motiviranostjo študentov in zaznavanjem

učnega okolja

Marko Radovan* in Danijela Makovec

• V raziskavi smo analizirali značilnosti motivacije in njeno povezanost

z zaznavanjem učnega okolja. Visokošolskim učiteljem pogosto izziv
predstavlja odločitev, kako organizirati svoja predavanja in katero strate-
gijo poučevanja uporabiti. V članku smo si zato prizadevali ugotoviti,
katere značilnosti učnega okolja najbolje napovedujejo motivacijsko us-
merjenost študentov in njihovo zadovoljstvo. V raziskavo smo vključili
120 magistrskih študentov Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Za
merjenje motivacije smo uporabili več lestvic iz vprašalnika motivaci-
jskih strategij (Pintrich et al., 1991), za vrednotenje učnega okolja pa za
namen te raziskave ustvarili nov vprašalnik. Rezultati so pokazali visoko
korelacijo med notranjo ciljno usmerjenostjo, samoučinkovitostjo in
nadzornimi prepričanji. Najpomembnejši dejavniki učnega okolja, ki so
povezani z razvojem notranje ciljne usmerjenosti, so: koristnost obrav-
navanih tem, občutek samostojnosti in učiteljeva podpora. Te ugoto-
vitve so podprte z ugotovitvami tistih avtorjev, ki priporočajo uporabo
na študenta osredinjenih metod poučevanja.

Ključne besede: učno okolje, notranja ciljna usmerjenost, zadovoljstvo

z izobraževanjem, visokošolska didaktika, visokošolski študentje
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 117

Introduction

In the previous two decades, the research conducted on achievement

goals and achievement goal orientations has become highly prominent in the
field of education (e.g. Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984; Urdan, 2004).
Moreover, certain meta-analyses have shown that this field has become pre-
dominant in the research of motivation (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). In psychol-
ogy, goals are understood as the subject, activity or phenomenon at which our
action is directed and with which we satisfy our need (Locke & Latham, 1990),
whilst achievement goal orientations are the individuals’ general approaches or
schemes with which they undertake tasks and evaluate their achievements (Ka-
plan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Urdan, 2004). Previous research
has shown that, in order to understand the students’ approach to studying, it is
crucial to know the reasons for their dealing with a particular task and the goals
they set for themselves in the process. In this context, the authors predomi-
nantly differentiate between mastery goals (i.e. intrinsic goals for which the
emphasis is placed on the development of competence) and performance goals
(i.e. extrinsic goals that place an emphasis on achievements and comparisons
with others). The positive effects of intrinsic goals have been demonstrated in
research on a number of occasions. They express themselves in higher diligence
and assiduity in performing the task (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor,
1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997), increased self-efficacy (Pajares, 1997), and
using advanced learning strategies (Archer, 1994). The negative consequences
of extrinsic goals are mostly reflected in the use of superficial learning strategies
(Elliot et al., 1999), increased perception of stress (Smith, Sinclair, & Chapman,
2002), and self-handicapping (Urdan, 2004).
In this research, we explore the circumstances that affect the develop-
ment of an individual achievement goal orientation. Researchers, have primar-
ily discovered that they are affected by characteristics of a learning environment
(e.g. Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001). It is
typical of these research studies that they focus on the teacher’s conduct in the
classroom, mainly related to two dimensions, i.e. mastery vs. performance goal
structures (e.g. Ames, 1992; Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002; Urdan, Midg-
ley, & Anderman, 1998), whilst neglecting the importance of other learning
environment elements that also affect their motivation. The relevant literature
suggests that various elements of classroom activity, which are also related to a
constructivist understanding of learning, affect achievement goal orientations
(e.g. Nie & Lau, 2010; Urdan, 2004). In this research, we will, therefore, study
the connections between achievement goal orientations and those dimensions
118 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

of the learning environment in higher education, which are considered con-

structivist. We will compare achievement goal orientations with other aspects
of learning motivation (control beliefs, self-efficacy, and course satisfaction)
and evaluations of learning environments with postgraduate students at the
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, who are studying to become teachers.

