Motivation (Constructivism)

Constructivism, fundamentally a theory concerning the ontogeny of human faculties, has in recent years been applied to the realm of pedagogy. Comparatively little, however, has been delineated regarding the role of motivation within the constructivist paradigm. Notwithstanding, constructivism is indeed applicable to matters of motivation, and certain motivational principles, as explored by researchers within alternative theoretical traditions, align felicitously with constructivist tenets (Sivan, 1986). Aspects of motivation of particular salience encompass contextual determinants, implicit conceptualisations, and the expectations held by pedagogues.

Organisation and Structure

Constructivism doth emphasise situated cognition and the significance of accounting for the context of environments to explicate behaviour. A subject apposite to constructivism is the organisation and structure of learning environments; that is, how pupils are grouped for instruction, how work is evaluated and rewarded, how authority is established, and how time is scheduled. Many a researcher and practitioner believe that environments are complex and that to comprehend learning we must consider many factors (Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Roeser, Urdan, & Stephens, 2009).

An important aspect of organisation is dimensionality (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984). Unidimensional classrooms include but a few activities that address a limited range of student abilities. Multidimensional classrooms boast more activities and allow for diversity in student abilities and performances. Multidimensional classes are compatible with constructivist tenets concerning learning.

Classroom characteristics that indicate dimensionality include differentiation of task structure, student autonomy, grouping patterns, and salience of formal performance evaluations (Table 'Characteristics of dimensionality'). Unidimensional classrooms have undifferentiated task structures. All students work on the same or similar tasks, and instruction employs a small number of materials and methods (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984). The more undifferentiated the structure, the more likely the daily activities shall produce consistent performances from each student and the greater the probability that students will socially compare their work with that of others to determine relative standing. Structures become differentiated (and classrooms become multidimensional) when students work on different tasks at the same time.

Autonomy refers to the extent to which students have choices about what to do and when and how to do it. Classrooms are unidimensional when autonomy is low, which can hinder self-regulation and stifle motivation. Multidimensional classrooms offer students more choices, which can enhance intrinsic motivation.

With respect to grouping patterns, social comparisons become more prominent when students work on whole-class activities or are grouped by ability. Comparisons are not as prevalent when students work individually or in mixed-ability groups. Grouping affects motivation and learning and has added influence over the long-term if groups remain intact and students understand they are bound to the groups regardless of how well they perform.

Salience of formal performance evaluations refers to the public nature of grading. In unidimensional classrooms, students are graded on the same assignments and grades are public, so everyone knows the grade distribution. Those receiving low grades may not be motivated to improve. As grading becomes less public or as grades are assigned for different projects (as in multidimensional classes), grading can motivate a higher proportion of students, especially those who believe they are progressing and capable of further learning (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).

Unidimensional classrooms have high visibility of performance (Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981), which can motivate high achievers to learn but often has a negative effect on everyone else. Multidimensional classrooms are more likely to motivate more students because they feature greater differentiation and autonomy, less ability grouping, and more flexibility in grading with less public evaluation.

Target

Classrooms include other factors that can affect learners’ perceptions, motivation, and learning. Some of these, as shown in Table 'TARGET factors affecting motivation and learning', can be summarised by the acronym TARGET: task design, distribution of authority, recognition of students, grouping arrangements, evaluation practices, and time allocation (Epstein, 1989).

The task dimension involves the design of learning activities and assignments. Later in this course, there discusses ways to structure tasks to promote a mastery (learning) goal orientation in students—for example, by making learning interesting, using variety and challenge, assisting students to set realistic goals, and helping students develop organisational, management, and other strategic skills (Ames, 1992a, 1992b). Task structure is a distinguishing feature of dimensionality. In unidimensional classes, students have the same materials and assignments, so variations in ability can translate into motivational differences. In multidimensional classes, students may not all work on the same task simultaneously and thereby have fewer opportunities for social comparisons.

Authority refers to whether students can assume leadership and develop independence and control over learning activities. Teachers foster authority by allowing students to participate in decisions, giving them choices and leadership roles, and teaching them skills that allow them to take responsibility for learning. Self-efficacy tends to be higher in classes that allow students some measure of authority (Ames, 1992).

Recognition, which involves the formal and informal use of rewards, incentives, and praise, has important consequences for motivated learning (Schunk, 1995). Ames (1992) recommended that teachers help students develop mastery goal orientations by recognising progress, accomplishments, effort, and self-directed strategy use; providing opportunities for all learners to earn rewards; and using private forms of recognition that avoid comparing students or emphasising the difficulties of others.

The grouping dimension focuses on students’ ability to work with others. Teachers should use heterogeneous cooperative groups and peer interaction where possible to ensure that differences in ability do not translate into differences in motivation and learning. Low achievers especially benefit from small-group work because contributing to the group’s success engenders feelings of self-efficacy. Group work also allows more students to share in the responsibility for learning so that a few students do not do all of the work. At the same time, individual work is important because it provides for clear indicators of learning progress.

