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-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

176 HICKEY

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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 cognitive science on motivation research, there was little reciprocity. The study of motivation was not fundamentally incompatible with the mechanistic orientation of cognitive science; rather, motivation was not an aspect of human activity of interest to cognitive re- searchers. As Resnick (1989) pointed out, "for their part, social psychologists have largely treated motivation as a motor for intellectual activity, something that determines how much activity, but not what kind of activity" (p. 10). Thus, cognitive theorists viewed motivation as a "necessary mo-

tor for starting and maintaining mental activity, but not di- rectly implicated in thinlong itself' (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989, p. 7).

Eventually, a challenge to cognition's isolation emerged as motivation researchers expanded their focus to include the relation between motivation and the cognitive, self-regula- tory, and metacognitive strategic knowledge shown to be critical for classroom learning. In general, this research showed that motivational factors such as goal orientation, self-efficac y, and interest hald a fundamental r d e in cognitive processing that is independent of factors such a s achievement level and domain knowledge (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece, Blumenfeld., dZ Hoyle, 1988; Nolan., 1988; Paris & Oka, 1986; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Schiefele, 1992). These and other factors led cognitive instructional theorists to increas- ingly agree with A. L. Brown's conclusion that "motivated aspects of learning have largely been overlooked by those who see themselves as cognitive scientists, and this omission needs to be rectified" (1988, p. 31 1). However, this increased concern for motivational influences on cognition appears to have coincided with the emergence of socio-constructivist perspectives on cognition that conflicted with the models of motivation that prevailed in education.

Motivation and Radical Socio-Constructivism

Vygotsky and his followers argued that development results from socialization within the reciprocal interaction between the iildividual and others vvho are actively participating in the individual's development. Thus, learning is the internaliza- tion of jointly held knowledge represented by social interac- tion. Socio-constructivist theorlles exemplify a contextualist worldview. According to Pepper (194211970), the root meta- phor for the contextualist worldview is a historical event. In such a worldview, events cannot be isolated from the context in which they occur and do not have a fixed end point. Thus, context has a fundamental, rather than merely a facilitative role-context is the change process (Lerner & Kaufman, 1985; Rogalff, 1990; Young ,& Pintrich, in press). Research in the contextualist tradition relies largely on descriptive and interpretive methods to document aspects of events and their relation to change. Soviet developmental theories continued to evolve within a strongly contextualist orientation following their introduction to Western theorists in the 1960s. In par- ticular, Wertsch (1991) a~dvanced the notion of mediation, whereby socioculturally represented cognitive tools such as language have a fundamental role in shaping activity. In this view, internal cognitive activity is always socially situated because it is always shaped bg. culturally determined (i.e., external) mediational means.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

178 HICKEY

Radical socio-constructivist perspectives do not reject the existence of motivation. Rather, they reject the notion that motivation can be distinguished from cognition, or that any aspect of human behavior can be considered a property of the individual, distinct from the larger sociocultural context. Vygot- sky argued that "separating 'affect' from 'intellect' makes the thought processes appear as an autonomous flow of 'thoughts thinking themselves,' segregated from the fullness of life, from the personal needs and interests, the inclinations and impulses of the thinker'' (1962, p. 8). A socio-constructivist view of cognition and affect was more fully developed by one of Vygotsky's students, Leont'ev, within activily theory (e.g., 1974-1975, 1978; see also Kozulin, 1986). In this theory, human activity provides the link between the individual and society. According to Leont'ev (1974-1975), activity is defined by its real or material object, its "real motive . . . a need or desire to which it always answers" (p. 22). Activity is composed of goal-directed processes known as actions, "a process that is structured by a mental representation of the result to be achieved, i.e., a process structured by aconsciousgoar' (p. 22). Activity theory presumes that motives and goals emerge and exist within the sociocultural realm, rather than as aproperty of the individual, and that activity, actions, and operations are interdependent and cannot be ana- lyzed in isolation; "Objects themselves can become energizers, goals, and tools only within a system of human activity. Out of the context of this system they lose their being as energizers, as goals, or as tools" (Leont'ev, 1974-75, p. 28-29).

Like Vygotsky and Leont'ev, many contemporary theo- rists (e.g., Lave, 1988; Rogoff, 1990) presume that cognitive activity is so context bound that one can never distinguish between the individual's cognitive ability, the individual's affective state, the context in which activity takes place, and the activity itself. Rogoff (1990) argued that although "events and activities are organized according to goals ... mental processes cannot be dissected apart from the goals to be accomplished and the practical and interpersonal actions used" and that "meaning and purpose are central to the definition of all aspects of events or activities and cannot be separated by summing the features of the individual and the features of the context" (p. 29). From the radical socio-con- structivist view, motivation cannot be distinguished from the larger realm of activity, and the individual's activity cannot be distinguished from the larger sociocultural context. From this perspective, one can only study the larger sphere of human activity; in Leont'ev's words, "laying bare [activity's] inner relations" (p. 28). Motivation, as an individually repre- sented construct that is distinguishable from other cognitive activity, becomes meaningless.

Motivation and Cognitive. Constructivist Perspectives

During the 1980s, cognitive theorists began incorporating socio-constructivist theories, as well as the ecological psy- chology theories associated with Gibson (e.g., 1986), into

classes of theories such as situated cognition (e.g., J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), situativity theory (e.g., Greeno, 1991), and distributed cognition (e.g., Salomon, 1993). These theories hold that knowledge and skills are situated in the physical and social context in which they are acquired, and that abstracting them from their authentic con- text irretrievably transforms them. This situativity leads to the conceptualization of skills and knowledge as being distrib- uted across the social and physical environment, "jointly composed in a system that comprises an individual and peers, teachers, or culturally provided tools" (Salomon, 1993, p. 112).

Substantial controversy has accompanied the ascendance of these new models of cognition. Much of this controversy can be characterized as a struggle between the extremes of models based entirely on individual-level representations, and models based entirely on distributed representations. Thus, whereas some theorists continue to question the useful- ness of either socially represented or distributed constructs, or both, at any level (e.g., Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Vera & Simon, 1993; see Norman, 1993), others (e.g., Pea, 1993) embrace a perspective more akin to the radical socio- constructivist stance previously described. However, some theorists advocate a more moderate perspective that recog- nizes the existence and utility of individually represented cognitive constructs, alongside (and interacting with) distrib- uted cognitions.

Salomon (1993) gave four arguments for a moderate inter- active cognitive perspective over an entirely distributed one. First, if the distribution of cognition depends on situational variables, some variables are likely to render distribution impossible or impractical. Second, some classes of cognition lack the attributes that readily afford distribution. In particu- lar, higher order thinking skills seem the least likely class of skills to be distributed, but perhaps all skills and cognitions except for declarative knowledge exist and develop as indi- vidual representations. Third, even the most fully distributed model cannot eliminate the role of individual representations; "Even when demoted to a secondary role, representations cannot be dismissed, because they are called upon when smooth execution of an action is blocked and requiring reflec- tion" (Salomon, p. 134). Finally, Salomon argued that dis- missing individual representations fails to account for change and development in the performance of joint systems, "pro- viding only frozen pictures of states that neither develop nor grow" (p. 134). Following from this more moderate position, Salomon argued for a interactive-transactional perspective, which he points out has much in common with Bandura's model of reciprocal determinism (e.g., Bandura, 1989). Thus, individuals rdtain their identity while rmiprocally affecting, and being affected by, others. Salomon concluded that "one ought to include in a theory of distributed cognitions the possibility that joint systems require and cultivate specific individual competencies ('cognitive residues') which affect performance in subsequent distributed activity" (1993, p.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 1 79

135). This appears generally consistent with other influential views. For example, Cobb, Yackel, and Wood ;argued that "an account of a student's mathematical learning in the classroom should consider the development of both taken-as-shared, communal meanings and practices, and the individual stu- dent's personal meanings and practices" (1992, p. 18).

The important aspect of this more moderate position is that some individual-level meaning or representation is main- tained. Assuming that some of the cognitive residue from joint activity will concern motivational beliefs, tlhis position is initially compatible with the general assumption underlying much of contemporary motivation research. As such, there appears to be little fundamental reason for restricting the consideration of motivation in moderate socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. However, this does not mean that prior motivation research is commensurate with these per- spectives. In particular, the foicus on domain-general con- structs, the reductionist tendency to isolate rnotiviation and cognition, and the reliance on rigid experimental control, are largely incompatible with the more contextualist instructional perspectives. The next section reviews the evolution of a more contextualist perspective on motivation, and highlights sev- eral examples of promising new ways of thinlung about and studying motivation to enhance these newer ins~xuctional approaches and demonstrate their effectiveness.