Achievement goal orientations

A review of literature reveals that the research of achievement goals ori-

entations derives predominantly from the work of Nicholls (1984) and Dweck
(Dweck, 1985; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). They define motivation as achieving
goals, which refer to increasing competences and assessing competence, whilst
also defining goals as purposes, which explains why an individual undertakes
a particular activity. Nicholls (1984) was primarily researching how people de-
fine success in performance situations, and established that an individual can
compare their achievement with their own progress, either self-reflectively (e.g.
“I have learned something new”, “I have performed better than the last time”)
or by applying some normative criterion (e.g. “I have performed better than
others have”). Although Nicholls pointed out the importance of the situation in
setting goals, he principally focused on establishing interpersonal differences
in setting goals or motivational orientations. Being task-involved or being ego-
involved expresses differences in aspirations in achieving these performance
criteria. These two orientations are supposed to be related to the perception of
reasons for success, learning approaches, school evaluation and so on. Explicit
differentiation between increasing competences and assessing competence is
what led Dweck and Nicholls to define more precisely the two main types of
performance goals: the goals that place an emphasis on management and the
goals that place an emphasis on achievements.
In terms of their content, we can differentiate between two main goal
orientations: 1) intrinsic goals are focused on achieving excellence, whilst with
2) extrinsic goals achievement orientation prevails. Students who set them-
selves intrinsic goals endeavour to improve their knowledge, performance, and
competences in a particular field. The students with such goals will primarily
learn to satisfy their quest for new knowledge and understanding, as well as
to achieve greater competence (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988;
Nicholls, 1984). In comparison, extrinsic goals reflect an individual’s motiva-
tion with good grades, competitiveness, or praise. Students with extrinsic goals
are primarily focused on comparing their achievements with the achievements
of others, or their abilities with the abilities of others (Ames, 1992; Elliott &
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 119

Dweck, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). Consequently, instead of focusing on aspiration,

extrinsic goal orientation focuses more on the ability, self-evaluation, and com-
parison with others (Meece et al., 2006).
As regards extrinsic goals, both Dweck and Nicholls hint at the differen-
tiation between moving towards positive and moving away from the negative
evaluations of ability, yet they never explicitly define this differentiation. As a
result, these two forms have been merged into a single category of extrinsic
goals. Although Nicholls later added avoidance as a motivational orientation to
his model, he did not relate it to extrinsic goals (i.e. achievement orientation).
Instead, he proposes a new type of goals: avoidance-of-work goals (Nicholls,
Patashinck, & Nolen, 1985). These kinds of goals reflect the tendency of stu-
dents to avoid schoolwork or strive to finish a learning task with the least effort.
The need for the further particularization of goals has also emerged due to in-
consistency of findings of various studies wherein goals and learning strategies
have been explored. Wolters, Yu, and Pintrich (1996) established that students
who set themselves intrinsic goals more frequently employ advanced cognitive
strategies than those who set themselves extrinsic goals. By contrast, achieve-
ment orientation is mainly positively correlated with simple and superficial
learning strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). However, the influence of ex-
trinsic goals is not always consistent, since students with extrinsic goals some-
times also employ advanced cognitive strategies and achieve good learning per-
formance. Nearly a decade later, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996), and Middleton
and Midgley (1997) in Skaalvik (1997) established independently of each other
that the characteristics and role of extrinsic goals would be better understood
if they were differentiated by the components of pursuit and avoidance. Ex-
trinsic goals were thus classified into two independent, but mutually related
orientations, i.e. performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals.
The first group of goals defines competitiveness orientation and the desire to
outperform others, while the second group focuses on “avoiding failure” and a
person’s desire not to be perceived as incompetent. Empirical verification has
confirmed the appropriateness of this tripartite differentiation of goals (Elliot
& Church, 1997; Elliot et al., 2011; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Wolters et al.,
1996). By differentiating between performance-approach goals and perfor-
mance-avoidance goals, authors began to ponder the alleged harmful effects
of extrinsic goals. The prospect of extrinsic goals that are “beneficial” is what
led the authors to propose a concept of multiple goals, wherein students can be
simultaneously internally and extrinsically motivated in a given setting (Senko
et al., 2011; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Harackiewicz et al., 2008; Pintrich, 2000).
120 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

The learning environment

The term “learning environment” most frequently defines the social,

psychological, or psychosocial environment in which learning or, as the case
may be, teaching takes place (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). For the most part,
research has focused on the different elements of classroom context. Bron-
fenbrenner (1979) defines the classroom context as a microsystem, “a pattern
of activities, roles and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing
person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22), i.e. it contains elements that contribute to the
understanding of the happenings in the classroom. The belief that students and
teachers should be researched as a whole prevailed, but researchers have shown
a tendency to isolate individual variables instead of attempting to understand
the complex integration of thinking, motivation, and feelings. The authors
found that teaching never directly affects learning; on the contrary, it operates
through intermediary factors that include perceptions of teaching, evaluation,
the climate in the classroom, the content of the school subject, structure and
similar. Research has shown that the student’s assessment of teaching charac-
teristics or classroom learning environment influences a number of cognitive
and affective results (Fraser, 1989; Fraser & Fisher, 1982; Walberg, 1969). In their
meta-analysis, Wang et al. (1990) established that the learning environment is
one of the most important factors of learning, which affects both motivation for
learning and learning achievements (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1990).
Contemporary and wider understanding of the learning environment is
based on Moos’ socio-ecological approach, whose aim is to explain the interre-
latedness between the individual and psychosocial environments (Moos, 1974,
2002). Moos (1974) conceptualized the psychosocial environment with three
dimensions that cover the majority of settings in which we find ourselves in our
daily lives (e.g. at home, at workplace), as follows: 1) the relationship dimension,
2) the personal development or growth dimension, and 3) the system mainte-
nance and system change dimension. The relationship dimension defines the
quality and power of personal relations in a given context. This includes the
level of personal engagement and cohesion, mutual assistance and cooperation
between individuals in a social environment. It establishes a variety of social
relations, e.g. relations between individuals, tensions in relations and teacher
support, as well as their intensity (frequency, severity, and incidence). The per-
sonal development or growth dimension includes orientations with which the
environment encourages personal development, growth, and promotion. In a
learning environment, this is reflected in the perception of autonomy, and the
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 121

