Résumé
Self Determination Theory (SDT, Ryan & Deci, 2002, 2007) posits that human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alternatively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the contextual conditions that facilitate versus forestall the natural processes of self-motivation and healthy psychological development. This assumption seems quite consistent with the concerns of positive psychology (Sarrazin & al., 2011). In educational context, a lot of studies (Connell & Klem, 2000; Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008; Reeve, 2009; Tessier, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud, 2006; Vansteenkiste & al., 2004) have focused first, on the linkages between students’ motivation types and behavioral, affect and cognitive outcomes, second, on how learning contexts contribute to motivational resources of students. In comparison, we observe less studies which focused on the development of motivations. With a longitudinal design, our study aims to better understand the development of motivations during a year and the role played by self-efficacy in the differences observed in the development of motivations. With this objective, we consider the entrance at the university as a career’ transition which implies some adjustments of self. Methodology Self-efficacy and motivations were assessed at the beginning of the first semester (Time 1), at the end of the first semester (Time 2) an at the end of the second semester (Time 3). A sample of 125 first-year and second year College students took part to data collection. There were students enrolled in a psychology program in university of Montpellier (France). The motivations of the students were assessed with the academic motivation scale (higher education version, Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989). This multifaceted tool examines 3 types of intrinsic motivation (motivation to know, to accomplish, to experience); 3 types of extrinsic motivation (identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation); and amotivation with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “not agree at all” to 7 “completely agree”. The self-efficacy was assessed with the French version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), which comprises 10 items with a 4-point scale ranging from “not at all true” to “completely true”. Results The repeated measures anova showed a significant difference among the means at each times. The results showed the dynamics of motivations during the year. Furthermore, self-efficacy' profile has an impact on the dynamics of motivations. Results indicated that individuals with low self-efficacy score at the beginning of the academic school year did not develop their motivations in the same way as individuals with high self-efficacy. The practical utility of these results and the benefits of self-motivation for learning will be discussed.