SOCIO-CONSTRIJCTIVISM AND EVOLVING MOTlVATlON

PERSPECTIVES

Many competing motivational theories have been advanced to explain similar phenomena. Therefore, succinct charac- terization of motivation perspectives is difficult, perhaps more so than characterizing socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Following is a review of modern (i.e., postbe- haviorist) motivation research that reveals a clear trend to- ward a more contextualist perspective. Although the distinc- tion may be somewhat arbitrary, this review distinguishes between more conventional perspectives and recent, explic- itly socio-constructivist ones.

Conventional Motivation Perspectives

Modern motivation research has generally been consistent with what Pepper (194211970) described as an organismic worldview. According to Pepper, the root metaphor for the organismic perspective is the development of a plant, with change conceptualized as the process of becoming. Develop- ment and change are seen in terms of the individual organism progressing logically and systematically toward some deter- minable end point. In such a perspective, context's role is limited to facilitating or inhibiting change, but not fundamen- tally altering its course. The individual has been the central

unit of analysis, and rest:arc:hers have tended to rely on psychometrics to measure individuals' motivational traits or states. Typical studies use self-report instruments to assess individual differences in motivation and analyze results using ordinary least-squares methodls. This focus on the individual leads to models and methods that differ from those that follow from a contextualist perspective (Rogoff, 1990). Note, how- ever, that the organismic tradition does not exclude issues of context or preclude consideration of events; rather, research carried out in this tradition considers contexts and events through individuals.

Social cognitive perspectives. A grealt deal of class- room motivation research can be associated with social cog- nitive theory (Bandura, 1986) that presumes that students' beliefs (particularly beliefs about ability) mediate achieve- ment-oriented behavior and cognition. Social cognitive mod- els d motivation have conceptualized individuals as agents, individually processing information that leads to cognitions and beliefs presumed to mainifest motivation. Social cognitive models of motivation generally follow from Expectancy x Value theory (e.g., Feather, 1982). The theory holds that individuals' effort at an activity is a functio~n of their expec- tancy for success if they apply themselves fully, and their value for succeeding at the activity. Initially, this research focused on domain-general constructs, typically assessed with n fixed set of items that were not necessarily linked to the specific domain of functioning under consideration. For example, Dweck (e.g., Dwe:ck & Elliot, 1983) conceptualized motivation in terms of a~hieve~ment goals, that are themselves rool.ed in domain-general beliefs about ability and intelli- gence. Although such earlier models acknowledged task-spe- cific situational influences (i.e., judgments of task difficulty, value, and interest), they focused on the factors that generalize beyload a specific task or domain:

When we speak of an individual's "having" adaptive [moti- valional] patterns, we mean that these patterns are displayed r~edily and widely, that his or her sets will override or reinterpret a variety of situational cues that might, say, lower others' expectancies or values or cause othm to abandon effective striving. (Dweck, 1989, p. 90)

Focusing on motivational patterns that are displayed read- ily and widely has important implications for instructional approaches that follow from such models. Dweck argued that "Effective intervention consists not simply [italics added] of creating an environment in which children's maladaptive tendencies do not come into play, but in promoting more adaptive tendencies that will generalize to less utopian set- tings" (1989, p. 90). Such aperspective supports motivational interventions such as attriblutilonal retraining programs that use specialized classroom activities to instill beliefs about ability and achievement presumed to underlie adaptive moti-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

180 HICKEY

vational patterns (see Licht & Kistner, 1986; Schunk, 1982). Although the impact of such programs continues to be de- bated, the important point is that such a focus on domain-gen- eral constructs leads to domain-independent instructional in- terventions.

Reflecting increased concern for the effects of particular settings, Brophy (1983, 1987) advanced the notion of moti- vation to learn, an acquired competence developed through general experience, that when activated or stimulated by a particular situation (via modeling, communication, or expec- tation), results in a state of motivation to learn. This state leads students to engage in classroom tasks with the "goal or intention of acquiring the knowledge or mastering the skill that the task is designed to teach" (1987, p. 182). Brophy's model (like Dweck's) assumed that worthwhile activities would not always be intrinsically valued, providing a frame- work for explaining and enhancing students' efforts to under- stand content and master skills "whether or not they find a particular task interesting or enjoyable" (Brophy, 1987, p. 182).

In recent years, this research has shifted further away from intervention and individual-difference approaches to motiva- tional problems and toward a prevention approach concerned with the larger learning environment (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Weiner, 1990). One factor in this shift was the apparent lack of cross-situational generality for motivational traits-as in students who are highly motivated in some school context, but not others (see Mischel & Peake, 1982). This shift corre- sponded to increased domain-specificity among cognitive and instructional theorists, as well as the shift toward prevention in other areas of behavior and health.

Studies that focused on the impact of learning contexts on motivation typically showed how common practices (e.g., repetitive uniform tasks, normative evaluation, and isolated individual performance) lead to low self-efficacy and maladaptive motivation orientation in students (see Ander- man & Maehr, 1994; Meece, 1991). Studies have shown how motivation can be improved by classroom changes, such as using meaningful and differentiated tasks, involving students in classroom decision making, building on students' interests, using cooperative and collaborative learning activities, and emphasizing the salience of mastery aspects of activities (e.g., Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Stipek & Daniels, 1988). Large- scale classroom and schoolwide implementations have shown that educators can use the pedagogical principles derived from this research to effectively enhance overall motivational cli- mates (e.g., Ames 1990, 1992; Maehr & Anderman, 1993).

Many of the instructional principles derived from this research are generally consistent with socio-constructivist practices. However, this research assumes a very conven- tional transmission model of pedagogy. As such, these prin- ciples can have very different implications in learning envi- ronments that are consistent with socio-constructivist perspectives. For example, the mastery aspects of conven- tional approaches are concerned with gaining specific skills

and knowledge. As we see later, mastery in socio-construc- tivist environments is defined rather differently, so emphasiz- ing it means something quite different. Thus, whereas in- creased domain-specificity and context orientation increased the meaningfulness of this research to socio-constructivist approaches, its explicit assumption of conventional instruc- tional models appears to qualify the utility of its principles for the newer socio-constructivist approaches.

Interest research. Another potentially relevant strand of motivation research concerns interest. Building upon Her- bart's (1 80611893) theories, Dewey (19 13) advanced a strong role for interest in classroom learning. Interest's prominent role in these early models of pedagogy meant that content- oriented motivational variables (such as student's personal interests and values relative to the content they were expected to learn) played an important role in the pedagogical practices derived from these models. However, domain-general notions of curiosity (e.g., Berlyne, 1966; see also Hatano & Inagaki, 1987) eventually supplanted content-oriented perspectives, leading to a focus on the processes by which knowledge is acquired rather than the content to be learned. The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of research around explicitly content-oriented notions of interest among researchers con- cerned with school learning. Most of this research is associ- ated with one of the two strands that follow from the distinc- tion specified by Dewey between personal interest (what an individual is interested in) and situational interest (the inter- estingness of a situation). The former is a relatively stable psychological trait that varies across individuals, whereas the latter is a short-term state that is generated across individuals by features of the environment.

In some ways, the theoretical framework associated with contemporary personal interest research appears compatible with aspects of socio-constructivist perspectives. Although personal interests are conceptualized as enduring traits, these traits concern aspects of (learning) contexts that are assumed to vary widely. As such, personal interest is a more context- specific notion than constructs such as achievement motiva- tion and goal orientation. Building on action theory, personal interest research considers interest in terms of the individual's choice of actions whenever choices exist pink, 1991). This perspective leads to a focus on how personal interests influ- ence task value, awareness of possibilities for action, and knowledge of possible forms of engagement with objects of interest (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Krapp and Fink (1992) provided a taxonomy of personal interest by distin- guishing between three levels of "interest objects" in terms of specificity. This includes general interest damains, more spe- cific interest objects (things that are concrete, but not neces- sarily physical), and reference objects (particular concrete things used when engaging in activity with the object of interest). Additional elaborations on personal interest are found in Schiefele's (1991, 1992) distinction between feel-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION A,NDl SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 1 8 1

ing-related components (positive emotional affect such as engagement or involvement) and value-related components (attribution of personal significance and value to a topic).

