Week 4 - Aja's Reflections (Module IV)

"The Magic of Learning": Locus of Control, Self-Efficacy, and Self- Determination in Alignment to Prompt Student Engagement 

“When the teacher says, I am the one that makes learning possible in the classroom and I am committed to make it happen. And the student says, I will do everything that I can to learn. I am ready to learn. That is when the magic of learning really happens” (Johnson, 2011). In the above quote, the importance of teacher-student interaction and accountability are highlighted.  Specifically, in a classroom setting,  the teacher and students have fundamental roles to play in the teaching and learning process. In addition, both have essential motivational needs that needs to be met. If both parties find their motivational levels and actions in sync, then meaningful and engaged learning can occur. This week’s readings seem tailor-made to the sentiments expressed by Ben Johnson regarding dynamic teacher-student interaction and the teaching and learning process. Specifically, the three motivational concepts which I believe can positively impact teaching and learning outcomes as well as promote student engagement include locus of control, self-efficacy, and self-determination. 


Locus of Control
James Neill’s, What is Locus Control presents readers with the theoretical concept of locus control which refers to “an individual’s perception about the underlying main cause of events in his/her life” (2006, para. 2). In other words, it is the personal belief that individuals have about seeing themselves as in control of their own future and/or luck.  Locus of control has two distinct subdivisions: external (individual behavior is guided by external forces) and internal (individual behavior is guided by the student’s personal decisions and efforts). For low-achieving and high risk students, promoting student awareness of internal locus control with classroom and/or homework assignments might be an effective strategy for fostering student engagement and feelings of satisfaction. For example, if a homework assignment requires students to write a brief essay or reaction paper, providing students with the option to submit additional supplementary work that demonstrates their learning of a task such as a conceptual map, picture/drawing, storyboard, flash/YouTube video, or PowerPoint presentation could be interesting ways for students to demonstrate internal locus of control.

Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura’s (1994) Self-Efficacy speaks to the importance of encouraging students to be aware of their own capabilities to master academic content and complete classroom tasks. For students with low self-efficacy - self-doubt, fear, and anxiety seem to be their constant companion (Affective Processes section, para 1-9); thus, to counteract the above affective elements and promote self – efficacy within low achieving, struggling students, teachers might do the following: Plan moderately-challenging tasks; use peer models; teach specific learning strategies; capitalize on students’ choice and interests; allow students to make their own choices; encourage students to try; give frequent, focused feedback, encourage, accurate attributions (Margolis, H. & McCabe, P.P.,2006). In terms of the classroom environment and structure, Bandura seemingly advocates an equitable classroom as oppose to one grounded in a competitive paradigm. He encourages teachers to adopt “ cooperative learning structures, in which students work together and help one another” which lead student to more positive self-evaluations of capability and higher academic attainment than do individualistic or competitive ones (School as an Agency for Cultivating Cognitive self-Efficacy section, para 5).

Self-Determination
Self – Determination Theory (SDT) is a “meta-theory for framing motivational studies, a formal theory that defines intrinsic and varied extrinsic sources of motivation, and a description of the respective roles of intrinsic and types of extrinsic motivation in cognitive and social development and in individual differences” (2008, Self-determination theory, Overview section, para 1). This meta- theory consists of five mini-theories that address either motivational or personality elements: Cognitive Evaluation Theory; Organismic Integration Theory; Causality Orientation Theory, Basic Psychological Needs Theory, and Goals Contents Theory.

SDT manifests itself in the classroom environment via teachers adopting an autonomy - supportive motivating style (Reeve & Hausic, 2009). Teachers who have this type of style are “responsive (e.g.spend time listening), supportive (e.g. praise the quality of performance), flexible (e.g. give students time to work in their own way), and motivate through interest (e.g. support intrinsic motivation)” (Reeve, 2002, p. 186). Students in classrooms taught by autonomy-supportive teachers "experience an impressive and meaningful range of positive educational outcomes, including greater perceived competence, higher mastery motivation, enhanced creativity, a preference for optimal challenge over easy success, increased conceptual understanding, active and deeper information processing, greater engagement, positive emotionality, higher intrinsic motivation, enhanced well-being, better academic performance, and academic persistence rather than dropping out of school" (Reeve, 2006, p. 228).