setting of goals and demands; for example, it is determined by the students’

strong orientation towards tasks, competitiveness, and the amount of research
or independent action in the environment. The system maintenance and sys-
tem change dimension includes rules, the clarity of expectations, surveillance
mechanisms, and system responsiveness to changes. It can also reflect in the
differentiation of lessons, the clarity of rules, school class organization, or the
acceptance of differences. By using the instruments based on these dimensions,
the authors (e.g. Fraser et al., 1982) wanted to create a tool to measure climate in
the classroom in different environments (primary or secondary school, faculty,
distance-learning programs). Especially in recent years, they have also wanted
to support different questionnaires with constructivist dimensions of learning
and teaching (Aldridge et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 1997; Walker & Fraser, 2005).
Research results have shown that the dimensions, such as Authentic Learning,
Cohesiveness, Task Orientation, Rule Clarity, Satisfaction, and Teacher Support
are positively related to motivation and performance of students and reflect
what are now known as “constructivist learning environments” (Herrington,
Reeves, & Oliver, 2014; Loyens & Gijbels, 2008; Walker & Fraser, 2005).
With this term, researchers have attempted to emphasize teaching strat-
egies that build on dialogue, collaboration, authentic tasks, and active construc-
tion of knowledge. According to Cunningham (1992), the objectivistic view of
learning is depicted as the process of acquisition and remembering. In contrast,
the constructivist view of learning is more accurately described as the process
of knowledge construction. Therefore, active collaboration in learning tasks
and referring to prior knowledge are viewed as two fundamental processes
that enable students to construct new knowledge. Most constructivists would
also agree that learning in authentic, real-life situations is most effective (Her-
rington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2014; Loyens & Gijbels, 2008).
Two major research models were developed to determine the connect-
edness between learning environment and goal orientation: TARGET (Ames,
1992) and PALS (Midgley et al., 2000).
Ames (1992) developed the TARGET system to research the main as-
pects of teaching that encourage the development of mastery or performance
orientation in the classroom. The TARGET system focuses on instructional
strategies related to task assignments (T), authority relations (A), recognition
systems (R), grouping procedures (G), evaluation practices (E), and the use of
time (T). Greene, Miller, and Crowson (2004) tested this model by examining
the influence of students’ perceptions of classroom structure (tasks, support
of autonomy, management, and evaluation) on self-efficacy, instrumentality of
classroom work and extrinsic goal orientation in the classroom environment.
122 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

The results of analysis have confirmed the assumptions that perceptions of cli-
mate in the classroom play an important part in student motivation. Although
certain previous research studies have confirmed the influence of the percep-
tions of the climate in the classroom on the setting of goals and self-efficacy,
their findings were the first to support the line of argument that when students
assess learning in the classroom as being relevant and interesting, this affects
their positive assessment of learning in the future.
Midgley et al. (2000) developed a questionnaire entitled “The Patterns
of Adaptive Learning Survey” (PALS), which has been often used to assess
students’ perceptions of predominant classroom goal structures, as well as for
measuring an individual’s goal orientation. By using this instrument, Urdan
and Midgley (2003) examined changes in the perceived classroom goal struc-
tures when students were promoted to the next year of study. In cases in which
students perceived a higher emphasis on mastery goals in the new class, they
reported more positive influences, an increased sense of self-efficacy and better
learning achievements (Urdan & Midgley, 2003). If the situation was the oppo-
site, their learning motivation, and learning performance declined.

Purpose of the present study

To date, research on the influence of learning context on the forma-

tion of goal orientations and other factors of learning motivation has primarily
focused on classroom settings, specifically on the characteristics of teaching
tasks, assessment, and instructional strategies. We believe that goal orientation
is among the most important factors of motivation. The first and most impor-
tant reason is that goal orientation directly influences many important aspects
of student motivation. For example, it is more likely that students with intrin-
sic goal orientation will have higher self-efficacy, use more complex cognitive
learning strategies, be meta-cognitively more active, and achieve better learn-
ing outcomes. Previous research shows that goals direct, or at least mediate, the
entire process of self-regulation of learning, wherein the use of strategies is only
one of the aspects.
Knowing goal orientations and understanding of specific classroom
practices is at the core of our research. A number of reviews have been carried
out in order to document the different ways in which the classroom and school
environment affect the formation of a particular goal orientation (e.g. Ames,
1992; Church et al., 2001; Nie & Lau, 2010; Urdan, 2004). In fact, the psychology
of motivation has always been set into a certain context of operation. In order
to understand the perception of the learning environment and the influence on
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 123