Most individual-interest research focuses on interest as an independent variable. For example, Schiefele's research documented personal interest's important, unique role in processing domain-specific texts. Schiefele (1991, 1992) found that individual interest was always more predictive of deeper level comprehension than general achieve~ient moti- vation, and was equally or more predictive than prior topic knowledge or verbal ability. Schiefele also showed that indi- vidual interest is highly associated with positive emotional experiences relative to reading (Schiefele, 1992) and math class (Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1995). Such studies have validated personal interest as an important individual factor in promoting the kinds of strategic activity targeted by socio-constructivist instructional practices. Another potential application is using personal int.erest as a dependent variable, to assess the impact of a learning environment. This raises important issues that call for further consideration of personal interest relative to the various motivational constructs dis- cussed so far. For example, is it more appropriate to concep- tualize the impact of environments in terms of personal inter- est, rather than self-efficacy or goal orientation?

Research on situational interest also has potential for studying new curricular approaches, particularly for under- standing how learners become interested within specific en- vironments. Most situational-interest research has concerned text characteristics that arouse interest, and how this text- based interest impacts comprehension (see Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Anderson, 1992). Schank (1979) and Kintsch (1980) dis- tinguished between "emotional interest" and "cognildve inter- est." Emotional interest is associated with universal interest factors such as death, love, and danger. This construct pro- vides a framework for understanding how dramatic contexts initially engage students in environments that incorporate narratives (such as anchored instruction or marratnve-based literacy instruction). Cognitive interest, on the other hand, is associated with structural features (such as incongruity via surprise endings and curiosity via suspense) and the content of the text. Studies by text researchers (e.g., Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Iran-Nejad, 1987) showed that situational interest is generated by resolving incongruities (rather than incongruity itself), through what Iran-Nejad and Cecil (1992) called "the creative reconceptualization of knowledge" (p. 300). This finding seems to support contemporary instructional perspec- tives because it supports the assumption that probleims them- selves are not necessarily interesting. Rather, it is the act of solving problems that is interesting.

Flow research. Another important line of motivation research is represented by Csikszentmihalyi's studies offlaw states (e.g., 1975, 1990). Defined as optimal experience, flow is characterized as a genuinely satisfied state of consciousness

associated with intense concentration, effortless control, and deep enjoyment. In addition to a potentially useful theoretical framework for considering how contexts impact learners' emotional and motivational states, this research offers aprom- ising research methodology. Experience-sampling methods (see Csikszentmihalyi & (~siltszentmihalyi, 1993) cue indi- viduals to report on various aspects of their experience while in the midst of particular activities. Several studies (described later) show that such methods have potential for studying new ins~ct ional approaches.

Motivational instructionalb design research. An ex- plicitly context-oriented strand of motivation research is rep- resented by Lepper and Malone's efforts (Lepper & Malone, 1987; Malone 1981; Malone & Lepper, 1987) to develop intrinsically motivating co~mputer-based instruction. This ef- fort yielded an influential set of instructional principles based on factors such as challenge, control, curiosity, fantasy, com- petition, and collaboration. A similar effort th~at is influential in the educational technology community is represented by Keller's Attention, ~eievance, Control, and Success (ARCS) motivational design mode1 (19183,1987). This model includes strategies for increasing value and personal investment in learning tasks by explaining how it relates to prior experience, explaining present worth and future usefulness, providing models of task mastery, and so forth. Research in this frame- work has studied the motivatimal power of viriables such as fantasy contexts (e.g., Parker & Lepper, 1992), personaliza- tion (;e.g., Anand & Ross, 1987), and learner control (e.g., Kinzie, Sullivan, & Berdel, 1988). In generad, this research has shown that motivation and (sometimes) learning is greater in motivationally embellitshed instructional environments, compared to an unadorned version of that same environment.

As with instructional principles based on other motivation theories, the relation between motivational design research and socio-constructivist perspectives is murky. Finding that a meaningful or interesting context increases motivation and learning is generally supportive of socio-constructivist prac- tices. However, as discussed later, socio-constructivist per- spectives lead to somewhai different definitions of meaning- ful and interesting. The sharp delineation between content and context in this motivational delsign research limits its applica- bility to designing and studying learning environments using socio-constructivist approach~es. For example, Parker and Lepper (1992) compared a fantasy LOGO environment (i.e., moving a pirate around islands to locate buried treasure) to a parallel nonfantasy environment (moving a triangle through various circles on the screen). The situativity assumption in socio-constructivist perspectives rejects the equivalence of the instructional content in embellished and unembellished environments. Thus, the mamipulations associated with moti- vational design research are not really meaningful from so- cio-constructh4st perspectives. Furthermore, the motiva- tional design research assumes that extrinsic rewards have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

182 HICKEY

important negative consequences, such as decreased interest and engagement. As shown later, there are reasons to suspect that socio-constructivist approaches favorably alter the con- sequences of extrinsic rewards.

Studying Motivation With Conventional Methods

Conflicting models of teaching and learning and incongruent theoretical perspectives don't necessarily preclude using con- ventional research methods to study the motivational aspects of socio-constructivist environments. Constructs such as goal orientation and self-perception are now generally conceptu- alized relative to a specific academic domain, such as math or science. As such, these frameworks can be used to study the impact of learning environments on individuals' motivational beliefs about an academic domain. This approach has been used to demonstrate the positive impact of innovative mathe- matics environments on students' motivational beliefs about mathematics and personal interest in mathematics (Cobb et al., 1991; Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Perlwitz, 1992; CTGV, 1992; Hickey, Pellegrino, Goldman, Vye, & Moore, 1993; Hickey, Pellegrino, & Moore, 1996; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990).

Reflecting shifting motivation perspectives, many re- searchers argue that motivation should be studied in terms of the quality of students' subjective experience while they are engaged in the learning activity (e.g., Boekaerts, 1987,1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Nenninger, 1992). Several recent studies illustrate the utility of this perspective and associated experience sampling methodologies for studying socio-con- structivist environments. Seegers and Boekaerts (1993) used conventional trait measures to assess students' motivational beliefs and administered situational on-line, self-report meas- ures of motivation and affect while these students worked conventional mathematics problems, Analyses revealed how task-specific variables (i.e., subjective competence and task relevance and attractiveness) mediated the influence of trait characteristics on students' emotional states and task engage- ment when confronted by complex tasks. Hickey, Moore, Pellegrino, Bateman and Goldman (1995) adapted this ap- proach to study students' subjective experience during an- chored instruction mathematics activities. In this study, indi- vidual trait variables were assessed at the beginning of the year, whereas situational variables were assessed during col- laborative activities structured around solving a complex problem that was "anchored" in a dramatic video-based nar- rative (or "macrocontext," see CTGV, 1990). Multiple regres- sion analyses revealed that undesirabla traits (ego orientation and attributing failure to ability) were unrelated to situational variables (subjective competence, relevance, attractiveness) in this innovative environment. This contrasts with Seegers and Boekaerts' finding of a strong negative relation between these same two sets of variables. This difference suggested that the anchored instruction environment enhanced motiva-

tion by diminishing the influence of undesirable motivational traits.

Other studies showed how experience sampling methods can be extended to more longitudinal studies of innovative environments. Bransford (1995) advanced the notion of ex- periences that energize (ETEs), using a method that has learners repeatedly characterize how energized they feel ac- cording to a single self-report item that serves as a global index of motivation and affect. An initial study showed this method to be a useful way of documenting how changes within a particular anchored instruction science environment changed learners' motivational states. In a further application of Boekaerts' on-line assessment method, Hickey et al. (1996) repeatedly assessed specific aspects of students' mo- tivational experiences across the school year, during both anchored instruction math activities and more conventional math activities. They found, for example, that whereas sub- jective competence was significantly diminished during an- chored instruction activities, this effect was limited to stu- dents' initial encounter with this relatively novel, complex activity. The finding that subjective competence during an- chored instruction eventually increased to the level reported during other math activities argues against excessive simpli- fication of the problem in response to students' initial hs t ra - tions. The results also suggest that the perceived relevanc~ of the learning activities was more a function of the reward and accountability system of the larger school environment, rather than the nature or topic of the particular activity.

The previous examples show that conventional approaches have some potential for studying the motivational aspects of new socio-constructivist curricular approaches. It should be noted that studies using individualsl as theunit of analysisraise concerns about differences between groups within particular treatments. Aggregating individuals' scores overlooks impor- tant practical and theoratical information, and can compro- mise internal validity-the units of analysis problem, Multi- group or mulYjclassroom studies that use individual-level data need to identify and quantify group-level and classroom-lave1 factors for the specific learning environment (e.g., competi- tiveness, cooperation, teacher reluctance, and implementation quality). Fortunately, new hierarchical lineat: madeling (HLM) techniques and associated software can accomplish the difficult task of simultaneously accounting for nested multiple-level effects (Bryk $ Raudmbush, 1992; see for example, Anderman & Young, 1994). Coupled with descrip- tive information about group and classroom activity, these methods can show haw different aspects of an instructional environment impact individual learners, while also handling complex himarchically nested analyses.

