EDU 501 Strayer University Learning Theories Paper Part 1 Motivation and Learning Please respond to the following: Of the three origins and determinant

EDU 501 Strayer University Learning Theories Paper Part 1

Motivation and Learning
Please respond to the following:

Of the three origins and determinants of motivation (curiosity and interests, goals and goal orientations, and self-efficacy beliefs), which one tends to have the biggest impact on instruction? Explain your rationale.
Which of the three is often the easiest to address? Explain.
Describe a time when you experienced low motivation concerning a learning task and describe what might have been done to help you overcome it.

Part 2

ARCS Model Applied
Select any scenario presented in the text up to this point and respond to the following:

Using the ARCS model, analyze the situation for its probable motivational characteristics.
Create a set of motivational objectives and suggest strategies that would be effective for stimulating motivation.
Generate an instructional plan that would help learners become more efficacious.

Part 3

Nine Events of Instruction
Select any scenario presented in the text up to this point and respond to the following:

When designing instruction to address the given scenario, describe what each event of instruction would look like.
Which event would be the most difficult to design for the given scenario? Why?
What steps could you take to help address the difficulties you expect to encounter? Explain your rationale.

Part 4

Constructivist Principles
Please respond to the following:

How do constructivist notions about learning, memory, learning goals and conditions for learning differ from the other schools of thought we have covered so far?
Do you see constructivist principles at play in this course? Why or why not? Give specific examples?
How might the application of constructivist principles (or the amplification of constructivist principles) improve this course? Explain your rationale.

Part 5

Objectives and Assessments
Please respond to the following:

How would constructivists view learning objectives and assessments (which come from the behaviorist tradition)?
How could the traditional approach to objectives and assessments be changed to better align with constructivism?
Do you believe the changes you have specified would make instruction in general more efficacious? Why? Chapter 9
A Brief History “At one time, motivation was the dominant field of study [in psychology]” (Weiner, 1990,
p. 616). This was true primarily because psychologists in the 1930s and 1940s conceived of motivation as
“what moved a resting organism to a state of activity” (Weiner, 1990, p. 617). You may see already the
relationship this concept bears to learning as it was studied in those days. Hull (see Chapter 2), for
example, developed a theory of learning in which behavior was presumed to come about as a result of
drives toward anticipated goals. That is, behavior was motivated toward a goal by the existence of some
(usually biological) need—e.g., a need for food, sex, or shelter. Learning occurred when the response
was reinforced and the drive that motivated the behavior in the first place was reduced. Tolman’s
research on latent learning (see Chapter 2), however, had the effect of separating concerns about
motivation from concerns about learning (Weiner, 1990). If you recall, Tolman demonstrated that
animals appeared to learn a maze simply by exploring it, in the absence of a goal or incentives for drive
reduction. Since learning seemed to occur without a clear motivation for it, psychologists began to argue
that motivation relates to the use of knowledge, not the development of it. In the 1960s and 1970s, the
shift from a behavioral to cognitive perspective in American psychology (see Chapter 3) brought a
reintegration of motivation with learning. Psychologists began to examine in new ways the effects of
rewards on behavior. Although it had been widely accepted that rewarding a response automatically
increased the probability of its reoccurrence, new findings called this into question. In some cases,
rewards had little effect on subsequent behavior unless learners generated an expectancy for, or
anticipation of, the reward (Estes, 1972). Moreover, some rewards, if perceived by the learners as
controlling, tended to reduce their natural interest in the learning task (Deci, 1975). Similarly, rewards
for the completion of an easy task tended to signal to learners that they were low in ability. For humans,
then, reward can mean a variety of different things, and each meaning can have different
motivational—and learning—consequences. With researchers now concentrating on human behavior,
motivational research became dominated by investigations into humans’ need for achievement (Weiner,
1990). Also called incentive motivation, effectance, and the urge for mastery, achievement motivation is
thought to be a fundamental tendency of humans to manipulate, dominate, or otherwise master their
environment (White, 1959). Among the most prominent researchers in achievement motivation were
David McClelland and John Atkinson. They sought to understand why some people appear to strive for
excellence simply for the sake of achieving while others do not (McClelland et al., 1953). It was assumed
that a high need for achievement developed in children whose parents stressed achievement and
competitiveness at home. But achievement motivation can also be situationally affected. Individuals will
work harder under certain conditions, such as particular test instructions, competitive environments,
and failure (Atkinson, 1964). Atkinson’s work was paralleled by investigations into other individual
difference variables related to motivation. For example, besides having high or low achievement
motivation, people can have high or low anxiety (Spielberger, 1966), or high or low internal control
(Rotter, 1966). Excessive anxiety can interfere with learning and performance, leading to a reduction in
continuing motivation to learn. Conversely, students show greater motivation when they have an
internal, as opposed to external, orientation. This means that they tend to perceive learning tasks as skill
determined and thus subject to personal control. Externally oriented students tend to believe that their
success at a learning task will be determined by chance rather than by means within their control. These
students are therefore less likely to be motivated to engage in the learning task. These trends in
motivation research have continued (Weiner, 1990), with an even greater focus on human behavior,
particularly the self and learners’ attempts to manage their own achievements (Schunk & Zimmerman,
1994; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Paris and Paris (2001) noted that over 30 articles have been
published on self-regulation since 1990 in a single journal, Educational Psychologist. This is in addition to
articles published in the same journal that touched on related issues, such as academic studying,
motivational influences on education, and social influences on school adjustment (Paris & Paris, 2001, p.
90). As we shall see in the next section, significant attention is being paid to personal goal setting, ways
to enhance self-perceptions of control in learning, and strategies to maintain personal beliefs in high
ability. Weiner called for more motivational investigations that are not linked with learning, and indeed,
there is a growing body of literature demonstrating effects of motivation on variables such as selfesteem, emotions, and so on (Weiner, 1990). However, for educators, the interaction between
motivation and learning is what is most important, so that is the specific focus of this chapter.
Therefore, the ensuing discussion is limited to sources and strategies of motivation as they affect and
promote learning. Origins and Determinants of Motivation Whereas drive theorists clearly
demonstrated that physiological needs (e.g., hunger) motivate organisms to engage in certain behavior
(e.g., seek food), cognitive theorists have increasingly shown that cognitive processes are important
mediators of motivation. Staying with the food example momentarily, when humans seek food to satisfy
hunger, not just any food will do. You might, for example, forego a stop at the nearest hamburger joint
to go home and fix a nutritious vegetable salad for lunch. Why might you do this? Perhaps because you
value a healthy lifestyle, to which low-fat, nutritious meals can contribute. Your values, then, have
mediated between the drive (hunger) and your response (eating). Likewise, deciding to engage in a
learning task and persisting in that task are no simple matters. As we have already seen, motivation can
be influenced by one’s need for achievement or locus of control (internal versus external orientation).