the processes of development of intrinsic motivation, we should also highlight

the contribution of Deci and Ryan (1985). They have carried out many studies in
which they endeavoured to determine how differently designed environments
(and educational materials) affect the development of motivation (Deci, Koest-
ner, & Ryan, 2001; Mažgon & Štefanc, 2012). Deci et al. (2001) have established
that three factors are crucial (i.e. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and
positively affect the development or maintenance of an individual’s intrinsic
motivation.
Less prominent in motivation research are studies that explore motiva-
tion in terms of a broader understanding of the learning environment, includ-
ing the dimensions described by Moss, Fraser and other authors. Research in
this field has also been more focused on the samples of primary and secondary
education, but fewer studies have examined this topic within the framework of
university education. The main research questions of this study are therefore:
1. How are the perceptions of learning environment connected to students’
motivation?
2. Which aspects of learning environment and motivation predict stu-
dents’ satisfaction with the course?

Method

Participants and procedure

The survey was conducted between November and December 2014, and
included students who were enrolled in the first year of master studies at the
Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana. The sample consisted of 120 stu-
dents (102 female, 17 male, 1 did not reveal his or her gender) who study in
different programs, but are also participating in the common teaching module.
This means that than 80% of all the students in this module were included in
the research. Students from foreign language (e.g. English and German Lan-
guage and Literature), Slovenian, and Comparative Literature study programs
prevailed with 76.7% of the whole sample. Females were also predominant in
the sample (86%), which accurately reflects the actual participants in the study
programs. Students respondents were 21 to 32 years old (M = 23.3; SD = 1.75).
The age category 22 to 25 years represents more than 80% of all students in the
research; only 9 students were older than 25 years.
124 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

Measures

Characteristics of motivation
In order to establish the connection between motivation and percep-
tion of the learning environment, we employed motivational scales from the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), which is based on a social-cognitive approach to
motivation and learning characterized by stressing the interconnection of the
cognitive and emotional components of learning. In the first part of the ques-
tionnaire, 20 items was used from the MSLQ, specifically from the “Intrinsic
goal-orientation” and “Extrinsic goal-orientation”, “Self-efficacy” and “Control
beliefs” scales. The respondents replied to the five-point Likert scale question-
naire with the following answer possibilities: 1 – Definitely not true of me, 2
– Mostly not true of me, 3 – Sometimes true and sometimes not true of me,
4 – Mostly true of me, 5 – Definitely true of me. A five-point scale instead of
the original seven-point scale was used to unify scales across the questionnaire.
To identify the underlying structure of motivational scales, we per-
formed several factor analysis. First, we analysed the principal components
procedure in order to assess the number of factors. The preliminary results
and Cattell’s scree test showed there were seven components whose eigenvalues
were greater than 1. Since an additional analysis of this table with component
weights indicated the existence of four dimensions, we proceeded by carrying
out a factor analysis with the principal axis method with four factors. Since
items were moderately correlated, orthogonal rotation was chosen (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2013). The Bartlett spherical test was highly significant (p < 0.001),
whilst the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy, although appro-
priate, was statistically insignificant (KMO = 0.75). Together, these four factors
explain 43% of the variance; in terms of content, they correspond to the theo-
retical expectations of the scale. With regard to the described procedure, we
formed four composite motivational variables: Self-efficacy (5 items; explains
22% of the variance); Intrinsic goal-orientation (5 items; 10% of the variance);
Control beliefs (3 items; 6% of the variance); Extrinsic goal-orientation (3 items;
5% of the variance).

Evaluation of the learning environment

In addition to the scales from Motivated Strategies for Learning Ques-
tionnaire, we also used the Evaluation of the Learning Environment Question-
naire. The questionnaire, developed especially for this survey, is based on Moos’
(1974) conceptualization of the learning environment, similar to many other
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 125