Other issues raised by conventional methods concern the use of self-report measures, particularly Likert-type scales. Reflecting a prevalent view in the instructional community, the NCTM (1989) eschewed such measures because they don't capture the full range of responses, making different contexts appear more similar than they really are. This may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONSTRIJCTIVISM 183

explain, for example, why Hickey et al. (1996) found few overall differences in reported motivational experiences between an- chored instruction and comparison activities, and between math classrooms that were more consistent and less consistent with the NCTM (1989) curriculum standards. This lack of difference was surprising, given classroom and supervisory teachers' de- scriptions of students' responses to the anchored instruction activities and more NCTM-oriented environments, and given evidence that the two innovative environments led to signifi- cantly greater increases on higher-level mathematics achieve- ment and enhanced motivational beliefs about mathematics. It seems likely that the kinds of motivation research methods described in the next section would have provided evidence that students' motivational states during the relatively innovative activities, were in fact, different.

Socio-Constructivist Motivation Perspectives

For many years there had been little application of socio-con- structivist perspectives to motivation theory, apparently lim- ited to a study and a review paper by Sivan (1986). However, relatively recent work suggests that the second cognitive "revolution" may profoundly influence the study of motiva- tion. Blumenfeld (1992) pointed out that,

In the 1980s the literature on motivation was enriched by the incorporation of ideas about strategy use from cognitive theories of learning. In the 1990s research on motivation can profit from the consideration of the constructivist framework about learning and instruction. (p. 277)

Several examples show that new instructional perspec- tives have indeed impacted the study of motivation.

Situated motivation. Paris and Turner (1994) intro- duced the term situated motivation, and outlined four critical characteristics of a conceptualization of motivation that is more commensurate with socio-constructivist perspectives: First, reflecting social cognitive roots, situated motivation is a consequence of cognitive assessments rather than affective factors such as anxiety or noncognitive factors such as drive. Second, such assessments are constructed and are therefore open to distortion by virtue "of age, bias, and defensive interpretations" (p. 215). Third, motivation is contextualized, in that assessments that are constructed are strongly impacted by aspects of the specific learning situation. Finally, motiva- tion is unstable, in that the assessments that students construct in a given situation or in general will change over time, and are malleable (see also Paris & Brynes, 1989). Regarding potential theoretical frameworks, Paris and Turner suggested three that "provide a holistic interpretation of student motiva- tion that integrates students' understanding of goals, tasks,

self, and others, in situations that help determine possible courses of actions" (p.228). They suggested that the self-regu- lated learning perspective (e.g., Zimmerman, 1989) is useful because of its focus on metacognitive processes and the assumption that there is no clear demarcation between assess- ing one's thinking, and assessing one's gods, self-percep- tions, and attributions. Paris and Turner suggested that utility of the various self-referenced systems of motivation, such as self-eEcacy and self-concept, is illustrated by the assumption that students' self-perceptions are dynamic calculations of their talents and values in different social groups and in different situations. Finally, Paris and Turner suggested that a framework focusing on student's ownersh~ip of learning (e.g., Au, Scheu, Kawakami, & Herman, 1990) is useful because it focuses on how students internalize the responsi- bility for their choices, their actions, and the consequences of those actions. In summary, the situated motivation perspec- tive appears to represent a substantial integration of the con- texhalist perspectives into social cognitive models of moti- vation.

Adaptive learning. A,n explicitly socio-constructivist perspective on motivation is represented by 1McCaslinYs re- search on the development and enhancement of adaptive learning (e.g., McCaslin, 19190., McCaslin & Murdock, 1991). Like some prior perspectives, h i s model includes the inter- nalization of goals; the motivation to commit, challenge or reform them; and the strategic competence to enact and evalu- ate thclse commitments; and it inerges motivational-affective variables such as commitment with intellectual-cognitive processes such as strategic cognition together in the pursuit of goals. However, adaptive: learning represents an explicitly Vygotskian approach, embracing a reciprocal relation be- tween individuals and their social context. "We stress afford- ing opportunities and the inteirpersonal antecedents of, and ongoing interaction with, i~ntrapersonal characteristics. Hence, the facility to transform and initiate tasks and self does not reside solely in the individual, it is not purely an 'intrinsic' concept" (McCaslin & Mw~doc:k, 1991, p. 219).

In a further departure from prior models of classroom motivation, adaptive learning is presumed to be initially rep- resented in the child's home and school socioclltural context: "Adaptive leming begins in the social world. . . . when a student does not exhibit ada,ptive learning, we do not confine our explanatory search to the individual. We look as well to the contexts within which the individual functions" (McCalin & Murdock, 1991,p. 219).

Most recently, McCaslin (McCaslin & Good, 1996) ad- vanced the overarching construct of coregulated learning as a curricular perspective for supporting and advancing adap- tive leaning. Prior efforts by self-regulated 1e:arning theorists in the socid--cognitive traclititw (e.g., Zimmerman, 1989) focused on how individuals cornpensate for t!he inadequacies of the social-instructional einvironment. In c~ontrast, coregu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

184 HICKEY

lated learning encompasses "intrapersonal processes of moti- vation, enactment, and evaluation within the context of a relation with other participants, structural supports, and af- fording opportunities in the socialhnstructional environment" (McCaslin 62 Good, 1996, p. 662). As described in more detail next (and later), both theoretical and methodological aspects of adaptive learning and coregulated learning are useful for investigating motivational issues relative to socio-construc- tivist curricular approaches.

Constructivist motivation research methods. Tudge and Winterhoff (1993) suggested that the historical disparities between social-cognitive models and Vygotskian perspectives are partially rooted in methodological issues. They argued that the insistence on strict experimental control in social-cognitive research led theorists away from complex reciprocal relations, focusing more on one-way transmission to individual children or learners. It seems that a pragmatic approach that is also open to contextualist methods will allow the most appropriate perspective for particular classes of motivational issues to emerge. Young and Pintrich (in press) explored the relation between organismic and contextualist worldviews and considered reconciling social cognitive mod- els of motivation and socio-constructivism. They concluded by advocating an expanded study of motivation that explicitly adopts multiple worldviews in the study of motivation and incorporates both organismic and contextual perspectives. It seems that just this sort of pragmatic application of principled approaches is needed to move the study of motivation forward within a field that is increasingly dominated by socio-con- structivist principles and practices.

Given motivation researchers' past reliance on individual- level constructs and self-report measures, incorporating inter- pretive, qualitative research methods itself initiates this sort of pragmatic, principled approach. Pintrich and De Groot (1993; also McCaslin, 1993) pointed out that motivation researchers are increasingly using these alternative methods typical of socio-constructivist research. Several recent studies showed how more naturalistic methods support a transition to newer models of motivation. For example, Turner (1995) used classroom observations to study motivation and strategy use in traditional skills-oriented reading classrooms and in more socio-constructivist literature-based (i.e., whole-lan- guage) classrooms. These methods revealed important differ- ences between the two environments. More of the activity in the skills-oriented classrooms was devoted to closed tasks with clearly specified operations and expected outcomes, whereas students in the literature-based classrooms spent more time engaged in less-specified open tasks. These meth- ods also established the relation between task activity, situ- ated motivation, and strategic activity, revealing greater fre- quency of volitional control, persistence, and use of cognitive reading strategies when students were engaged in open tasks.

In general, classroom observations seem to represent an ex- tremely useful approach to studying situated motivation and adaptive learning. Additionally, observational methods rep- resent a useful transitional method when used in combination with more conventional self-report measures.

Other alternative research methods also show promise for studying motivational aspects of learning environ- ments. Anderman, Parecki, and Palincsar (1993) used the notion of assisted performance within a portfolio assess- ment model to study motivation for literacy. Initially, con- ventional motivation measures (i.e., time on task, attribu- tions, goals, self-efficacy) did not reflect anticipated motivational changes in learning-disabled elementary stu- dents. Anderman et al. then used the journal entries that students had constructed with the assistance (i.e., scaffold- ing) of their teacher to document increased motivation for literacy across time. Thus, where conventional static moti- vation measures did not show any change, an index of motivation within the zone of proximal development showed such evidence. This study also illustrates a poten- tial application of portfolio assessment methods to consider motivation in various learning environments,

McCaslin and Murdock's (1991) study of home and school influences in the development of adaptive learning used vari- ous resources to construct case studies of individual students. For example, students were read brief vignettes about events in the life of imaginary peers. In semistructured interviews, students then described the event in their own words, imag- ined what the character was thinking during and after the event, and predicted what would happen next. Another data source in the study were classroom journals collected over several weeks. Using an experience-sampling mehod, stu- dents were prompted at regular intervals to record a descrip- tion of the learning activity, the teacher" actions, their own actions, what they were thinking to themselves, and what they were noticing. Additionally, student's thoughts and recollec- tions regarding math problem-solving activities were col- lected using introspective and retrospective think-aloud stud- ies. The authors then selected individual students from the larger population, conducted extensive interviews with par- ents, and constructed detailed case sh;ldic?s of each student based on the various data sowces. These case studies allowed the authors to make richly detailled inferences about how home and classraom factors influence the emergonce of adap- tive learning. The resulting case studies provided useful in- sights regarding the influence of individslal and contextual factors on the development of adaptive learning.