Student Engagement
Student engagement in classroom activities refers to"the intensity and emotional quality of students' involvement during learning. It features both behavioral and emotional aspects" (Reeve, 2002, p. 194).

Behaviors during learning        Emotions during learning
* Attention                              * Interest (vs. Boredom)
* Effort                                   * Enjoyment
* Participation                         * Enthusiasm
* Persistence                         * (Lack of) Anxiety or Anger

At the secondary school level, the alignment of  locus of control, self-efficacy and self-determination can promote active student engagement in classroom activities because these motivational concept see empowering students' beliefs in their own capabilities and sense of agency as vitally important and essential to the learning process.   

This weeks blog posting instruction asked us to discuss how this week's motivational concepts could inform either our current or future practice. Although, presently I am not a teacher, I do plan to teach adult online students in the future, so I would say that the motivational concepts that I outlined above would can stand in alignment and support of  Tinto's (2011) integration theory which is the dominant and leading theoretical model for explaining how to help student persistence and achieve degree attainment at the post-secondary school level. Specifically, students must undergo academic and social integration in order to succeed in a college/university setting. Academic integration involves students adhering to and following up on all the various rules, regulations, and requirements given to them in their academic classes and select degree program. Social integration involves students seeking out various ways to interact with their fellow peers, teachers/administrators, and support staff on their school campus. For all of the above to occur students would need to have a strong sense of agency and belief in own abilities as a result of having adequate locus of control, self-efficacy, and self-determination. For students who fall short in any of the above areas, Tinto recommends students seek additional support from their peers, teachers, and advising (academic & counseling) staff.

For myself, I plan to design my online courses with motivational elements within the course assignments and online discussion board platform to promote student engagement and active, meaningful learning. The ARCS model is a great foundational instructional  design model because it focuses on individual learner characteristics. Yet, I think an additional viable instructional design model that I would like to explore further is the MOM for Performance SUCCESS. Hardre (2009) states that (1). "Motivation is particularly crucial in adult learning because a higher degree of autonomy is desirable and appropriate for adults" (p. 5). MOM takes into account the motivational needs for both adult learners and human performance professionals. (2). MOM is "intended for adaptive implementation across a variety of environment and design contexts and for use with any model of design" (p. 6). This is a great model feature because many online instructors have not only academic/educational  responsibilities, but also do consulting work in a variety of fields such as business, health, and government agencies. Since MOM is adaptive, it would allow me to do instructional design work in a number of varying settings.

References
(2008). Self-determination theory: An approach to human motivation & personality Retrieved from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/theory.php

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (ED.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic press. (Reprint in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Johnson, B. (2011). Student commitment depends on teacher commitment [Web log]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-commitment-depends-on-teachers-ben-johnson

Margolis, H. & McCabeIntervention in school and clinic, 41(4), 218-227.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-203). Rochester, NY: University Of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. Elementary school journal, 106, 225-236.

Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How k-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and research in education, 7, 145-154.

Tinto, V. (2011). A theory of individual departure from institutions of higher education. HED 700: Enhancing student success in higher education, (class handout), 1-47.
_____________________________________________________
Image (I’ve got the power) URL Address: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdIKYesOS-iLA-unsCdrlUOSFrNdCAuTGhJb73_8JM7Hb5fLlQuHGNnuYgFNoO-PZd99trVt3smw4KzCJdW8oGntNk18F5JiVkY90P-fSsYwP2h5qnuxYVDWZ1K8nLwprSRXT6W-pE69xs/

Jonathan Kozol: Education in America (4 of 6)

Finding the secret treasure...to unlock a student's motivation (5:25 - 5:35)

Week 3 - Aja's Reflections (Module III)