questionnaires that were developed mainly for the use in primary or secondary
education. However, the latter instruments are inappropriate for assessing the
learning environment in higher education. In this part of the questionnaire,
42 items were formed, representing the main dimensions of the learning envi-
ronment: teacher support, student interaction, authentic learning, autonomy,
and personal relevance. The respondents assessed their perceptions of learning
environment on the course level by using the five-point Likert scale, which rep-
resented the frequency of individual “events” in lectures. The following answers
were possible: 1 – Never, 2 – Seldom, 3 – Sometimes, 4 – Often, 5 – Always.
The number of components was first evaluated with the principal component
analysis, and the results of this analysis showed six appropriate dimensions. We
employed the Varimax rotation with the principal axis method. The solution
with four factors (KMO = 0.84, Bartlett spherical test p < 0.001) proved to be
the most appropriate. Together, these factors explain 46% of the variance. We
formed four composite variables: Authentic learning (eight items; explains 31%
of the variance; e.g. “In this course, we deal with real situations”); Teacher sup-
port (six items; 6% of the variance; e.g. “In this course, the teacher encourages
my active participation”); Student interaction (six items; explains 5% of the vari-
ance; e.g. “In this course, students collaborate with each other”) and Autonomy
(three items; explains 4% of the variance; e.g. “In this course, I can study at a
time that is most convenient for me”). Seven items that achieved loadings un-
der 0.45 (20% of variance) were excluded from further analysis. Factor loadings
of the “Evaluation of Learning Environment Scale” are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Factor Loadings for the Evaluation of Learning Environment Scale

Factor loading

Authentic Teacher Student interaction Students

Item learning support and collaboration autonomy

AUTH 84 0.75
AUTH 92 0.66
AUTH 94 0.63
AUTH 82 0.60
AUTH 106 0.57
AUTH 87 0.53
AUTH 108 0.52
AUTH 79 0.51
TEACHS 99 0.75
126 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

TEACHS 93 0.69
TEACHS 104 0.68
TEACHS 76 0.53
TEACHS 72 0.48
TEACHS 95 0.47
STUDINT 109 0.86
STUDINT 107 0.75
STUDINT 71 0.58
STUDINT 89 0.53
STUDINT 83 0.51
STUDINT 112 0.45
AUTON 97 0.78
AUTON 100 0.76
AUTON 78 0.55
% Variance 31.42 6.22 5.09 3.76

Course satisfaction
We also used the “Course satisfaction” scale in order to obtain data on
the interconnection of psychosocial characteristics of the learning environ-
ment and enjoyment of education. The scale comprises nine items, which were
adapted from the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) (Fraser, 1981). We
used the same categories of assessment (Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom,
and Never) as with the learning environment scales.

Data analyses

The psychometric characteristics of the instruments were determined

with the exploratory factor analysis (latent structure of questionnaires) and
Cronbach’s α coefficient (to establish internal consistency). In order to answer
our research questions, we employed different bivariate and multivariate analy-
ses: to establish the connection between individual dimensions, the bivariate
correlation analysis was used; to understand the predictive value of independ-
ent variables on dependent variables, the multivariate linear regression method
was used.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 127

Results

Descriptive statistics

Initially, we shall examine the descriptive statistics used for the learn-
ing motivation and learning environment scales. Table 2 shows means, standard
deviations, Cronbach’s α coefficient of internal consistency, and the number
of items in the scale. The means show that the respondents assessed all items
relatively highly (on a five-point scale). All means are above 3, and the results
show that items from perceived autonomy and authentic learning scales were
assessed the highest, whilst items related to extrinsic goals-orientation and stu-
dent interaction were assessed the lowest.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Number of Items for

Motivational and Learning Environment Scales

Variable M SD α Nitems
Self-efficacy 3.43 .72 .79 5
Intrinsic goal-orientation 3.77 .72 .69 4
Control beliefs 3.97 .72 .58 3
Extrinsic goal-orientation 3.24 .84 .62 3
Course satisfaction 3.44 .82 .90 9
Student interaction 3.21 .12 .85 7
Authentic learning 3.99 .38 .88 9
Teacher support 3.69 .93 .82 6
Autonomy 4.00 .38 .75 3

The analysis of standard deviation values shows that the assessments dif-
fer the most with items from the Teacher support (SD = 0.93) and Extrinsic
goal-orientation scales (SD = 0.84), although the average of each of these scales
is not among the highest. The standard deviations are the lowest in the percep-
tions of students in relation to their interactions in class (SD = 0.12). The coef-
ficients of reliability are between 0.58 and 0.90, which range between poor to
very good according to DeVellis (2003). The cause of low reliability of Control
beliefs and Extrinsic goal-orientation scales is most likely the low number of
items in these scales.
128 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

The connection between motivational variables and dimensions

of psychosocial environment

Table 3 shows correlations between the motivational, the learning envi-

ronment and course satisfaction scales. Correlational connections are mostly
positive and their effect sizes range between small and large (Cohen, 1988, pp.
79–81).