A Principled, Pragmatic, Motivation Research Model

In conclusion, the previous discussion supports a motivation research model that incorporates selected aspects of prior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONST1RUCTIVISM 185

individual-oriented motivation research alongside newer con- textualist perspectives. This model explicitly adopts the mod- erately situated perspective on cognition described pre- viously, acknowledging both individually represented and socioenvironmentally represented motivational constructs, and their reciprocal interaction. A primary research principle for this model concerns the nature of the issues under consid- eration. Issues that can be meaningfully conceptualized in terms of individual-level representations could be studied with conventional methods, such as individual self-report surveys or think-aloud protocols. In contrast, issues that are more readily conceptualized as residing in the social context call for the more contextualist methods, such as the case studies used by McCaslin and Murdock (1991). A related set of principles concerns the isolation of the motivational issues from the larger realm of cognitive activity. As shown in the next section, some issues can be meaningfully examined in relative isolation, whereas others are more bound to the larger context of activity; the former issues are more tractable using more conventional motivation methods, whereas the latter will call for more contextualist methods. Other principles underlying this research model concern the nature of the research questions at hand. Some questions can be profitably explored using conventional experimental and quasi-experi- mental designs. In particular, these methods are most appro- priate when the researcher is concerned with objective con- trasts of one approach over another. Other questions call for more interpretive contextualist approaches. The pragmatism of the proposed model is represented by a willingness to yield questions of reality to the appearance of utility. The next section illustrates these points more clearly, using specific examples from some of the new socio-constructivist instruc- tional frameworks.

MOTIVATIONAL ISSUES IN SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVIST

INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORKS

The following discussion highlights the treatment of moti- vation in several new instructional frameworks [particu- larly the cognitive apprenticeship model as described in Collins et al., 1989), and considers the motivational issues presented by socio-constructivist approaches more gener- ally. This discussion (a) highlights critical issues that new instructional perspectives raise regarding conventional as- sumptions about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, (b) shows how newer instructional perspectives can inform a more contextualist model of classroom motivation, and (c) illustrates the ways that research using such a modlel might help validate and further refine new instructional frame- works. This discussion also considers some of the practical conflicts that arise when implementing socio-clonstruc- tivist curricula in schools, and shows how such conflicts

could be minimized by a. more systematic co~nsideration of motivation.

Intrinsic Motivation, Intentional Learning, and Competition

A great deal of prior motivation research follows from the assumption that extrinsic motivation is not conducive to meaningful learning, and tlhat extrinsic rewards for success have important negative consequences for learning. A some- what different perspective on this issue is lmsented by the notion of intentional learning, as advanced by Bereiter and Scardamalia (e.g., 1989). The essence of intentional learning is captured by the distinction between learning through prob- lem solving and a more desirable learning as problem solving. In the former, students are motivated by some problematic goal, and learning is incidental in the service of reaching that goal; in the latter, learning is the problem, and student activity is molivated by the goal of learning (i.e., engaged in inten- tional learning). From this perspective, instructional ap- proaches that focus on the desirability of being intrinsically motivated by the instructional task may actually focus student activity away from the path that best supports 1e:arning. Within their intentional learning framework, Bereiter and Scar- damalia (1989) argued that th~e conventional distinction be- tween intrinsic and extrinsic:, motivation

is too crude to be of much service in studying the intentional aspects of learning. In the distinction we are trying to draw between learning through problem solving and learning as problem solving, both kinds of behavior may be intrinsically motivated. In the first case the learner may be motivated out of intellectual curiosity to solvea mathematical problem, but this is distinct from and may exist independently of motiva- tion to learn the mathematical principles underlying the prob- lem solution. (p. 366)

In my classroom, there are students' goals, teachers' goals, and situational constraints, each of which may converge or diverge from what Berieter and Scardamalia called "personal knowledge-building" goals. Tlnus, they argued, the assump- tion that self-directed learining environments invite inten- tional learning whereas teacher-prescribed activities discour- age it is unfounded; just as students may avoid setting learning goals for themselves, teachlers may prescribe learning goals for students, or prescribe classroom constraints that impose learning goals.

In terms of students' goal orientation, the intentional learn- ing perspective argues that ideal learning environments orient cognitive activity-both individual and distributed-toward personal knowledge-building goals. Thus, en~vironments that are relatively supportive of intentional learnin~g should sup- port a closer correspondence between task-mastery goals (e.g., trying to do one's best in the learning activity) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

186 HICKEY

personal knowledge-building goals. At a basic level, this correspondence might be represented by the correlation be- tween self-reported strength of orientation toward task-mas- tery goals and personal knowledge-building goals; Csikszent- mihalyi's (1990) experience sampling method might also be adapted to assess either the presence or strength, or both, of these types of goals. Think-aloud protocols are a particularly informative self-report method for studying goal orientation, as exemplified by Ng and Bereiter's (1991) study of students learning to program computers. In this study, protocols were reviewed for evidence of task-completion goals, instructional goals, and personal knowledgebuilding goals. In addition to illustrating the utility of this method, this study provided useful support for the intentional learning perspective. Stu- dents who demonstrated knowledge-building goals (i.e., the intentional learners) related new questions to prior knowl- edge, actively posed and solved problems, and learned more than the others.

In many situations where negative consequences for ex- trinsic motivation has been found, it was induced by some form of competition between students for grades, approval, tokens, and so forth. There may be reason to reexamine competition and other extrinsic rewards in light of new in- structional perspectives. Collins et al. acknowledged the evi- dence "that many students are inhibited rather than motivated by competitive situations" and that "competition raises diffi- cult emotional issues for some students, thus introducing potentially confusing or confounding factors into classroom interactions" (1989, p. 490). However, they also argued that competition "provides a focus for students' attention and efforts for improvement by revealing the sources of strengths or weaknesses" (p. 490). And they suggested that the negative impact of competition is partly rooted in conventional instruc- tional practice: "For competition to be effective, comparisons must be made not between the products of student problem solving, but between the processes, and this is rarely the case" (p. 490). In light of the intentional learning perspective pre- viously described, it is plausible that heightened competition for extrinsic rewards could have relatively desirable conse- quences. This is because such rewards could be provided for evidence of intentional learning itself rather than the artifacts assumed to result from learning. Furthermore, Collins et al. argued, conventional instructional practices subvert competi- tion's potential usefulness:

Under many forms of teaching, students lack the means, in the form of an understanding of the underlying processes, strategies, and heuristics involved in solving problems, for improving their performance. In these cases, the motivation to improve that might be engendered by competition is blocked, leaving students frustrated and discouraged. (1989, p 490)

Indeed, a central argument advanced in favor of alternative assessment methods such as portfolios and performance as-

sessments (that are closely associated with socio-construc- tivist approaches, e.g., Frederiksen & Collins, 1989) is that they provide learners with a meaningful index of performance and the wherewithal to improve. In this context, Wiggins (1993) argued that poor test performance "is not, by itself, a disincentive to further learning. The disincentive comes from having no opportunity to profit from the assessment, in the form of useful feedback and opportunities to try again" (p. 141). In general, it seems that the deleterious effects of extrinsic rewards in prior research resulted from the use of rewards based on precisely such performance indicators, rather than from the use of rewards themselves. The relative utility of informational goals and rewards (i.e., providing useful feedback on progress toward meaningful goals) has long been documented in social cognitive motivation research (e. g., Bandura & Cervone, 1983). However, the pedagogical assumptions within which such work was conducted does not appear to have afforded the degree of informational value envisaged in newer models of instruction and assessment.

