 |
| 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
Hi Aja,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, and a reminder that what we've covered at this point is focused on instruction, not as much on the bigger picture. While we can talk about how to best motivate students, educators are trapped within a system encouraged by NCLB (when I was a conference the keynote speaker referred to it as "no child's behind left untested.") leads teachers to focus on creating instruction that is not at all motivating. NCLB as a policy ignores the reality our schools, the disparity between the kind of education kids get--depending on where they live and go to school, and also ignores kinds of learners we should be preparing to continue on into higher education and the workplace.
As you mention, we need not only a change in how teachers teach, but also that stakeholders in school districts (which would include parents) and educational policy-makers need to have exposure to the research on motivation. I do believe, as you imply, that some of the behavioral issues could be changed by creating classroom experiences that engage kids.
This reminds me of two book i read ... many years ago, America By Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, by David F Noble, and The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958, by H.M. Kliebard. Both are historical look at American education as, really, a form of social engineering (okay, that may be a little strong, but maybe not). Unfortunately, I am not sure we've progressed to far beyond that, but times have changed and the American public education system hasn't kept up.
Hi Professor Pusch:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your return blog posting. I enjoyed reading your comments. It is sad to say, but NCLB has ruined the American public educational system. It has been reported that for the first time in America, this generation of Americans are less educated than their parents and grand parents. I think this is because young people have been dropping out of secondary schools in overwhelming numbers. For the lucky few, who do move on to post-secondary institutions, they tend to drop out before the end of their freshman year.
Unfortunately, the educational stakeholders, policy and decision makers in America do not seem truly committed to educating all of America's youth. If any authentic change is going to occur, it will arise from a grassroots movement. Currently, many urban parents are removing their children from public schools and are now going the Charter school route. Only time will tell if Charter school enrollment and attendance will lead to a closing of the current achievement gap between mainstream/Asian students & minority/ethnic subgroups.
Thank you for the book recommendations, I plan to order them from Amazon.com on Monday.
Best
~Aja