Table 3. Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation between Motivational Strategies,

Perception of the Learning Environment and Course Satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Self-efficacy –
2. Intrinsic goal-orientation .32*** –
3. Control beliefs .47 ***
.21** –
4. Extrinsic goal-orientation .06 .16 –.03 –
5. Course satisfaction .20* .45*** .24** –.07 –
6. Student interaction .15 .51***
.02 .24 .31*** –
7. Authentic learning .17 .60*** .17 .09 .57*** .62*** –
8. Teacher support .17 .45 ***
.13 .01 .57 ***
.53 ***
.60*** –
9. Autonomy .21** .33*** .15 .09 .07 .30*** .18* .20* –

Note: * p < .05 **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Self-efficacy is positively correlated to intrinsic goal orientation (r =

0.32) and control beliefs (r = 0.47), and there is no correlation with extrinsic
goal orientation. Students with high self-efficacy beliefs are also more prone to
feel that they can control their learning and motivation. They are also more mo-
tivated to master their learning and are not motivated in comparison with oth-
ers. We also find low correlation between self-efficacy and course satisfaction (r
= 0.20) and autonomy scales (r = 0.21). There are numerous strong correlations
between intrinsic goal orientation and other scales.
The highest correlations are between intrinsic goals and authentic learn-
ing (r = 0.60) and student interaction scales (r = 0.51). Students with intrinsic
goal orientation during their studies see their courses as being tightly connected
to real-life examples and can see the connection between theoretical problems
in the course and the practical problems that they will face on the job. Results
also show moderately high correlations between intrinsic goal orientation and
teacher support (r = 0.45). This means that goal orientation that focuses more
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 129

on mastery is also correlated to perceived teacher support, his/her feedback,

incentives, and communication.
Correlation with perceived autonomy (r = 0.33) is also expected, which
shows a relationship between active student participation and control, his or
her learning, and the development of intrinsic motivation. Lastly, intrinsic
goals are also moderately correlated with enjoyment that students feel in class
(r = 0.45). The course satisfaction scale is positively correlated with almost all
learning environment scales. The highest are correlations with authentic learn-
ing and teacher support scales (both r = 0.57). This shows us that students are
mostly enjoying classes where they can apply new knowledge to real-life situ-
ations and where their progress in learning is supported by teachers. Also im-
portant for their satisfaction with the course is the possibility of collaborative
learning in which they can discuss study topics in groups (r = 0.31). Student
interaction is also highly correlated with both authentic learning (r = 0.62) and
Teacher support (r = 0.53).

Characteristics of the learning environment which predict

students’ motivation and course satisfaction

The theory and empirical findings show that perceptions of learning en-
vironment positively influence motivation and course satisfaction. Since cor-
relation only tests for interdependence of the variables, we were also interested
in describing the predictive value of learning environment. Correlation analysis
(presented in Table 3) showed many moderate to high connections between
motivation and evaluation of learning environment. Since learning environ-
ment variables were mostly correlated to intrinsic goal-orientation, we were
interested to determine which of these variables is the most important in pre-
dicting intrinsic motivation. Linear regression results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Regression Analysis Summary for Learning Environment Scales

Predicting Intrinsic Goal-orientation

Variable B SEB β
Student interaction .13 .09 .15
Authentic learning .46 .11 .43***
Teacher support .07 .09 .07
Autonomy .19 .07 .20***

Note: R = .43 (N = 118, p < .001).

2

***p < .001.

130 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

The regression model is highly statistically significant and explains no

less than 43% of the prediction of the dimensions of the learning environment
of setting of intrinsic goals during learning (F = 21.34; p < 0.001). As can be seen
in Table 4, two characteristics of the learning environment statistically signifi-
cant affect the Intrinsic goal-orientation: perception of learning as authentic,
connected to practical problems (β = 0.43) and perceived autonomy during
their study (β = 0.20). These results show that the more that students see their
learning as relevant and valuable for their practical experiences, the more in-
trinsically motivated they feel. Intrinsic orientation was also emphasized with
the possibilities of taking control over learning. This means that the more a
teacher (according to the opinion of students) encourages and allows the au-
tonomous decisions of students and provides them with opportunities to make
co-decisions, the more the students perceive the studied topics as useful and the
greater the probability they will be intrinsically motivated during their study.
Table 5 shows the importance of the factors that could predict student
satisfaction. The regression model results have shown that all of the used vari-
ables explain in total 46% of the variance in predicting student course satisfac-
tion (F = 11.91; p < 0.001).

Table 5. Regression Analysis Summary for Motivation and Learning

Environment Scales Predicting Course Satisfaction

Variable B SEB β
Self-efficacy .03 .09 .03
Intrinsic goal-orientation .17 .10 .16
Control beliefs .10 .09 .10
Extrinsic goal-orientation -.07 .07 -.08
Student interaction -.15 .09 -.15
Authentic learning .41 .12 .36***
Teacher support .37 .09 .36***
Autonomy -.09 .08 -.08

Note: R2 = .46 (N = 118, p < .001).

***p < .001.

Despite the numerous high correlations related to student satisfaction

(shown in Table 3), we have established that greater satisfaction is significant-
ly predicted by teacher support in the study process (����������������������
��������������������
= 0.36), and the au-
thenticity of learning (β = 0.36). No other predictive variable has proved to be
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 131

statistically significant, although intrinsic goal-orientation is close to statistical

significance (Sig. = 0.08). We can establish that the attention a teacher devotes
to providing feedback to students’ work, their encouragement and appropriate
communication contribute to student enjoyment; the more a student perceives
a teacher as doing so, the more the student is enjoying studying in a course.

