Introduction
Whilst diverse perspectives on the instigation of conduct are pertinent to the acquisition of knowledge, social cognitive theorists have devoted substantial consideration to the interrelation subsisting betwixt volition and erudition (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Miller, 1994, 1995; Pajares & Schunk, 2001, 2002; Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Schunk, 1995; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). In the tenets of social cognitive theory, aims and anticipations constitute cardinal contrivances in the advancement of comprehension. Motivation, indeed, is conduct oriented towards a specific aim, both commenced and maintained through the agency of an individual's anticipations, these pertaining to the prospective consequences of their deeds, coupled with their self-efficacy in the execution of said deeds (Bandura, 1986, 1991, 1997). Attributions and other cognitions, such as values and perceived similarity, exert an influence upon motivation, this being mediated through their effects upon both aims and anticipations.
Aims and Anticipations
The establishment of objectives and the self-assessment of advancement towards these objectives are of considerable import as motivational instruments (Bandura, 1977b, 1986, 1991; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Schunk & Pajares, 2009; Zimmerman, 2000). The perceived unfavourable disparity betwixt a designated aim and the present performance engenders an impetus for alteration. As individuals labour towards their aims, they take cognisance of their progression and maintain their motivation. In the prefatory classroom tableau, Rosetta's advancement towards her objective ought to cultivate her self-efficacy and sustain her motivation.
The setting of aims operates in conjunction with anticipations of outcome and self-efficacy. Individuals conduct themselves in manners they deem conducive to the attainment of their objectives. A sentiment of self-efficacy in the execution of actions requisite to the accomplishment of aims is indispensable for those aims to exert an influence upon behaviour (Chapter 4). One of Kerri’s objectives is to assist in the cultivation of Margaret’s self-efficacy. Margaret may harbour a desire for commendation from her instructor (aim) and believe that she shall procure it through the voluntary provision of correct answers (positive anticipation of outcome). Yet, she may abstain from volunteering answers should she harbour doubts regarding her capacity to furnish veracious replies (deficient self-efficacy).
In contradistinction to conditioning theorists who posit that reinforcement serves as a strengthener of response, Bandura (1986) averred that reinforcement apprises individuals concerning the probable outcomes of behaviours and motivates them to conduct themselves in manners they believe shall culminate in propitious consequences. Individuals formulate anticipations predicated upon their experiences, yet another consequential origin of motivation resides in social comparison.
Social Comparison
Social comparison doth involve the process of appraising oneself by comparison with others (Wheeler & Suls, 2005). Festinger (1954) did posit that when objective standards of behaviour are obscure or wanting, individuals evaluate their abilities and opinions through comparisons with their fellows. He did also note that the most accurate self-evaluations spring from comparisons with those of similar ability or characteristic under appraisal. The more alike observers are to models, the greater the probability that similar actions by observers are socially meet and shall produce comparable results (Schunk, 1987). In the opening classroom scene, Jared doth employ social comparison as he compares his progress with that of his classmates.
Model–observer similarity in competence may improve learning (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & van den Bergh, 2002). This effect on learning may largely arise from the motivational effects of vicarious consequences, which depend on self-efficacy. Observing similar others succeed raises observers’ self-efficacy and doth motivate them to assay the task, believing that if others can succeed, so too shall they. By comparing Derrick to Jason, Kerri hopes that Derrick’s behaviour shall improve. Observing similar others fail may lead individuals to believe they also lack the competencies to succeed, which dissuades them from attempting the behaviour. Similarity may be especially influential in situations wherein individuals have experienced difficulties and harbour self-doubts about performing well.
Social Comparison
Teachers may utilise social comparison as a motivational tool for improving behaviour and effort in completing assigned tasks. As Kathy Stone works with a small reading group, she doth commend students for displays of meet behaviour, which doth emphasise expected behaviours and instill self-efficacy in students for performing accordingly. She might declare:
- "I am much pleased by the manner in which Adrian is sitting quietly and awaiting us all to finish reading."
- "I am much pleased by the manner in which Carrie read that sentence clearly, such that we could all hear her."
Observing student successes leads other students to believe they are capable of succeeding. A teacher might request a student to approach the blackboard and match contractions with the original words. As the students in the group possess similar abilities, the successes of the student at the blackboard should raise self-efficacy in the others.
A swimming coach might group swimmers of similar talents and skills when planning practices and simulated competitions. With students of like skills in the same group, a coach may utilise social comparison whilst working on improving certain movements and speed. The coach might declare:
- "Dan is truly striving to keep his legs together with little bending and splashing as he moves through the water. Observe the extra momentum he is gaining from this movement. Good work, Dan!"