Evaluation involves methods for monitoring and assessing student learning, for example, evaluating students for individual progress and mastery, giving students opportunities to improve their work (e.g., revise work for a better grade), using different forms of evaluation, and conducting evaluations privately. Although normative grading systems are common in schools (i.e., students compared to one another), such normative comparisons can lower self-efficacy among students who do not perform as well as their peers.

Time involves the appropriateness of workload, pace of instruction, and time allotted for completing work (Epstein, 1989). Effective strategies for enhancing motivation and learning are to adjust time or task requirements for those having difficulty and allowing students to plan their schedules and timelines for making progress. Giving students control over their time management helps allay anxiety about completing work and can promote use of self-regulatory strategies and self-efficacy for learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994)

Constructivist theories do call attention to manifold facets o' motivation, includin' both the cognitive an' the affective. A central premise o' many contemporary theories o' learnin' an' motivation, an' one that doth fit nicely wi' constructivist assumptions, be that persons hold implicit theories about issues, such as how they learn, what contributes to school achievement, an' how motivation affects performance. Learnin' an' thinkin' occur in the context o' learners' beliefs about cognition, which differ as a function o' personal, social, an' cultural factors (Greeno, 1989; Moll, 2001).

Research doth show that implicit theories about such processes as learnin', thinkin', an' ability influence how students engage in learnin' an' their views about what leads to success both within an' without the classroom (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 1999, 2006; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990). Motivation researchers have identified two distinct implicit theories (or mindsets) about the role o' ability in achievement: entity theory (fixed mindset) an' incremental theory (growth mindset). Students who hold an entity theory, or fixed mindset, view their abilities as representin' fixed traits over which they have little control; whereas those who hold an incremental theory, or growth mindset, believe that abilities be skills that they can improve through learnin' (Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Molden, 2005). These perspectives influence motivation an' ultimately learnin' an' achievement. Wood an' Bandura (1989) did find that adults who view managerial skills as capable o' bein' developed use better strategies, hold higher self-efficacy for success, an' set more chargin' goals than those who believe such skills be relatively fixed an' not capable o' bein' altered.

Students wi' a fixed mindset be apt to be discouraged if they encounter difficulty because they think they can do little to alter their status. Such discouragement results in low self-efficacy, which can affect learnin' adversely (Schunk, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Conversely, students wi' a growth mindset be less apt to give up when they encounter difficulty an' instead be likely to alter their strategy, seek assistance, consult additional sources o' information, or engage in other self-regulatory strategies (Dweck, 2006; Zimmerman, 1994, 1998; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

Evidence doth also show that implicit theories can affect the way that learners process information (Graham & Golan, 1991). Students who believe that learnin' outcomes be under their control may expend greater mental effort, rehearse more, use organisational strategies, an' employ other tactics to improve learnin'. In contrast, students who hold a fixed view may not expend the same type o' effort.

Students do differ in how they view kinds o' classroom learnin'. Nicholls an' Thorkildsen (1989) did find that elementary school students perceived learnin' substantive matters (e.g., mathematical logic, facts about nature) as more important than learnin' intellectual conventions (e.g., spellin', methods o' representin' addition). Students did also see didactic teachin' as more appropriate for teachin' o' conventions than for matters o' logic an' fact. Nicholls, Patashnick, an' Nolen (1985) did find that high school students held definite beliefs about what types o' activities should lead to success. Task orientation, or a focus durin' learnin' on mastery o' the task, was positively associated wi' student perceptions that success depends on bein' interested in learnin', workin' hard, tryin' to understand (as opposed to memorisin'), an' workin' collaboratively.

Implicit theories likely be formed as children encounter socialisation influences. Dweck (1999) did find evidence for implicit theories in children as young as 31/2 years. Early on, children be socialised by significant others about right an' wrong, good an' bad. Through what they be told an' what they observe, they form implicit theories about rightness, badness, an' the like. At achievement tasks, praise an' criticism from others influence what they believe produce good an' poor outcomes (e.g., “You worked hard an' got it right,” “You don’t have what it takes to do this right”). As wi' other beliefs, these may be situated within contexts, an' teachers an' parents may stress different causes o' achievement (effort an' ability). By the time children enter school, they hold a wide range o' implicit theories that they have constructed an' that cover most situations.

Research on implicit theories suggests that the premise that learnin' requires providin' students wi' information to build propositional networks be incomplete. Also important be how children refine, modify, combine, an' elaborate their conceptual understandings as a function o' experience. Those understandings be situated in a personal belief system an' include beliefs about the usefulness an' importance o' knowledge, how it relates to what else one knows, an' in what situations it may be appropriate.

A subject of considerable interest in motivation, elegantly integrated with constructivism, is that of teachers' expectations. Theory and extant research intimate a correlation between teachers' expectations for students and their subsequent actions, as well as the students' resultant academic achievements (Cooper & Good, 1983; Cooper & Tom, 1984; Dusek, 1985; Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009; Rosenthal, 2002).