Discussion

It the present study, we have examined the relationships among moti-

vational and contextual aspects of studying in higher education. In sum, our
results showed that perceived contextual dimensions mainly predict intrinsic
goal-orientation, and they are the only statistically significant determinants
of students’ course satisfaction. Although intrinsic goal-orientation bivariate
correlations were numerous, linear regression analysis revealed that is mainly
correlated to authentic learning, teacher support, and perception of autonomy
during learning.

Learning environment’s effect on motivation

The results have shown that students who set themselves intrinsic goals
have a greater sense of control of their learning and a feeling of self-efficacy.
Furthermore, our study revealed that students who perceive their learning en-
vironment as a place that fosters autonomy and self-direction and find their
education to be useful and relevant are more intrinsically motivated. The im-
portance of collaborative learning and teacher support is also underscored.
The results of the regression analysis reflect the findings from the correlation
analysis and give even more significance to the real-life problems of the studied
topics, and support in developing autonomy. The importance of the perceived
authenticity of learning have also been proven in the correlation analysis. In
this study, the interconnectedness of theoretical knowledge and practical ap-
plication seems to be among the most important determinants of students’ mo-
tivation for studying in higher education. These findings are also supported by
the research that has been done on goal-orientations. Ames and Archer (1988)
found that goals set on the classroom level also affect the goals set by indi-
vidual students. Students who believed that their learning environment was
performance-oriented and encouraging with regards to good grades and com-
petition set themselves extrinsic goals also with learning. These results were
later reinforced with further particularization of extrinsic goals in other studies
(Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006;
132 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). On the one hand, researchers established that
with stricter evaluation and reduced emphasis on the learning content, the pos-
sibility to follow extrinsic goals increased. On the other hand, those students
who perceived the learning environment as oriented towards relevance and
understanding set themselves intrinsic goals and reported a higher level of self-
efficacy (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Our results also confirm a positive
correlation of encouraging teacher support and cooperation between students
on the development of intrinsic motivation and course satisfaction. Further-
more, our findings in relation to the importance of teacher support in the de-
velopment of autonomy are supported by the study conducted by Green and
colleagues (2004). They have established a positive relationship of the feeling of
autonomy on the setting of intrinsic goals, higher self-efficacy, the use of strate-
gies and better grades. Important factors also include encouraging cooperation
among students. Students more frequently set themselves intrinsic goals in a
learning environment that encourages cooperation and communication.

Determinants of students’ course satisfaction

Our second research question was connected to the correlation and

prediction of motivational and learning environment factors with students’
satisfaction with education. Bivariate analysis showed several significant con-
nections, especially with intrinsic goal-orientation, student interaction, au-
thentic learning, and teacher support. However, regression analysis has proved
that only authentic learning and (surprisingly) support for autonomy were
statistically significant predictive variables. Both the time a teacher devotes to
providing real-life examples to students and connecting theory to practice as
well as enabling their autonomy in learning positively contributes to student
enjoyment and satisfaction in the study program. This was confirmed by the
research on the factors of enjoyment of education conducted by other authors
(e.g. Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002). Lizzio, Wilson, and Simons (2002) found
that university students’ perceptions of learning environment affect the learn-
ing performance, enjoyment of education, as well as development of key com-
petences in learning outcomes, which directly and indirectly predict their at-
titude towards study.
In our opinion, the results of this study have practical implications for
teachers because they provide a greater understanding about the different as-
pects of the learning environment and how those aspects predict student mo-
tivation and satisfaction. Our findings are consistent with other authors who
have explored “authentic learning environments” (Herrington, Reeves, &
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 133

Oliver, 2014), and we can conclude that students will more likely develop intrin-
sic goal-orientation and enjoy studying when they view their course as relevant,
interesting, and supportive of autonomy. Of course, these goals are difficult to
achieve with the use of the top-down approach to teaching that is mostly con-
trolled by the teacher. While some level of teacher-controlled didactic strate-
gies are necessary for achieving his or her instructional goals, the results of
our study suggest that a bottom-up approach that involves teaching strategies
that increase student engagement and take into account their needs and in-
terests could be more appropriate. We are well aware that increased intrinsic
motivation is only one of the possible learning outcomes in higher education
and that this is not always congruent with other, more cognitive outcomes. As
some authors have suggested, this approach is not always effective (e.g., Segers,
1996). In the future, research studies should identify the learning outcomes that
are important for evaluating the effectiveness of education (not only cognitive
outcomes but also affective, social outcomes, etc.), and they should also recog-
nize the strengths and weaknesses of the didactic strategies that arise from the
constructivist learning environments.