Motivation is also a function of one’s cognitions about the task at hand, about the consequences of task
completion, and about one’s ability to do the task. Each of these sources of motivation is elaborated
further in the sections that follow. Curiosity and Interest When Alice entered the Looking Glass, she
remarked at how “curiously [the path] twists,” always coming back to the house no matter which route
she followed away from it. This made her all the more determined to figure out how to reach the nearby
hill so that she could continue her adventures (Carroll, 1946, p. 22). Curiosity, in children and adults
alike, is a strong motivator of learning. One type of curiosity, perceptual arousal, is initially stimulated by
novel, complex, or incongruous patterns in the environment (Berlyne, 1965), much like what Alice
encountered in the Looking Glass and Wonderland. Not only do learners pay greater attention to these
unexpected events, but they are also moved to try new ways of perceiving what they are looking at
(Gagné & Driscoll, 1988). Alice, for example, puzzled over the many curious things that happened to her,
sometimes venturing hypotheses about what they meant. Teachers, too, can make good use of
interesting events to stimulate curiosity in learners. Rob’s opening demonstration with the coins in
Camouflage Training is a good example. To begin with, the soldiers weren’t certain what he was about
to do with the coins on the table, which activated their attention, and then the result of the
demonstration was intriguing. Because people adapt rather quickly to surprising events, curiosity must
be sustained for it to be a continuing source of motivation. Rob attempts to do this by having the
soldiers make a conscious link between the demonstration and its relevance for what they are about to
learn. If the tactic is successful, the students will maintain their interest and pay attention as the
instruction continues. Maintaining attention on a perceptual level can also be achieved by varying the
instructional approaches used in a class period or training session (Keller, 1983, 1987a). Most of you
have undoubtedly been bored, at one time or another, by an instructor who did nothing but lecture
monotonously and unendingly. To keep learners alert, instructors can employ such strategies as varying
their tone of voice, using relevant humor occasionally, and interspersing demonstrations and group
activities with lecture. Another means of sustaining curiosity involves fantasy. “The use of fantasy in
learning entails providing learners with a meaningful context for learning that is easy to augment with
their imaginations. The context is meaningful to the learner in the sense that it offers a very personal
degree of fascination and intrigue” (Rieber, 1991a, p. 320; cf. Malone, 1981). So, for example, learning
about longitude and latitude occurs in context and maintains students’ attention when a concurrent
goal is to locate a “pirate’s sunken treasure.” Finally, “a deeper level of curiosity may be activated by
creating a problem situation which can be resolved only by knowledge-seeking behavior” (Keller, 1987a,
p. 2). Keller (1983) called this inquiry arousal, and it is a factor that researchers in the Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) contend is brought about by the problem complexity inherent in
their instructional videos (cf. CTGV, 1990, 1991a, 1991b). They intentionally pose very complex and
realistic problems for students to solve, and then provide throughout each video numerous clues and
information necessary to solve the problems. The result, they say, is enhanced motivation on the part of
learners, who experience the complexity of problems that is characteristic of real life. Goals and Goal
Orientation Actively setting goals can be an important source of motivation (Bandura, 1977). When
individuals set goals, they determine an external standard to which they will internally evaluate their
present level of performance. To the extent that this standard is not met and their goals are not yet
achieved, learners will persist in their efforts. Undoubtedly, most of us have had the experience of
“sticking with it” until a goal we have set for ourselves has been achieved. This was certainly true some
years ago when I decided to take up windsurfing. I already knew how to sail and so thought learning to
windsurf would be a snap. Instead, it took teeth-gritting patience and persistence over the better part of
one summer. Not all goals, however, will prompt this persistence in learning. Certain properties of goals
appear to be important to the goal-setting process (Locke et al., 1981): • The generality of the goal •
Time it may take to achieve the goal • The orientation of the goal Setting specific goals (e.g., “I will be
able to connect a circuit to light a lamp”) is better than setting general goals (e.g., “I will learn about
electricity”) for motivating persistent behavior. And as long as the learner is capable of performing the
goal, setting more difficult goals tends to lead to greater persistence and better performance than
setting easy goals (Locke et al., 1981). There are also differences between setting proximal versus distal
goals (Schunk & Gaa, 1981). Proximal goals are those that are close at hand and achievable quickly (e.g.,
“I will learn to distinguish between negative reinforcement and punishment”), whereas distal goals are
ones that set criteria to be met in the distant future (e.g., “I will learn to be a behavior analyst by the
time I graduate from school”). Not surprisingly, results indicate that setting proximal goals improves selfmotivation and performance to a greater extent than setting distal goals. This result may be especially
important in the teaching of young children, since they may not be capable of representing distal goals
in thought (Schunk & Gaa, 1981). Finally, the types of achievement goals set by learners influence their
task persistence and problem-solving efforts (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Elliot, 1983; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Meece, 1994), as well as their study behaviors and what they remember
(Graham & Golan, 1991; Nolen, 1988; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). When learners set performance goals,
they “seek to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid negative judgments of their
competence” (Dweck, 1986, p. 1040). When they set learning goals, on the other hand, learners “seek to
increase their competence, to understand or master something new” (Dweck, 1986, p. 1040). The
difference between these two types of goals can be seen in statements such as, “I want to get an A on