Consider, for example, the controversial practice of en- couraging students' leisure reading by giving coupons for free pizzas for each book that is read. Opposition to such practice is supported by research that suggests such rewards will lower comprehension and diminish long-term interest in reading (e.g., Kohn, 1993); others dismiss such concerns and argue that such practices teach students to enjoy reading (e.g., Chance, 1992). Whatever the actual consequences, they should diverge from the consequences of using such rewads to, say, motivate participation during reciprocal reading ac- tivities (e.g., A. L. Brown & Palincsar, 1989). That is, what happens if students are given pizza coupons once their teacher is satisfied that every member of a reciprocal reading group has successfully demonstrated the core strategies (i.e., sum- marizing the content of a passage, asking a question about the central point, clarifying the difficult parts, and predicting what comes next)? It is debatable whether prior research on extrin- sic rewards and intrinsic motivation helps answer this ques- tion. However, one suspects that if the teacher's modeling of the activity provides a salient benchmark, and students can use the reciprocal environment's modeling and coxhing to strive toward that benchmark, such practice is less likely to result in "a lot of fat kids who don't like to read" (Kohn, 1993, p. 785).

Some will note that Brophy's (e.g., 1983, 1987) "motiva- tion to learn" perspective was also advanced as an alternative to approaches that depend on intrinsic interest or value for learning activities. However, the similarity between motiva- tion to learn and the intentional learning perspective is rather illusory. On one hand, both perspectives are alternatives to a strict focus on task value, and both states can be invoked by extrinsic rewards. On the other hand, Brophy's assumption that instructional tasks teach students sharply contrasts with the central assumptions in socio-constructivist models. More fundamentally, although acknowledging the value of extrin- sic rewards, Brophy (1986) cautioned that extrinsic incentives

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 1 87

and competition are ineffective for stimulating '"hought- fulness or quality of work" and "are best used with practice tasks designed to produce mastery of specific skills.. ." (p. 44). This contrasts with the perspective previously pre- sented, in which extrinsic rewards can motivate thoughtful work-so long as those rewards are based on thoughtful- ness itself. This suggests that the notion of motivation to learn does not readily map ointo the newer instructional frameworks, and argues that the various strategies Brophy advanced as supportive of motivation to learn (e.g., Bro- phy, 1986) need to be systematically reconsidered before they are applied in learning environments that follow from the new frameworks.

In summary, it is critical to move the continuinig debate over extrinsic rewards (e.g., Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Kohn, 1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake; 1996, Ryan & Deci, 1996) beyond studies conducted within earlier pedagogical assumptions, and into more contemporary cur- ricular arenas. At a minimum, implementatnons of newer curricular approaches should consider the prevalence of potentially conflicting beliefs about challenge and compe- tition. Wiggins (1993) reported that many educators wrongfully believe that "difficult tests, exacting standards, and dispassionate reporting of resultsper se [italics added] provide the struggling student with disincentives to excel" (p. 141). More significantly, the previous discussion sug- gests that socio-constructivist perspectives may qualify fundamental assumptions about extrinsic rewards. The im- pact of challenge and competition in new curricular ap- proaches is an ideal target for a pragmatic approach to motivation research. On one hand, interpretive, observa- tional studies are needed to understand the function of challenge and competition in these environments, particu- larly as it pertains to student assessment. On the other hand, because the competitiveness of learning environments can be systematically manipulated, the consequences of com- petition could also be studied using experimental or quasi- experimental designs. This might be accomplished by as- sessing the strength of knowledge-building and task-mastery goals in different types of learning environ- ments while manipulating the level of competition. Based on the previous logic, increased competition should en- hance knowledge-building goals in a more socio-construc- tivist environment; increased competition in a relatively conventional environment should weaken knowledge- building goals, because it leads students to shift their ef- forts toward the (now divergent) task-mastery goals. Of course, such studies need to anticipate some of the unique concerns presented by socio-constructivist learning envi- ronments, in addition to the usual concerns for quasi-ex- perimental classroom research. For example, manipula- tions of competition may be less salient in the newer environments, and learners may view these environments as fundamentally less competitive than conventional envi- ronments, regardless of the manipulation.

Authentic Activities Versus Motivational Embellishments

One of the most salient aspects of socio-cronstructivist ap- proaches is the use of authentic learning activities. As men- tionecl previously, instructi~~nal theorists have long advanced the use of fantasy or real-world contexts to make school content more intrinsically motivating (e.g., Keller, 1987; Lepper & Malone, 198711. Thus, socio-c~or~structivist ap- proaches might be characterized as sophisticated motivational embellishments of traditional content. This is particularly true of anchored instruction approaches, because they use dra- matic, video-based macrocontexts (CTGV, 1992). To charac- terize approaches such as anclhored instructian as just moti- vational embellishment is unfounded and prc~blematic. Two critical characteristics of authentic learning activities illus- trate the confusion that emerges when applying prior motiva- tion perspectives to this aspect of socio-constructivist ap- proaches. The first characteristic concerns situated leaning. Collins et al. (1989) argued Uhat "acritical element in fostering learning is to have students cmy out tasks and solve problems in an environment that reflects the multiple [italics added] uses t~o which that knowledge will be put in the future" (p. 487). The point here is that authentic does not necessarily mean nonschool. In fact, using real-world contexts to moti- vate students to learn school content may wdl undermine the development of expert classroom learners-an explicit goal of the newer approaches. This point is made clearer by con- sidering the notion of a culture of expert practice. Collins et al. (1989) argued that a r ~ ideal learning environment leads participants to actively communicate about and engage in skills that underlie expertise, where expertise is understood as the practice of solving problems and carrying out tasks in a domain. Thus, for example, students in reciprocal reading groups are expected to use and acquire comprehension strate- gies used by all proficient readers of school materials. In anchored instruction environments, the video-based macro- contexts provide a comnnaln problem setting for extended collaborative activity. Merely providing real-world applica- tions for school learning is both insufficient md unnecessary for establishing learning environments that are consistent with socio-constructivist theories. Consider, ior example, a teacher whose students are frustrated and unmotivated during reciprocal reading. Trying to motivate such students by fo- cusing attention on the usefulness of reading outside of the classroom has the potential to detract from efforts to develop a culture of expert classroom readers.

The motivational issues (described here seem particularly relevant within the context of implementing new curricular approaches, such as in terms of educators' pro~fessional devel- opment. Perhaps the most prwing need is knowing how teachers understand these issues and how this understanding facilitates or hampers the implementation of new curricula. Consider, for example, what Hickey et al. (1996) found when interviewing teachers using anchored instruction mathemat-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ics materials as part of a district-wide implementation effort. Even teachers whose classroom practice reflected their extensive training in contemporary approaches de- scribed their first goal for anchored instruction activities as something like showing how math is useful in the real world; more critically, other teachers gave this as their only goal for having students complete the activities. It seems that prior models of classroom motivation may have led the teachers to focus on this aspect of these activities, perhaps at the expense of using them to create a culture of expert classroom problem solving. Future implementation studies might systematically consider the prevalence and conse- quences of such beliefs.

Complexity, Sequencing, and Frustration

Sequencing has important motivational implications because of its relation with complexity and challenge. School con- straints inevitably lead to a priori decisions regarding se- quencing of content and pace of instruction. A critical char- acteristic of approaches like cognitive apprenticeship is that more and more of the skills and concepts associated with expert performance are required as learners progress through the domain. As such, complexity increases nonmonotonically along different dimensions, in response to the structure of the environment, and as students make conceptual advances at crucial points (Collins et al., 1989). Such advances are likely to be accompanied by frustration, as learners struggle with critical concepts. In the environments suggested by socio- constructivist perspectives, interaction with the physical and social environment provides dynamic support that is pre- sumed to carry learners through such difficulties. In contrast, transmission-reception models of teaching and learning op- timize the level of challenge across students by adopting a scope and sequence that supports a continuous flow of tiny conceptual advances. Unfortunately, when applied to the learning environments suggested by socio-constructivist per- spectives, this practice may excessively smooth out the learn- ing sequence. Indeed, this is precisely what Hickey et al. (1996) found with teachers using anchored instruction. Even some teachers whose practice was relatively consistent with socio-constructivist approaches responded to actual or antici- pated frustration by using worksheets to further structure and simplify the anchored instruction activities. More critically, other classrooms saw the activities reduced to little more than searching through the video-based anchor for the data needed to fill in the blanks of a fully structured problem solution. (It is worthwhile to note that this occurred in the initial stages of one school district's implementations of the curricula, before extensive professional development materials that addressed such issues were readily available.)

Efforts to develop and implement the newer learning en- vironments need to be highly sensitive to concerns about student frustration. Additionally, they need to explicitly ac- knowledge that the use of authentic problems and more meaningful collaboration increases students' emotional in- vestment in the activity. Hickey et al. (1996) found that teachers noticed unusually strong outbursts of both positive and negative emotion while students solved anchored instruc- tion problems. From newer curricular perspectives, such re- actions generally indicate engagement and learning; to ob- servers whose model of student motivation is rooted in conventional instructional practices, such reactions only sug- gest frustration and disarray.

