Reading notes for Cushman chapters 4 & 6

These two chapters deal with motivation and many related topics. As you read students' words, consider whether they are consistent with the theories you've been reading. You may want to read some of Cushman before the other two readings and some after, looking for relationships. Think also of chapter 3 from your assessment book (we read it at the end of Dilemmas), particularly when you are reading kids' responses to feedback, grades, and homework. In class, we will probably spend some time looking for examples and counterexamples in Cushman for the theories you read about in the other two assigned readings for today.

Reading notes for LaGuardia & Ryan

This is a chapter taken from an edited book on adolescent motivation. It is written by a couple of psychologists, inlcuding Rich Ryan who co-developed the Self-determination Theory (SDT) we are using to frame the relationship between development, classroom environments, and motivation. Like the Eccles piece, the segments you are reading make an argument that some of the stereotypical behavior attributed to adolescents as part of their normal development is, in fact, the result of a mismatch between their needs and what they get from family and school environments.

Families. LaGuardia & Ryan argue that the stereotype of adolescents distancing themselves from adults is incorrect, and that when this happens it is because they are not getting sufficient support for their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. In families where these needs are met, they argue, adolescents do not become detached from parents and guardians, but use them as a secure base from which to explore other relationships. They tend to describe this as a one-way street, with families affecting adolescents. However, it's important to remember that adolescents themselves can influence families. Thinking about your own adolescence, how did your actions influence the kinds of autonomy support you received from your family?

Schools. The first paragraph in this section, on p. 200, gives a nice, concise overview of LaGuardia & Ryan's argument about the role of schools. Note the similarities between this argument and Eccles's group's research findings.

On p. 200, the authors claim, "...the primary issue in motivation is not how much motivation a person has, but what kind." What do they mean by this, and how is it relevant to your teaching? In the next few pages, the authors talk about the influence of the presence or absence of support for adolescent needs is responsible for their levels of intrinsic motivation in school. They provide a variety of examples to support their claims. What implications do some of these have for you as you work in schools?

On pp. 204-207, the authors discuss different kinds of extrinsic motivation, which they define as motivation that is external to the activity itself. In other words, if you are doing an activity for its own sake, you are intrinsically motivated. If you are doing it for some other, instrumental reason (studying for a test, for example, or cleaning your apartment because you have company coming) you are extrinsically motivated. They also claim, however, that there are important differences between different kinds of extrinsic motivation. If you are only doing something because you will be punished if you don't, or to get some reward, you are unlikely to continue to want to do that activity once the punishment or reward is no longer there. As a teacher, if you are trying to encourage your students to learn on their own or think beyond fulfilling the requirements of a school task, extrinsic motivation is not good enough. If you have internalized a need to do the activity, if it is in the service of goals you have decided are important and you feel you are NOT being coerced, then your motivation is more internalized. Internalized motivation, although instrumental, has many of the positive characteristics of intrinsic motivation. Much of what students do in school is probably not going to be intrincally motivating. But if students believe that the activity will help them attain important goals, or that it serves a community purpose that they believe in, they will be doing it autonomously, according to SDT. At the bottomo of p. 206 and top of 207, the authors describe the benefits of more internalized motivation -- increased engagement, better performance, quality of learning, enjoyment, and coping with difficulty.

Reading notes for Stefanou, et al.

General: This article was written for the Educational Psychologist, so its primary audience is researchers. However, Julie Turner's research group focuses on what happens in classrooms, what real teachers do to enact these theories. This article has a number of examples of what teachers do and say to support autonomy (and so motivation). Its contribution to our understanding lies in their careful look at different types of autonomy supports. They note that these types are not equal in terms of their effectiveness in increasing student interest.

p. 99 "Classroom contexts support autonomy" and "Authoritarian vs supportive control." These two sections describe the general theoretical predictions, that classroom contexts that support autonomy, relatedness, and competence increase student motivation and engagement in learning. The next few sections describe the research base for these predictions. The authors make the point that this research is often translated into practice just as offering choices to students, but that this is not sufficient.

p. 101 Here the authors contrast three different categories of autonomy supports teachers can provide. They then make the argument that the third type, cognitive autonomy support, is the most important for long-term engagement in learning. They suggest that using these strategies can actually increase student interest, and that this is more effective than trying to use students existing interests to motivate their learning. What do you think about this assertion? What evidence do the authors provide?

p. 102 The authors describe how their observations of seven classroom teachers over 8 months caused them to question their initial definitions of autonomy support, and to figure out exactly what teachers were doing that resulted in high levels of student engagement and critical thinking.

The following four sections describe teachers and their actions that fell into four categories based on the types and levels of autonomy support they provided in their classrooms:

They argue that high cognitive autonomy support was more important than high levels of procedural or organizational support in motivating a high level of engagement, creativity, and thinking.

In the discussion, Stefanou and her colleagues talk about the relationships between these different kinds of autonomy support and increased student interest. They relate it to some other research by Mitchell, who contrasted lesson aspects that "caught" students' interest initially, and those that "held" it over the long term.

Pay particular attention to the contrast between Ms. Adams and Ms. Benjamin, the two high cognitive autonomy-support teachers. What do you think about the implications of this contrast for your own teaching goals?

p. 108 provides a summary of the implications of this research. Note the table which lays out some of the different teaching practices they observed that fell into their autonomy-support categories. Think about what you have learned in methods and Dilemmas about supporting student thinking -- scaffolding, questioning strategies, cognitive apprenticeship, etc. How might these tools help you increase support for cognitive autonomy in a way that helps all students achieve higher levels of engagement with your subject?