Urban Education



Motivational Theory vs. Pedagogy of Poverty

Martin V. Covington’s Goal Theory, Motivation and School Achievement: An Integrative Review is a great preliminary article on the subject of motivation, in general and as it pertains to school achievement, in particular. Yet, as I read the article, I kept reflecting that current motivational research findings are not manifesting themselves in many urban classroom settings. For example, two important motivational theories, motives as goals and academic achievement goals assert the following: (1). Motives as goals theory maintains that action on the part of an individual is based on reasons centering on “curiosity, exploration, and self-improvement” (p. 173). (2). Academic achievement goal theory states that student’s achievement is dependent on the varied and complex cognitive strategies employed by the student to complete school assignments and study for examinations (p. 174 -178). In the above motivational theories, students ideally are supposed to be exercising dynamic forms of agency in the learning process. Furthermore, Covington asserts that the classroom environment is supposed to be one that promotes “motivational equity” in terms of student assessment and achievement as opposed to one based on a “competitive paradigm” (p. 189 -191). For instance, in an equitable classroom, students who do not initially demonstrate a minimal level of skill or proficiency in a particular academic task or subject area ideally should have a variety of available options to bring them up to speed: remediation (via instructor, fellow classmates, or both); individual goal setting for task completion; or task credit accumulation).

The reality in many urban classrooms is that the competitive model is the dominant classroom structure due to No Child Left Behind educational policies and procedures (Ortega, 2011; Myth, 2008; and Wiener, 2004). Specifically, due to an emphasis on high stakes testing and accountability, many urban schools follow an “objectives-based curriculum where teachers are required to cover a certain amount of material (i.e., textbook pages) every day” (Pardon & Waxman, 1996, p. 352).  Moreover, direct instruction is the norm and according to Martin Haberman (1991) the standard teaching acts are the following: “giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, monitoring seat work, reviewing assignments, giving tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework, reviewing homework, settling disputes, punishing noncompliance, marking papers, and giving grades” (p. 291).  Haberman views the above activities as highly problematic because they are not signs of good teaching.  Indeed, these acts reflect a teacher-centric approach to teaching and learning where the agency and actions of students in the learning process and classroom environment are minimized. In 2011, Haberman noted that the above teaching acts have become “firmly ritualized and pervasive” in urban schools and classroom settings and that for many teachers “the greatest problems they face are classroom management and students’ lack of motivation for learning. Since these acts of teaching themselves generate and exacerbate students’ problems, teachers will continue to have discipline problems and unmotivated students for the foreseeable future” (p. 45).

I see an incredible need for pre-service students in graduate teaching programs to be exposed to motivational research and theory. If educational school reform is going to occur in many of our urban classrooms, it has to occur from the bottom up where teachers dedicate themselves to finding innovative ways in which they can stimulate student curiosity, interest, and engagement. In addition, stakeholders in school districts and educational policy-makers need to have exposure to the vital and important findings that many motivational researchers are publishing. Sadly, if the above does not occur behavioral and classroom management concerns will continue to be the rule of the day as predicted by Haberman. In addition, urban parents will continue to remove their children from public school settings and enroll them in charter schools where they feel their academic and motivational needs will be better addressed (Stoddard, 2008).

References

Covington, M.V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual review of psychology, 51, 171-200.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi delta kappan, 73(4), 290.

Haberman, M. (2010). 11 consequences of failing to address the “pedagogy of poverty.” Phi delta kappan, 92(2), 45.

Ortega, S. (2011). The death and life of the great american school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Childhood education, 87(4), 294.

Padron, Y.N. & Waxman, H.C. (1996). Improving the teaching and learning of English Language Learners through instructional technology. International journal of instructional media, 23(4), 341-54.

Myth, T S. (2008). Who is no child left behind leaving behind? The clearing house, 81(3), 133-137.

Stoddard, C. (2008). Charter politics. Education next, 8(2), 72-78.

Wiener, R. (2004). Accountability under no child left behind. The clearing house, 78(1), 17-21.

Image URL Address: http://www.uptownnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/big-apple.gif

Week 2 - Aja's Reflections (Module II)

Credentialism vs. Meaningful Transformative Learning

The readings for week II in IDE 736: Motivation in Learning and Instruction were thought provoking because they caused me reflect on the issue of credentialism vs. meaningful transformative learning. Initially, my reflective thoughts began with my remembering the call President Obama (2009) set forth to the American people urging all to join with him in working towards the goal that by 2020, the United States would once again be the number one in producing college graduates. Furthermore, he asked all of us to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training with the rationale of getting Americans better prepared to compete in the global economic world of the 21st century (The American Recover and Reinvestment Act).  There were some educators (Au, 2009; Giroux & Saltman 2009; Giroux, 2010) who critiqued Obama for linking educational advancement to capitalistic growth and global dominance. For these critical scholars, higher education in the United States seemed to be on the path to adopting a corporate model where teachers and students were nothing more than non-critical workers and consumers, respectively. In contrast, the above scholars maintained that the function of education in the United States is about facilitating the growth and development of students as critical thinkers and teachers as public intellectuals with both charged with the aim of being engaged citizens concerned with having a just and democratic society.

At the heart of the above opposing stance: Obama’s credentialism and the scholastic advocacy of meaningful learning is the idea of motivation. According to Pintrich & Schunk (2002) motivation is defined as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 5). In the above definition, motivation is about dynamitic action and movement toward a specific task or task(s). So, if an adult person takes up Obama’s call with the sole aim of returning to higher education with the goal of just earning credentials for a higher paying job or promotion, how would I as an instructional designer-in-training and future online adult instructor, guide this individual student to an educational outlook grounded in a critical and transformative approach to learning (Meyers, 2008; Mezirow, 1991, 1994, 1998).  A strategic action plan to follow would include utilizing a motivational design model when planning my online course(s) and incorporating motivational theories and instructional strategies into my lesson plan(s) might be viable options for expanding the academic perspective of career-centric adult students.

Why use a motivational design model? According to Chyung (2000) adult learners are both goal-oriented and learning-oriented and many of them will drop out from a online or distance program if they perceive their interest, confidence, emotional and motivational needs are not being met by the course and/or instructor. (para. 8).  To effectively address the above needs Chyung recommends the use of the Keller’s ARCS Model and the Organizational Element Model (OEM). The acronym ARCS stands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. These four categories of motivational variables were derived from a comprehensive review and synthesis of motivational concepts and research studies (Keller, 1983; 2006). Chyung maintains that the Keller model is helpful in shaping adult learner perceptions and learning experiences in an online instructional platform. The OEM aligned with ARCS helps to facilitate that the desired products, outputs, and outcomes are achieved.

Why should I have an understanding of and try to incorporate motivational theories and instructional strategies in my lesson plan(s)? First, the ARCS Model is grounded in expectancy-value theory, reinforcement theory, and cognitive evaluation theory, so having a sound theoretical knowledge and understanding of these theories will help in the real-world, authentic application of the model. Second, motivational theories can help me to introduce the ideas of meaningful transformative learning via my stated motivational objectives (goals) and the motivational intervention. Ideally, these two should be in alignment. Third, motivational theories will also help me to address the needs of students via the ARCS conditions.  For example, Confidence is the third condition of the ARCS model where the motivational concern is about learners' expectations of success. The theoretical concept of expectancy (i.e., "The actual beliefs of students about their future expectancy for success; that is, whether they believe that they will do well on an upcoming test or some future event" ) is associated with the Confidence component (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p. 62). So, having a strong understanding of expectancy-value, locus of control, attribution theory (internal and external), personal causation (aka personal effectiveness), self-efficacy (aka personal conviction), and learned helplessness will allow me to apply a number of strategies based on sound instructional design techniques (Keller, 1983).

• Strategy 1: Increase expectancy for success by increasing experience with success - Provide opportunities for the student to experience a series of meaningful successes.
• Strategy 2: Increase expectancy for success by using instructional-design strategies that indicate the requirements for success - The use of comparative and expository organizers; Include the presentation of instructional objectives.
• Strategy 3: Increase expectancy for success by using techniques that offer personal control over success - This may involve the use of individual contracting, assuming that the contract includes criteria for evaluation.
• Strategy 4: Increase expectancy for success by using attributional feedback and other devices that help student connect success to personal effort and ability - This will mean as the instructional designer for my course(s), I will develop and offer a sequence of problems (or other assignments depending on the context) that are initially easy but become challenging. After each success, as the teacher for the course, I will provide encouragement to the student(s) to keep trying, and after success at the more difficult problems, I will give, verbal, attributional feedback [via statements such as, See, you succeed because you kept trying. You are able to do that"] (Keller, 1983).

Overall, this week had a lot of reading; however, all of the articles were interesting and very useful in helping me to reflect on some of the important concerns and issues that I will have to address when I become a working professional in the field of instructional design.


References
(2009). Education: The American recovery and reinvestment act. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education

Au, W. (2009, summer). Obama, Where art thou? Hoping for change in US education policy. Harvard educational review, 79(2), 1 - 42.

Chyung, Y. (2000). Improve the motivational appeal of online instruction for adult learner’s: What’s in it for me? [Preliminary report presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, New Orleans, LA in 2000]. Retrieved from http://coen.boisestate.edu/ychyung/researchpaper.htm

Giroux, H. & Saltman, K. (2009). Obama's betrayal of public education? Arne Duncan and the corporate model of schooling. Critical studies, critical methodologies, 9(6), 772-779.

Giroux, H. (2010). Dumbing down teachers: Rethinking the crisis of public education and the demise of the social state. The review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies, 32 (4-5), 339-335. Mordkowitz, E.R. & Ginsburg, H.P.(1886). Early academic socialization of successful Asian-American students. ED280927. eric.ed.gov

Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. (pp.383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Keller, J. M. (2006, June). What is motivational design? Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/pdf/Motivational%20Design%20Rev%20060620.pdf

Meyers, S A. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4), 219-224.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult education quarterly, 44(4), 222.

Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult education, 48(3), 185.

Obama, B. (2009, February 24). The 44th President: State of the nation
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.obama.transcript/

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. & (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill.

Week 1 - Aja's Reflections (Module I)

Keller's Motivational Design of Instruction

Keller ‘s(1983) Motivational Design of Instruction is a great read for novice students in the academic field of Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluation (IDDE) because it provides students with some brief historical contextualization about the field; calls on them to be an active creator of knowledge and participant in the discipline and lastly, via the motivational model, ARCS, Keller provides students with a theoretical framework and model in which they can potentially “produce instruction that is interesting, meaningful, and appropriately challenging” (p. 395). This final point is the most significant for those students who may decide to be life-long practitioners in the field.

            As I stated in my brief introductory posting on the discussion board, this is my 2^nd IDDE class, so my exposure to the discipline's theories, method and instructional strategies is still very limited, but steadily growing as I progress through my program of study. Keller’s article was very helpful because it revealed that the foundational work of early instructional scientists were historically influenced by such academic disciplines as behavioral psychology, cognitive-learning psychology, and information – processing. This information was important to me because it signaled the diverse ways in which people learn and understand the world; thus, as a future instructional designer-in-training, this knowledge will have an impact on the future decisions I make in regards to my choices of strategies, media, models, methods, and assessments.

            Another interesting point in the reading assignment was Keller’s call for practitioners in the field to strive to produce more theoretical research. Keller maintained that “Technology will benefit from useful syntheses of scientific knowledge if particular technologists make the effort to obtain knowledge and write syntheses.  In this same vein, these syntheses will be more meaningful and effective if they are presented in the context of an organized structure that facilitates their learning and retention” (p. 393).  Keller would move forward with the presentation of his own theoretical model of ARCS, yet his call for the production of more theoretical models still rings true in 2011. For example, currently, I am in the process of seeking a theoretical model as well as a validated and reliable assessment instrument that competently measures active learning on either a qualitative or quantitative level. I submitted a request for assistance to the Office of Institutional Research at Syracuse University as well as to a number of faculty members.  All of them sent back return responses that they were not aware of any such item that meets my request; however, urged that if I did indeed find anything in my continuing research that I share that information with them. Overall, although I am a novice in this academic field, I am quickly realizing that there is a need for more evidence based research on a variety of concepts in the discipline followed up with field testing for comprehensibility and utility for validation purposes.

            The ARCS model consists of four main components, Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction with a subset of instructional strategies. The instructional strategies are particularly useful when planning one's own instructional unit or as a checklist when evaluating an external selection. 