Assisted Learning, Discovery Learning, and Motivation

One criticism of socio-constructivist approaches is that they merely recapitulate prior discovery-learning methods. These efforts include Dewey's work earlier in the century (e.g., 1938), and the Piagetian approaches that achieved promi- nence in the 1960s. Representing a common viewpoint in the instructional design community, Dick (1991) described the newer approaches as "an alternate form of discovery learning which has been present in the literature for many years" (p. 41). However, discovery learning approaches presumed that children were fundamentally inclined to explore, discover, and make sense of the world around them. Learning was conceptualized as the internal process of making sense out of the external world (as elaborated in Piaget's depiction of equilibration and accommodation). This limited the social and instructional context to a passive role of providing informa- tion for these processes to operate on. Discovery learning models assumed highly domain-general cognitive processes, and the ability to explore any domain was a primary learning goal. This contrasts sharply with the assisted learning per- spective, that grants the social and instructional context a fundamental, active role in learning and discovery, and as- sumes that students' ability to construct meaning is relatively specific to domains.

Assisted learning in socio-constructivist approaches in- volves some form of modeling, coaching, and fading, which together scaffold activity that supports learning. Modeling involves having an expert (the teacher or a more able peer) carry out the task for the learner to observe. During coaching, the expert observes while offering highly interactive and situated hints and feedback directly related to the task at hand, bringing the learner's activity closer to expert performance. Fading involves gradually reducing coaching as students internalize its function. The contrast between assisted learn- ing and discovery learning is further illustrated by explora-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 1 89

tion. In contrast to the Piagetian assumption that exploration is innate, Collins et al. (1989) asserted that "students do not know how to explore a domain productively" and thus "ex- ploration strategies need to be taught as part of learning strategies more generally" (p. 484).

Little of the discussion about the differences between assisted learning and discovery learning has explicitly ad- dressed motivational factors. However, motivational issues appeared to have played a role in discovery learning's demise in the 1970s. For example, Linn (1986) argued that teachers' observations confirmed their common-sense notion that mini- mally guided inquiry leads to confusion and frustration, that in turn outweigh the increased motivation presumed to follow when students pursue their own questions. Blomenfeld et al. (1991) stated that discovery-learning approaches "were de- veloped and disseminated without sufficient appreciation for the complex nature of student motivation and knowledge required to engage in cognitively difficult work" (p. 373). Contrasting assisted learning with discovery learning raises important research issues. A substantial aspect of assisted learning involves motivational factors such as persewerance, commitment, goal setting, and so forth, with teachers and peers modeling adaptive motivational beliefs and diagnosing and addressing maladaptive beliefs on-line. Accolrding to Collins et al. (1989), scaffolding serves a crucial motivational process of presenting learners with proximal, manageable goals, affording "a feel for the new skills and helping them develop confidence that they can do them" (p. 464). In con- trast to the unrestricted exploration of discovery-learning approaches, exploration is a natural culmination of scaffold- ing, as support for both problem solving and problem finding are faded out. Thus, another important class of motivational issues worthy of systematic consideration is whether assisted learning approaches address motivational problems in a man- ner that better supports exploration and the development of strategic knowledge.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This article has advanced the argument that motivational issues are crucial to understanding and appreciating various aspects of socio-constmctivist instructional perspectives. The article first described new motivational perspectives that are more commensurate with socio-constructivist perspectives, and advanced a principled, pragmatic model for studying the complex motivational issues presented by scacio-construc- tivist practices. This article then presented examples that showed how systematically studying motivation might dem- onstrate the value of socio-constructivist approaches, relative to both conventional approaches and earlier innovati~ons, and yield important insights that can help advance the new ap- proaches. These examples also showed that a principled,

pragmatic model is the appropriate tool for such a challenge. Some issues were readily conceptualized in terms of individ- ual-level representations, whereas others were best thought of in terms of the larger socioculltural and intellectual context. Some issues could be studied with more colnventional re- search methods, whereas others called for more qualitative, interpretive methods. Some issues were meaningful in rela- tive isolation from other issues, whereas others were more tightly bound to the larger context. These examples also showed how explicit guidance for dealing with motivational issues might discourage educators and instructional designers from using motivational instructional design principles that conflict with the objectives of the newer approaches.

In the context of presenting examples md arguing the larger case, the point has been made that a new perspective on both motivation and instruction is needed to fully appre- ciate the implications of soc~o-constructivism. 'This article has advanced just such a perspective while also presenting a rese,mch model that emergles from this point of view. This model is but a first step in a cor~siderable program of research that could highlight the stre~ngtlhs and deficiencies of contem- porary socio-constructivisi instructional approaches, and thereby improve their effactive:ness.

The proposed integration of instructional tlheory and mo- tivation theory will likely encounter resistance from both perspectives. Some instruction~al theorists argue against any explicit focus on discrete apec:ts of activity, or any individu- ally represented constructs. This review has shown that such a strict perspective overlooks issues that are critical to the successful development, implementation, and validation of the new approaches. Memiwhile, some motivation theorists will be alarmed by the difficulty of differentiating motivation from otther aspects of activity. However, in light of socio-con- structivism's continued predominance in ec3ucational re- search and development, and in light of motivation research's apparent irrelevance to socio-constructivism, such a stance appeaas unwise. Given the ultimate goal of enhancing class- room learning and improving students' abilities, it seems that a more pragmatic, integrated perspective will yield solutions to complex. problems that. rnight otherwise continue vexing educational theorists of all persuasions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

DanieP T. Hickey, Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.

This article was written in partial fulfillment of doctoral degree requirements, with ithe support of a gant from the American Educational Research Association (AERA), which receives its funds for its AERA Grants Program from the National Science Foundation and the National Center for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

190 HICKEY

Educational Statistics (U.S. Department of Education) under NSF Grant RED-9255347. Additional work was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from Educational Testing Serv- ice. The author acknowledges the guidance of James Pelle- grino throughout the development of this article, and the input of Susan Goldman, John Bransford, David Cordray, Craig Smith, and three anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91, 409-421.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84.261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Stu- dent's learning strategies and motivational processes. Joumal of Edu- cational Psychology, 80,26&267.

Anand, P. G., & Ross, S. M. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 79, 72-78.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.

Anderman, E. M., Parecki, A., & Palincsar, A. S. (1993, April). The zone of proximal development as the context for motivation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, At- lanta, GA.

Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Re- search in Science Teaching, 31, 81 1-831.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., &Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-1 1.

Au, K. H., Scheu, J. A., Kawakami, A. J., & Herman, P. A. (1990). Assessment and accountability in a whole language curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 43,574-578.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Bandura, A., & Cemone, D. (1 983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mecha- nisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Roberf Glaser (pp. 361-385). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, 25-33. Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and

expanding goal theory. J o u m l of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-28 1.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Man;, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.

Boekaerts, M. (1987). Situation-specific judgments of a learning task versus overall measures of motivational orientation. In E. DeCorte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span @is.), Learning and instruction: European research in an intemtional context (pp. 169-179). Ox- fordneuven: PergammoniLeuven University Press.

Boekaerts, M. (1994). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of classroom learning. In D. H. Saklofseke & M. Zeider (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 161-183). New York: Plenum.

Bransford, J. D. (1995, April). Some principles for guiding big picture research. Presentation at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation to learn. Educa- tional Psychologist, 18, 200-215.

Brophy, J. E. (1986). A synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45, 40-48.

Brophy, J. E. (1987). Socializing student motivation to learn. In M. L. Maehr & D. A. Kleiber (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. I., pp. 181-210). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Brown, A. L. (1988). Motivation to learn and understand: On taking charge of one's own learning. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 31 1-32?,

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition (pp. 188-228). New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cogni- tive theory and classroom practice @p. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-452). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Brown, I S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.

Bryk, A. S. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusatiotls do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39-52.

Chance, P. (1992). Therewards of learning. Phi Delta Kuppan, 73,200-207. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., &

Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 3-29.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. & Perlwitz, M. (1992). A follow-up assess- ment of a second-grade problem kntered mathematics project. Educa- tional Studies in Mathematics, 23, 483-504.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., &Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23,2-33.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instmc- tion and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-10.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.

Cole, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1971). Cultural differences and inferences about psychological processes, American Psychologist, 26, 867-76.

Collins, A.,Brown, J. S,, & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reac$ng, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (EM.), Knowing? learning, and instrucfion: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453994). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciate& Inc.