- "Joel is doing an excellent job of cupping his hands in a manner that acts as a paddle and doth pull him more readily through the water. Good work!"
Teachers and coaches ought to be judicious in their employment of social comparison. Students who serve as models must succeed and be perceived by others as similar in important attributes. If models are perceived as dissimilar (especially in underlying abilities) or if they fail, social comparisons shall not positively motivate observers.
Developmental status is important in social comparison. The ability to utilise comparative information depends on higher levels of cognitive development and on experience in making comparative evaluations (Veroff, 1969). Festinger’s hypothesis may not apply to children younger than five or six years, as they tend not to relate two or more elements in thought and are egocentric in that the “self” dominates their cognitive focus (Higgins, 1981). This doth not signify that young children cannot evaluate themselves relative to others, only that they may not automatically do so. Children show increasing interest in comparative information in elementary school, and by fourth grade they regularly employ this information to form self-evaluations of competence (Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman, & Loebl, 1980; Ruble, Feldman, & Boggiano, 1976).
The meaning and function of comparative information doth change with development, especially after children enter school. Preschoolers actively compare at an overt level (e.g., amount of reward). Other social comparisons involve how one is similar to and different from others, and competition based on a desire to be better than others (e.g., Jared) without involving self-evaluation (e.g., “I’m the general; that’s higher than the captain”; Mosatche & Bragioner, 1981). As children become older, social comparisons shift to a concern for how to perform a task (Ruble, 1983). First graders engage in peer comparisons—often to obtain correct answers from peers. Providing comparative information to young children increases motivation for practical reasons. Direct adult evaluation of children’s capabilities (e.g., “You can do better”) influences children’s self-evaluations more than comparative information.
Comparing one’s current and prior performances (temporal comparison) and noting progress enhances self-efficacy and motivation. Developmentally, this capability is present in young children; however, they may not employ it. R. Butler (1998) found amongst children aged four to eight that temporal comparisons increased with age, but that children most often attended only to their last outcome. In contrast, children frequently employed social comparisons and evaluated their performances higher if they exceeded those of peers. Butler’s results suggest that teachers need to assist children in making temporal comparisons, such as by showing children their prior work and pointing out areas of improvement. Kerri doth this with Jared, Matt, and Rosetta.
In summary, with its emphasis on goals, expectations, and related cognitive processes, social cognitive theory offers a useful perspective on motivation. We shall now turn to goal theory, a relatively recent perspective on motivation that employs social cognitive principles as well as ideas from other theories.
Social Cognitive Theory
Students enter learning situations with a sense of self-efficacy for learning based on prior experiences, personal qualities, and social support mechanisms. Teachers who know their students well and incorporate various educational practices may positively affect motivation and learning.
Instruction presented such that students can comprehend it fosters self-efficacy for learning. Some students learn well in large group instruction, whereas others benefit from small group work. If a university English professor is introducing a unit on the major works of Shakespeare, the instructor initially might provide background on Shakespeare’s life and literary reputation. Then the professor could divide the students into small groups to review and discuss what had been introduced. This process would help build the self-efficacy of both students who learn well in large groups and those who do better in small groups.
As the professor moves through the unit and introduces the major periods of Shakespeare’s dramatic career, the student activities, exercises, and assignments should provide students with performance feedback. Progress made toward the acquisition of basic facts about Shakespeare and his works can be assessed through short tests or self-checked assignments. Individual student growth as it relates to understanding specific Shakespearean works can be conveyed through written comments on essays and papers and through verbal comments during class discussions.
Students should be encouraged to share their insights and frustrations in working with interpretations of various Shakespearean plays. Guiding students to serve as models during the analysis and discussion of the plays will promote their self-efficacy better than will having a professor who has built his or her career studying Shakespeare provide the interpretation.
In working with students to develop goals toward learning the material and understanding Shakespeare and his works, the professor could help each student focus on short-term and specific goals. For example, the professor might have students read a portion of one major work and write a critique, after which they could discuss their analyses with one another. Breaking the material into short segments helps to instill self-efficacy for eventually mastering it. Commenting on the quality of the critiques by students is more beneficial than rewarding them for just reading a certain number of plays. Being able to interpret Shakespeare’s work is more difficult than simply reading, and rewarding students for progress on difficult assignments strengthens self-efficacy.