This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 14 November 2014, At: 01:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational PsychologistPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20
Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivistinstructional perspectivesDaniel T. HickeyPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Daniel T. Hickey (1997) Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives,Educational Psychologist, 32:3, 175-193, DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3203_3
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3203_3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 32(3), 175-193 Copyright Q 1997, Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc.
Motivatj on and Contemporary Socio-Cons tructivist Instructional Perspectives
Daniel T. Hickey Vanderbilt University
The perspective generally referred to as socio-constructivism is prominent in contemporary educational reform efforts. This article argues for expanded study of the motivational issues
etween presented by new curricular approaches that follow from this perspective. The conflict. b the models of motivation that are most influential in education and socio-constructivist perspectives is explored, and newer models of motivation, including explicitly socio-construc- tivist ones, are described. k review of motivation's treatment in new curricular approaches further illustrates how socio-constructivist perspectives can expand and revise our under- standing of classroom motivation. This review also illustrates how the expanded study of motivation might help demonstrate the value of new approaches, and yield important insights that can help advance them. Finally, this review shows h w ubiquitous intrinsically motivating instructional principles may undermine the goals of new curricular approaches, suggesting expanded consideration of motivational issues within curricular and professional development efforts.associated with those approaches.
For many years, research on cognition &d inslmction main- tained a strict focus on knowledge structures presumed to be in the mind of individual learners. Consider, for example, that Resnick's (1981) review of instructional psychology focused exclusively on issues of information processing, problem solving, and intelligence. However, contemporary perspec- tives reflect a dramatic shift toward a broader, multisource model that considers many other influences. As Resnick (1989) described this shift:
In a sense, a new kind of mental discipline theory is being formulated, one that situates learning ability in a combination of skills and dispositions for elaborative and generative men- tal work. The new attention to dispositions for mental activity, in turn, directs instructional theorists' attention to aspects of human functioning that for. many decades have been treated as separate from cognition. (p. 10)
The most salient aspects of human functioning in this newer perspective are sociocultural influences. Drawing strongly from the work of Vygotsky (e.g., 1978) and his
Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel T. Hickey, Center for Performance Assessment, Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 11-P, Princeton, New Jersey 08619. E-maikdhickey @ets.org
followers (e.g., Cole & Bmner, 1971; Lave, 1988; Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1991), a perspective loosely defined as socio- constructivism has emerged as a dominant force in efforts to understand and improve schooll learning. Incorporating influ- ences traditionally associated with sociology imd anthropol- ogy, this perspective emphasizes the impact of collaboration, social context, and negotiatior~ on thinking and learning. A central notion in socio-constmctivism is asszsted learning. Assisted learning occurs in the now-familiar "zone of proxi- mal development," where more able others actively scaffold the individual's performan~ce at a level beyond which the individual could perform alone. Contemporary cognitive theorists have expanded this; notion to give nonsocial aspects of the environment an active role in the individual's learning as well. Rather than a solitary process, these newer perspec- tives assume that effective learning occurs via interaction with and support from people and objects in the world. This central, active role for the physical and social environment distin- guishes contemporary socio-constructivism from Piagetian models of learning and development, and associated instruc- tional innovations such as "discovery learniing." Socio-con- structivism9s influence on education is reflected in its central role in reform documents such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' (NCTM, 1989) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics and the Ameri-
can Psychological Association's Learner-Centered Psycho- logical Principles: Guidelines for School Redesign and Re- form (Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993).
The label socio-constructivist is applied to a bewildering array of pedagogical treatments. Notable examples of the class of approaches considered in this article include cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989), commu- nities of learners (A. L. Brown et al., 1993; A. L. Brown & Carnpione, 1994), intentional learning (Bereiter & Scar- damalia, 1989), schools for thought (Lamon et al., 1996), anchored instruction (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1990, 1992)' and reciprocal teaching (A. L. Brown & Palincsar, 1989). At the core of each of these examples are tasks and activities structured so that people and objects serve to model and coach understanding and perform- ance, to scaffold student learning. The reader is advised that even these few examples represent highly divergent applica- tions of socio-constructivist theory, illustrating the caution called for by generalized characterizations of this complex, evolving approach. Furthermore, it is impossible to point to a class of exemplary "conventional" curricular approaches. As such, the general distinction between socio-constructivist approaches and more conventional approaches simultane- ously overrepresents and underrepresents the complexities of the issues at hand. However, it is exactly the intention of this article to consider these newer in~tructional approaches and relatively conventional approaches in general, to provoke discussion that appears overdue.