this test” (performance goal) versus “I want to understand why the United States was one of the last
countries to enter World War II” (learning goal). Faced with a performance goal, students who have little
confidence in their abilities display helplessness. They avoid challenge and, given the chance, will quit
rather than persist in the task. In the same situation, learners who have high confidence in their abilities
will seek a challenge and tend to demonstrate high persistence toward the task. Where learning goals
are concerned, on the other hand, students’ assessment of their present ability is irrelevant. They all
display what Dweck and Leggett (1988) called a “mastery-oriented” pattern of motivation. That is, they
select challenging tasks, which are believed to benefit learning, and they demonstrate persistence in
those tasks (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The reason for these differences appears to
lie in how individuals interpret their failures within the two goal orientations. Performance goals foster
the implicit belief that intelligence is fixed. Under this goal orientation, then, learners ask whether their
abilities are adequate to the task, and failing is taken to mean that the answer is “no.” By contrast,
learning goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is malleable and can be developed. Under
a learning goal orientation, strategies for task mastery are emphasized, and learners ask themselves
how their abilities might best be applied and increased to achieve the goal. Failure in this case signals a
problem with the current strategy and the necessity to revise that strategy. An obvious result is that
learners will expend more effort to learn in this situation than when they believe they do not have the
ability to achieve the goal (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The recommendation to foster a learning goal
orientation runs counter to much current educational practice, which attempts to instill learner
confidence within a performance goal orientation (Dweck, 1986). Strategies of this sort are, in fact,
discussed later in the chapter. It is likely that the behavioral perspective on learning (specifically, positive
reinforcement) contributed to this situation. Recall, for example, the effect of positive reinforcement on
learning. How does this relate to motivation? Presumably, behavior that can be described as motivated
comes about through its consistent reinforcement. However, “a deeper understanding of the principles
of reinforcement would not lead one to expect that frequent praise for short, easy tasks would create a
desire for long, challenging ones or promote persistence in the face of failure” (Dweck, 1986, p. 1045).
What conclusions may we draw for instruction from this research on goals? It is apparent that setting
challenging, proximal goals contributes to motivation and can lead to enhanced performance. But this is
most likely to occur when the goals are oriented toward learning, as opposed to performance. SelfEfficacy Beliefs To this point, the roles in motivation of curiosity and students’ cognitions about learning
tasks have been explored. But another strong source of motivation comes from learners’ beliefs about
themselves in relation to task difficulty and task outcome. According to Bandura (1997), “Perceived selfefficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
produce given attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy beliefs influence the courses of action people choose to
pursue, how much effort they put forth in given endeavors, how long they will persevere in the face of
obstacles and failures, their resilience to adversity, whether their thought patterns are self-hindering or
self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing environmental
demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize. (Bandura, 1997, p. 3) Bandura (1977, 1982,
1997) proposed self-efficacy as a belief system that is causally related to behavior and outcomes. That is,
people make judgments about their ability to perform certain actions required to achieve a desirable
outcome (Figure 9.1). Then, based on their judgments, they proceed or not to engage in those actions.
In the Workshop Worries scenario, for example, Sean doubts his ability to learn the research skills being
taught in the workshop because he has no prior knowledge of the subject matter. As a consequence, he
does not seek the help that could enable him to learn successfully in this situation. In addition to self-
efficacy beliefs, people have expectations about what actions will produce the desirable outcomes. Sean
fully expects, for instance, that learning the research skills being taught in the workshop would enable
him to perform a job function that he cannot do now. Bandura called these outcome expectations and
defined them as the judgments people make about the consequences of performance. Positive
expectations serve as incentives (i.e., Sean was motivated to sign up for the workshop), and negative
expectations serve as disincentives (i.e., Sean would have looked elsewhere for training if he thought
the workshop was not oriented toward the skills he wants to learn). FIGURE 9.1 Bandura’s Theory of
Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Performance and Achievement Outcome expectations comprise three
major types (Bandura, 1986, 1997): 1. Physical effects that accompany an action (e.g., pleasure or pain)
2. Social effects (including approval, social recognition, and monetary compensation on the positive side
and disapproval, rejection, and penalties on the negative side) 3. Self-evaluative reactions to one’s own
behavior In addition to Sean’s outcome expectation that the workshop will lead to desirable research
skills, therefore, he may well have outcome expectations that his success in the workshop could lead to
a promotion or the commendation of his supervisor. Performance clearly determines whether outcome
expectations are satisfied, and self-efficacy beliefs control performance. People can harbor beliefs about
their capabilities (or lack thereof) that bear no relation to their actual ability to perform some task. But
making good use of the capabilities they possess depends upon the self-assurance with which they
approach and manage difficult tasks (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is thought to be a generative
capability, not a fixed trait (Bandura, 1997). That is, people develop self-efficacy beliefs in different areas
and to different degrees, and these differences help to explain why people with similar skill levels may
perform differently or why an individual may perform differently under different circumstances without
a change in skill level. Moreove…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment