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.