References

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Bell, L., & Dorman, J. (2012). Using a New Learning Environment
Questionnaire for Reflection in Teacher Action Research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3),
259–290. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9268-1
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies
and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.80.3.260
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement Goals as a Measure of Motivation in University Students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 430–446. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1031
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and
content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment,
achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43
Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review
of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28. doi:10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3
134 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational semiotic.
Educational Psychology Review, 4(2), 165–194. doi:10.1007/BF01322343
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in
Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Dweck, C. S. (1985). Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation maintenance: An
achievement goal analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education: The
classroom milieu. Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040–1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 628–644.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.628
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632–648. doi:10.1037/a0023952
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science Related Attitudes. Perth, Australia: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: progress and prospect. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 21(4), 307–327. doi:10.1080/0022027890210402
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Effects of Classroom Psychosocial Environment on Student
Learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(3), 374–377. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.
tb02525.x
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning.
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3–31.
Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to
learning: can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409.
doi:10.1080/03055690600850354
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 135

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting
high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom
perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482. doi:10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2004.01.006
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3),
638–645. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic Learning Environments. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications
and Technology (pp. 401–412). Springer New York.
Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive
behaviour. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 191–211.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning
Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 27(1), 27–52. doi:10.1080/03075070120099359
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning
environments: introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 351–357.
doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4
Mažgon, J., & Štefanc, D. (2012). Importance of the Various Characteristics of Educational Materials:
Different Opinions, Different Perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
(TOJET), 11(3), 174–188.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom Goal Structure, Student
Motivation, and Academic Achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 487–503. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710–718.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T.
(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human environments: An
overview. In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in Social Ecology: Human Milieus (pp. 5–29). Palo
Alto, CA: National Press Books.
Moos, R. H. (2002). The Mystery of Human Context and Coping: An Unraveling of Clues. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 67–88. doi:10.1023/A:1014372101550
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
136 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(6), 683–692. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.6.683
Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’
cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 411–423. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2009.04.002
Pajares, F. (1997). Current Directions in Self-efficacy Research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (No. Technical Report No. 91-8-004). Ann
Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Merrill Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The
mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408
Segers, M. (1996). Assessment in a Problem-Based Economics Curriculum. In M. Birenbaum & F.
Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives inAssessment of Achievements, Learning Processes and Prior Learning (pp.
201–226). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement Goal Theory at the
Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions. Educational Psychologist,
46(1), 26–47. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and
avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(1), 71–81. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.71
Smith, L., Sinclair, K. E., & Chapman, E. S. (2002). Students’ goals, self-efficacy, self-handicapping,
and negative affective responses: An Australian senior school student study. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27(3), 471–485.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning
environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302. doi:10.1016/S0883-
0355(97)90011-2
Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of Academic Self-Handicapping and Achievement: Examining
 c e p s Journal | Vol.5 | No2 | Year 2015 137

Achievement Goals, Classroom Goal Structures, and Culture. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(2), 251. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.251
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of
adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 524–551.
doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00060-7
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The Role of Classroom Goal Structure in
Students’ Use of Self-Handicapping Strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 101–122.
doi:10.3102/00028312035001101
Walberg, H. J. (1969). Social environment as a mediator of classroom learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 60(6), 443–448. doi:10.1037/h0028499
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing
Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance Education Learning
Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289–308. doi:10.1007/s10984-
005-1568-3
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What Influences Learning? A Content Analysis
of Review Literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43.
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’
motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.
doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90015-1
138 relations between students’ motivation and learning environment

Biographical note

Danijela Makovec graduated at the Faculty of Arts, University of

Ljubljana (UL). Currently she is a Ph.D. Student at the Department of Educa-
tional Sciences, Faculty of Arts, UL. She is working as a Teaching assistant for
Didactics and Curriculum Studies at the Department of Educational Sciences,
Faculty of Arts, UL. Her main activities and responsibilities are preparation and
implementation of tutorials in Didactics, conducting of seminars in Didactics,
scientific research in Didactics and Curriculum Studies. The research work of
Danijela Makovec consists of studies into the teacher’s role in planning and im-
plementing instruction and didactic strategies, teacher’s authority, the quality
of university study and others.

Marko Radovan has a Ph.D. in psychology and is an assistant profes-

sor at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts. His research concentrates on
characteristics of self-regulated learning and impact of learning environment on
motivation to learn. He participated in several international research projects,
most recent are “PIAAC (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies)”, “Lifelong Learning 2010: Towards a Lifelong Learning Society
in Europe” financed by European Commission’s 6 Framework Programme and
“Older Men as Active learners in the Community”, coordinated by the Univer-
sity of Ljubljana. He organised or co-organized many international scientific
meetings and is a co-editor of “Andragogic Perspectives”, main Slovenian journal
for adult education.