Practical implications

To start with, this study has shown that common motivational profiles, even those that can be considered maladaptive, can be found in a selective adult student population, and that they are associated with students’ perceptions of learning and studying. Following this, educators need to recognize that despite context, gender and age, common motivational variation can be expected in a student population, and what teachers do is interpreted in different ways. Now, what is this information worth – how will it be applied to instruction? Despite findings from experiments suggesting that certain goal states can be quite reliably induced, and promising results from some interventions (cf., Urdan, 1997; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007), it is also clear that institution- or programme- wide applications of principles that would be purely supportive of adaptive motivation are, to say the least, challenging (e.g., Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1989). Fundamental and, quite likely, unfeasible changes would be required to create an environment that would be optimally motivating to virtually all students. However, identifying motivationally relevant shortcomings in instruction is possible, and it is feasible to adapt details of instruction to support motivation. This is not achieved quickly, no big things may be achieved, pedagogical delivery is certainly going to be supportive to only a part of the students, and these practices are not feasible at all times. To be or to become aware of students’ individual differences in motivation is something to start from; and the key message is that individual differences in motivation, here, mean differences in a relative emphasis on certain kinds of achievement purposes and beliefs in the importance of certain goals. Teachers need (1) to approach and address their students, and interpret their behaviour and other responses in the light of the knowledge that they are not a homogenous mass in what moves them and what kind of engagement is fostered, and (2) to seek to apply individual choices in instruction, learning paths and tasks where and when possible and appropriate. For example, as it seems that the skill demonstration as a pedagogic practice may offer opportunities for passiveness and minimal effort, maybe it would be worthwhile to scaffold the instructor’s observations by evaluating the students as a group, and using peer-evaluations and self- evaluations as an additional source.

Further, as students’ course evaluations are and will remain an essential part of quality evaluations in educational institutes, as is the case in the context of NDU, the interpretation of these evaluations is of utmost importance. The benefits and justification of these student evaluations are as good as is their validity and reliability. When mean levels of individual course evaluations are used as personal objectives of the effectiveness of their teaching for individual teachers, and aggregated means over all the courses in one term are used as indicators of departmental effectiveness (NDU, 2010), both teaching staff and

73 management should share an awareness of the possible effects that account for the variations in these measures. The results of this study do not justify calling student ratings biased, but it seems that the students’ evaluations of their role and activities are more affected by individual motivation than are their evaluations of instructional practices. This underlines two further important facts: first, it would be wise to seek to use research-based inventory in quality management to ensure that no unintentional confounding of independent aspects takes place. Second, as students’ motivation will play some role in their perceptions and consequent evaluations of instruction and studying, it would be recommendable to analyze also the variation of ratings both within and between individual courses, to avoid losing vital information in the overarching aggregation of results. In sum, the identification of best practices related to student motivation could begin with recognizing the appropriate level and unit of analysis.

As to the motivation-related structures embedded in the policies and practices of the NDU, the most obvious is the ranking system that is necessitated by the personnel management strategies of the Defence Forces. The conceptual definition of goal orientation adopted in this study depicts that in addition to a certain degree of stability, the emphasis of different orientations may be to some extent influenced by the demands of the learning environment (e.g., Ames &

Archer, 1988; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001). Following this, though beyond my

data, it could be that the military students’ achievement goal orientations may be nudged towards the focus on social comparison and demonstration of competence during their studies in the NDU. Clearly, the personnel management system is not likely to be changed based on small influences by achievement goal orientations in order to facilitate more positive learning experiences. However, it is also necessary to speculate on the possible long-term consequences: the NDU as an institute holds an important position in the Finnish military education. Even though there are some short interim courses and more specific military occupational training conducted by other units, the NDU is the sole military- professional training institution. Thus the attitudes and opinions the learners adopt in their studies may dictate their interest and enthusiasm to enrol on subsequent courses, and consequently affect their orientation towards all education associated with the NDU.

With regard to the two assessment practices examined here, it was interesting to note that differences in performance could not really be traced back to motivational profiles, and that the two forms of assessment were also virtually unrelated. Therefore, it seems that regardless of the purposes of the different practices, they might in fact be assessing something quite different, or in a different way, from what was intended. It would be recommended to discuss and disseminate these practices to separate more clearly which characteristics serve

which demand: perhaps practical options or administrative necessities do not go hand in hand with pedagogical objectives.