·         Attention: learner interest and curiosity must be aroused and maintained.

o   Attention strategies:

§  Incongruity and conflict: introducing a fact  that appears to contradict the student’s experience or plying the devil’s advocate in discussing an issue or current event of interest to the student

§  Concreteness: visual presentations or verbal presentation, such as anecdotes and biographies, attract the student’s interest

§  Variability: the student’s attention is caught or maintained by changes such as tone of voice, movements, instructional format, medium of instruction, layout and design of print material, and changes in interaction patterns such as changing from student-instructor interaction to student-student interaction

§  Humor: techniques as using puns during redundant or necessarily repeated information presentations, making humorous analogies, and telling jokes in introductions and conclusions

§  Inquiry: frequent engagement in problem-solving activities and providing opportunities for learners to select topics, projects, and assignments that can capitalize on their interests; and

§  Participation: involves such activities as games, role-playing, or simulations that involve active participation of the learners.

·         Relevance: learners must perceive their personal needs are met in an instructional situation.

o   Relevance strategies:

§  Experience: suggests that instruction should tell learners how new learning will use their existing skills, that analogies be used to relate current learning to prior experience, and that instruction be related to learner interests.

§  Present worth: suggests that instruction explicitly state the current value of instruction, as opposed to stressing its value in the future

§  Future usefulness: suggests explicitly tying instructional goals to the learner’s future activities and having learners participate in activities in which they can relate the instruction to their own future goals.

§  Need matching: provide students with opportunities to exercise responsibility, authority , and influence, as well as cooperative interactions

§  Modeling: having guest lecturers/visitors to speak on a topic; having top students server as class assistants/tutors; modeling through teacher actions and enthusiasm.

§  Choice: providing meaningful alternative ways and means to accomplish a goal or task; allowing students a choice in how they organize their work.

·         Confidence: learners must have appropriate expectations about themselves others, and the subject matter.

o   Confidence strategies:

§  Learning requirements: students should clearly know what is being taught (i.e.; include learning goals into instructional materials; provide self-evaluation tools and skills, and provide explanation of the criteria used in evaluation.).

§  Difficulty: learning materials should be sequenced in order of increasing difficulty, providing continual but reasonable challenge. Instruction that build on prior knowledge or requiring prerequisites incorporates this principle.

§  Expectations: suggestions for helping students acquire realistic goals and having a positive outlooks in terms of their personal effort and abilities via various metacognitive strategies and techniques such as teaching students to plan their work productively and helping students set realistic goals for progress and achievement.

§  Attributions: promoting student awareness of their own effort, success, and achievements as a oppose to attributing them to luck and external factors; allowing students to have more internal control over learning tasks; encouraging students to verbalize both their successes and failures.

§  Self-confidence: allowing students to experience increasing independence as they work at learning a skill; providing practice of skills under realistic conditions following initial learning under more sheltered, low-risk conditions; and helping students avoid the mental traps of perfectionism rather than taking satisfaction in their accomplishments.

·         Satisfaction: learners must receive the appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from instruction.

o   Satisfaction strategies:

§  Natural consequences: maximizing the positive consequences of learning that are intrinsic to the accomplishment(i.e., letting students use their own skills in realistic settings; verbally reinforcing a student's intrinsic pride in  completing a difficult assignment or task; allowing students who have mastered a particular task to help students who have not yet finished).

§  Unexpected rewards: offsetting boring tasks with extrinsic rewards

§  Positive outcome: instruction-supplied actions – verbal praise, personal attention; helpful feedback; motivating feedback (praise) immediately following task performance.

§  Negative influences: involves avoiding the use of threats; the use of surveillance practices (as opposed to positive attention); and external performance evaluation when student self-evaluation is possible.

§  Scheduling: the scheduling of frequent reinforcements when a student is learning a new task (schedule should be variable or have a random reinforcement pattern).

Limitations

Keller does inform readers that there is a limitation to the ARCS model in the “lack of specific, prescriptive [rigid, dogmatic - insertion mine] strategies” (p. 429). He acknowledges that the conditions of motivation have a certain amount of fluidity and that a particular motivational strategy that worked today might not work tomorrow. However, Keller was interested in outlining certain “enduring characteristics of people and of instructional materials that contribute to sustained motivation” (p.429-30).

References

Keller, J. M. (1983).  Motivational design of instruction.  In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional - design theories and models : An overview of their current status. (pp. 386-434).  Hilldale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J.M. (1987a) Development and the use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2-10.

Welcome to my Blog

I am excited about blogging for this course.