Corno, L., & Rohrkemper, M. M. (1985). The intrinsic motivation to learn in the classroom. In C. Ames &R. Ames (Eds.). Research on motivation in education (Vol. 2, pp. 53-90). San Diego: Academic.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CsikszentmiMyi, M. (1990). Flow-the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AND SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 191

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1993). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of pow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest andeffort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. Educa-

tional Technology, 31(5), 41-44. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1991a). Constructivism: New

implications for instructional technology? [Special issue]. Educational Technology, 31(5). [Also published as Duffy, T. M., &. Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenm Erlbaum Associates, hc.1

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1991b). Continuing the dialogue. [Special issue]. Educational Technology, 31(9).

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dweck C. S. (1989). Motivation. In Glaser, R., & Lesgold, A. (Edls.), Foun- dations for a psychology of education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. N. Social and personality development @p. 643-691). New York: Wdey.

Feather, N. (Ed.). (1982). Expectancy and actions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fink, B. (1991). Interest development as structural change in person-object relationships. In L. Oppenheimer and J. Valisner (Eds.), The origins of action: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp. 175-204). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187-194.

Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170-218.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1987). A theory of motivation for comprehension and its application to mathematics instruction. In T. A. Romberg & D. M. Steward (Eds.), The monitoring of school mathematics: Background papers, Vol. 2. Implications from psychology, outcomes of instruction. (Program Rep. No. 87-2, pp. 27-66). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

Herbart, J. F. (1893). The science of education, its general principles deduced from its aim. (H. Felkin and E. Felkin, Trans.) Boston: D. IC. Heath. (Original work published 1806)

Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., Pellegrino, J. W., Bateman, H. V., & Goldman, S. R. (1995, April). Individual and situational motivation $actors in anchored instruction learning environments. Presentation at the meeting of the Amerlcan Educational Research Association, S m Francisco.

Hickey, D. T., Pellegrino, J. W., Goldman, S. R., Vye, N. J., & Moore, A. L. (1993). Interests, attitudes, & anchored instruction: The impact of one interactive learning environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Hickey, D. T., Pellegrino, J. W., & Moore, A. L. (1996, April). On-line assessment of motivation and cognition in two constructivist marhematics learning environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its conlribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact om reading and writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in leaming and development (pp. 228-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive anld affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 120-130.

Ira-Nejad A,, & Cecil, C. (1992). Interest and learning: A biofunctional perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi &A. Kraplp (Eds.), The role of mterest in learning and development (pp. 297-332). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design in instruction. Inn C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Inrfructional design theory and models (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development ar~d use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-1 1.

Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why woulld anyone read a story anyway? Poetics, 9, 87-98

Kinzie, M. B, Sullivan, H. J., & Berdel, R. L. (1988). Leaner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. .Tournal of Educa- tional Psychology, 80,299-303.

Kohn, A. (1993). Rewards versus learning. A response to Paul Chance. Phl Delta Kappan, 74, 783-787.

Kohn, A. (1996). By all available nlearls: Cameron and Pierce's defense of extrinsic motivators. Review of Edzrcational Research, 66, 1-4.

Kozulin, ~ 4 . (1986). The concept of i~ctivity in Soviet Psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American psychologist, 41, 264-272.

Krapp, A., &Fink, B. (1992). The devek~pmental functioin of interests during the critical transition from home tlo preschool. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3974.30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawaence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K. A. Renning,er, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and devei'opment (pp. 3-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lamon, M., Secubs, T. J., Petrosino, I[., Hackett, R., Bransford, J. D., & Goldman, S. R. (1996). Schoolls for thought: Overview of the interna- tional project and lessons learned hum one of the sites. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovation in Zearnmng: New environments for education (pp. 2.43-288). Hillsdale, NJ: L,awrc:nce Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Camtddge University Press.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1974-1975, Winter). The problem of activity in Soviet ps:ychology. Soviet Psychology, 4 4 3 .

Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciorusness, andpersomlity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: F'rentice-Hall.

Lepper, h4. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards: A commentary on Cameron & Pierce's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 5-33.

Lepper, M. R., 86 Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: 111. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 255-2916), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Inc.

Lerner, R. M., & Kaufman, M. B. (1985). The concept of development in contextualism. Developmental Review, 5, 309-333.

Licht, B. G., & Dstner, J. A. (1986). Mctivational problem of learning-dis- abled children: Individual differences and their implications for treat- ment. In J. K. Torgesen & E. IN. 1". Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspective on learning disabilities (pp. 2215-255). Orlando, FL Academic.

Linn, M. 1:. (1986) Science. In R. Dillon & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognrtion and instruction (pp. 155-197). Orlando, FL: Academ~ic.

Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. The Elementany School Jouml. 93, 593-610.

Malone, T W. (1981). Towards a theory of intrinsically motivating instmc- tion. cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E Snow & M. J. Farr (I?&.),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Aptitude, learning, and instruction: ZII. Conaiive and aflective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

McCaslin, M. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Con- ference (pp. 35-50). Chicago, IL: NRC.

McCaslin, M. (1993, April). Expanding the study of student motivation through case study methods. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 622-672). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

McCaslin, M. M., & Murdock, T. B. (1991). The emergent interaction of home and school in the development of student's adaptive learning. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 7 (pp. 213-259). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

McGilly, K. (Ed.). (1994). Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theoly and clmsroompractice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McLellen, H. (Ed.). (1993). Situated learning in focus [Special Issue]. Educational Technology, 33(3).

Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and student motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 7 (pp. 261-285). Greenwich, (ST: JAI.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Student's goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982). Beyond deji vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730-755.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evalu- ation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Nenninger, P. (1992). Task motivation: An interaction between the cog- nitive and content-oriented learning dimensions. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 121-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Inc.

Ng, E. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Three levels of goal orientation in learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1,243-271.

Nicholls, J . G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Patashnick, M. (1990). Assessing student's theories of success in mathematics: Individual and classroom differences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 109-122.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Cognitionin the head and in the world [Special issue on situated action]. Cognitive Psychology, 17(1).

Paris, S. G., & Brynes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regu- lation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 169-200). New York: Springer- Verlag.

Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children's reading strategies, metacogni- tion, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.

Paris, S. G., & W e r , J. C. (1994). Situated motivation. In P. Pintrich, D. Brown, & C. Weinstein (Eds.). Student motivation, cognition, and learning. Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie, (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992) Effects of fantasy contexts on children's learning and motivation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,625-633.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition, (pp. 47-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pepper, S. C. (194211970). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1942)

Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educa- tional Technology, 3(9), 19-22.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated leaning components of academic classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8 2 , 3 3 4 .

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1993, April). Narrative andparadigmatic perspectives on individual and contextual differences in motivational beliefs. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-1 99.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 147-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As- sociates, Inc.

Presidential TaskForce on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner- centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redes- ign and reform. Washington DC: American Psychological Asso- ciation.

Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional Psychology. Annual Review of Psychol- ogy, 32, 659-704.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser @p. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Resnick, L. G. & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An Overview. In L. G. Resnick, &L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinkrng curriculum: Current cognitive research. (pp. 1-18). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum and Development.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron & Pierce's claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 33-38.

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual's cognition: A dy- namic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognition (pp. 11 1-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling inferences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273-297.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psy- chologist, 26, 299-323.

Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 151-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schiefele, U. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factars in mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Re- search in Mathematics Education, 26, 163-181.

Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 74,548-556.

Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1993). Task motivation and mathematics achievement in actual task situations. Learning and Instruction, 3, 133-150.

Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21, 209-233.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

MOTIVATION AlVD SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM 1 93

Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A consequence of changes in the child or the educational environment? Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,352-356.

Tobias, S. (1991). An eclectic examination of some issues in the con- structivist-SSD controversy. Educational Technology, 31(9), 41-43.

Tudge, J. R. H., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandum: Perspectives on the relations between the social world andl cognitive development. Human Development, 36,61-8 1.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young chil- dren's motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 410-441.

Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated actions: A symbolic interpreta- tion. Cognitive Science, 17, 7 4 8 .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsycho- logical processes. Cambridge: Hiuvmd University IPsss.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributiond theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.

Weiner, IB. (1990). History of motivational research in edu~cation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,616-622.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A socio-culibral approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvmd University Press.

Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing studentperformance: Exploring thepurpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Young, 14. J., & Pintrich, P. R. (in press). Three perspectives on the role of motivation in strategic lemin,g. hi C. E. Weinstein 8z B. L. McCombs (Eds.), Strategic learning: Shill, will, and self-regulation. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social-cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:36

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14