The impetus for exploring expectations originated from a study conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), wherein elementary school students were administered a test of nonverbal intelligence at the commencement of the academic year. Teachers were informed that this test served as a predictor of which students were poised for intellectual blossoming during the year. The researchers, in actuality, randomly identified 20% of the school population as potential bloomers, subsequently conveying these names to the teachers. Unbeknownst to the teachers, the test held no predictive capacity for intellectual blooming, and the assigned names bore no relation to the test scores. Teachers proceeded with their customary pedagogical methods, and the students were retested after one semester, one year, and two years. For the initial two assessments, students were under the tutelage of teachers apprised of the bloomers' identities; for the final test, students were assigned to new classes with teachers lacking such knowledge.

Subsequent to the first year, discernible disparities in intelligence emerged between bloomers and control students (those not identified as bloomers); these differences were more pronounced among pupils in the first and second forms. During the ensuing year, the younger cohort relinquished their advantage, whilst bloomers in the upper forms exhibited an escalating advantage over their control counterparts. Disparities were more conspicuous among average achievers than among those of high or low attainment. Analogous findings were procured for grades in reading. Overall, the distinctions between bloomers and control students were modest, both in reading and on the intelligence test.

Rosenthal and Jacobson posited that teacher expectations may operate as self-fulfilling prophecies, wherein student achievement comes to mirror said expectations. They further suggested that these effects are more salient with younger children, owing to their closer interactions with educators. Older students, conversely, may demonstrate improved performance upon transitioning to a new teacher.

This study has courted controversy, encountering criticism on both conceptual and methodological bases, and many attempts at replication have met with limited success (Cooper & Good, 1983; Jussim et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the existence of teacher expectations is undeniable, and they have been found to bear a relationship to various student outcomes. A model elucidating self-fulfilling prophecies may be articulated as follows:

• Teachers cultivate erroneous expectations.
• These expectations precipitate differential treatment by teachers towards students of high expectancy as compared to those of low expectancy.
• Students respond to this differential treatment in a manner that corroborates the originally erroneous expectation. (Jussim et al., 2009, p. 361)

Brophy and Good (1974) argued that teachers, early in the academic year, formulate expectations based on initial interactions with students and information gleaned from school records. Teachers may then commence treating students in a manner consistent with these expectations. Teacher behaviours elicit reciprocal responses; for instance, teachers who exhibit warmth towards students are likely to be met with warmth in return. Student behaviours, in turn, begin to complement and reinforce teacher behaviours and expectations. These effects are most pronounced in cases of rigid and inappropriate expectations. When expectations are appropriate, or inappropriate yet flexible, student behaviour may either substantiate or redefine them. Conversely, when expectations are inappropriate or resistant to change, student performance may decline, aligning with said expectations.

Once teachers have formed expectations, they may convey these to students through socioemotional climate, verbal input, verbal output, and feedback (Rosenthal, 1974). Socioemotional climate encompasses elements such as smiles, head nods, eye contact, and supportive and affable actions. Teachers may cultivate a more congenial climate for students towards whom they harbour high expectations than for those towards whom expectations are lower (Cooper & Tom, 1984). Verbal input, encompassing opportunities to learn new material and the difficulty thereof, is subject to variation, with high-expectation students afforded greater opportunities to engage with and learn novel material, as well as being exposed to more challenging content. Verbal output pertains to the frequency and length of academic interactions. Teachers engage in more academic interchanges with high-expectation students than with their low-expectation counterparts (Brophy & Good, 1974). They also demonstrate greater tenacity with high-expectation students, prompting or rephrasing questions to elicit answers. Feedback pertains to the application of praise and criticism. Teachers tend to offer more praise to high-expectation students and administer criticism more frequently to low-expectation students (Cooper & Tom, 1984).

While these factors are demonstrably valid, considerable variation exists amongst teachers (Schunk et al., 2008). Certain teachers consistently encourage lower achievers, treating them in a manner analogous to that described above for high achievers (e.g., providing more praise, eliciting more answers). Apposite teacher expectations for students can foster improved learning outcomes. Tailoring the difficulty of material and the level of questioning to students, informed by their prior performance, constitutes sound instructional practice. Expecting all students to learn, contingent upon requisite effort, is also reasonable. Grossly distorted expectations lack credibility and typically exert minimal influence on learning. The majority of elementary teachers (amongst whom expectation effects may be most potent) maintain positive expectations for students, afford ample opportunities for success, and employ praise liberally (Brophy & Good, 1974).

It is plausible that students construct implicit theories concerning their teachers' perceptions and expectations of them. The manner in which these theories might influence their achievement-related actions is less predictable. Our beliefs regarding the expectations of others may serve to motivate (“She thinks I can do it, so I shall endeavour to do so”), demotivate (“She thinks I cannot do it, so I shall abstain from trying”), or impel us to act contrary to our theories (“She thinks I cannot do it, so I shall demonstrate that I can”). The most judicious counsel is to expect that all students are capable of learning and to furnish them with support, thereby assisting them in cultivating appropriate expectations for themselves. Application 'Teacher Expectations' proffers suggestions for conveying positive expectations to students.