This article concerns the role of motivation in socio-construc- tivist approaches. Reviewing the literature associated with so- cio-constructivist approaches reveals little consideration of ex- isting classroom motivation research. At first take, this might surprise some observers. Cognitive theorists generally acknow- ledge that cognitive precesses interact with motivation-an assumption that has bean more formally documented by numer- ous studies. In particular, researchers have shown that the types of cognitive and metac~gnidve strategic activity targeted by the new instructional frameworks are strongly impacted by motiva- tional variables such m interest and goal orientation (e.g., Gra- ham & Golan, 1991; Hidi, 1990; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993; Schiefele, 1992). To some educational researchers, the treatment of motivation in these new instructional frameworks must seem limited to untested assumpti~ns about their positive effect on motivation, and about motivation's role in their successful func- tioning.
At a more practical level, motivational issues have had little discernible role in the debate over the merits of socio- constructivist innovation (e.g., Duffy & Jonassen, 1991a, 1991b; McLellen, 1993; Tobias, 1991). Again, to many ob- servers, this must seem surprising (and unfortunate). Con- structivist instructional approaches have been intensely scru- tinized by conventionally minded educators and instructional
theorists. There seem to be many ways that more systematic consideration of motivation could inform this debate. For example, it appears that motivational issues were partly re- sponsible for the demise of discovery learning approaches (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Linn, 1986). If so, it would be expedient to study how and if newer approaches can over- come the motivational problems associated with the prior innovations. Furthermore, the potential merits of socio-con- structivist approaches are sometimes obscured by the argu- ment that they are merely "motivational embellishments7' to existing instructional content. In this view, the socio-con- structivist approaches represent little more than the applica- tion of instructional principles such as contextualization and collaboration (e.g., Dick, 1991). Such techniques have long been advocated by instructional design theorists as ways to make school instruction more intrinsically motivating (e.g., Keller, 1983, 1987; Lepper & Malone, 1987; Malone, 198 1). In fact, many of the instructional practices that have been advanced as intrinsically motivating are inherent in socio- constructivist learning environments. As we will see, how- ever, it is inappropriate to apply many of the instructional principles from this prior research to the more contemporary instructional frameworks. The difficulty of implementing socio-cons&uctivist Erameworks has been acknowledged by both skeptics and proponents (e.g., Dick, 1991; Perkins, 199 1). These frameworks are inherently nonprescriptive rela- tive to conventional instructional design frameworks and provide little explicit guidance for addressing motivational problems. Given the diffusion of intrinsically motivating instructional principles into educational practice, the ad hoc resolution of such issues relative to newer learning environ- ments may be problematic. Indeed, a major impetus for this article is concern that the challenge of implementing socio- constructivist approaches will lead educators to also employ motivational instructional practices that conflict with those approaches.
In short, there seem to be many good reasons for a more systematic treatment of motivation within socio-construc- tivist perspectives, or some sort of integration with existing motivation research. However, readers are likely aware that such expansion or integration is no simple endeavor. Consid- ering motivation research traditions in light of socio-construc- tivist perspectives reveals complex issues that preclude inte- gration. Each is rooted in different assumptions about learning and development, and each continues to evolve. This article explores the roots of the conflicts between prior motivation research and socio-constructivist perspectives, and reviews several initial efforts to recoflcile these differences. These examples are presented as part of a new model for considering motivation in a manner that is more commensurate with socio-constructivist perspectives. This article also shows how the treatment of motivational issues in the newer instructional frameworks can both inform and be informed by such a model
MOTNATION AND SOCIO-CONSTINJCTIVISM 1 77
of motivation, and how focused consideration of motivational issues could facilitate the implementation of curricular inno- vations that follow from these frameworks.
MOTIVATION AND EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES QN COGNITION
Contemporary socio-constructivist instructional theory emerged in the convergence of early Soviet developmental theory (i.e., Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) and the modern cognitive science perspective. This convergence is particularly interest- ing because Soviet developmental theory and cognitive sci- ence are rooted in different philosophical orientations, or worldviews (Pepper, 194211970). Worldviews are important because they provide researchers with the basic philosophical assumptions that drive empirical work, and with the heuristics and metaphors used to elaborate theoretical perspectives (see Young & Pintrich, in press). The following discussion shows that the influence of cognitive science's initially mechanis- tic-individualistic worldview on instructional theory has partly been displaced by a more contextualist worldview associated with socio-constructivism, which in turn conflicts with the worldview underlying much of the motivational theory that educators and curriculum developers have con- cerned themselves with in the modern era (e:.g., Bandura, 1986; Malone, 1981; Weiner, 1986).
Motivation and the Cognitive Science Perspective
With the ascendance of the cognitive paradigm in the 1970s, behavioral models of learning were replaced with ones that focused on internal cognitive representations. Using the computer as the dominant metaphor, cognitive researchers constructed computational systems to model specific cognitive functions. The "cognitive revolution" eventually had a major impact on the study of motivation via the social cognitive model advanced by Bandura (e.g., 1986) that emerged as the major perspective in social psychology. These models led motivational theorists to supplant behaviorist constructs such as drive: with cogni- tive constructs such as beliefs and goals.
Despite the influence of cognitiv...