Week 5 - Aja's Reflections (Module V)

Rich Source Materials

This week's required readings were very rich in terms of wonderful and diverse articles on a variety of topics: Affect & Interest Awareness, Game Design, Digital Gaming & Student Engagement, Students' Motivation & their Social Context. These articles illustrated the dynamic research that is taking place in a plethora of academic areas, which secondary and post-secondary instructors might draw upon to promote students' interest and engagement. Some of the reading insights I found the most interesting included the following:


 (1). Affect & Interest Awareness

•  Motivational and affective processes can interact to influence cognitive and behavioral outcomes (P&S, Chpt. 7, p. 281): This research finding is so important for teachers to understand and internalize. If students are feeling anxious or depressed about their academic studies, their achievement scores are going to be impacted. Students might exhibit self-protective (i.e., task(s) avoidance) or self-sabotaging (i.e., procrastination) behavior as forms of coping measures to deal with their emotional disequilibrium. If a teacher sees the above type of behaviors in students, it is sometimes good to have a very brief individual conferences or private side talks with the students to find out what is going on in their lives, so that together they might form an action plan to help deal with any particular stress and get the students back on track academically.

(2).  Game Design & Student Engagement

•  First of all, I did not know that the computer and video games industry was so profitable in the United States: "$6 billion dollars was spent in the United States in 2001" (Dickey, 2005, p.67). This data is 10 years old, so one can just imagine what the spending dollar amount is in 2011. More surprising is that Wang, Khoo, Liu, Aharan (2008) revealed that the video-game industry is now giving the movie industry a run for its money (Passion and Intrinsic Motivation in Digital Gaming, p. 39).

• Second, although published research exists about the cognitive benefits shown in students that actively, play computer and video games, there is a dearth in research that shows the motivational benefits of having students engage in game-playing in an academic setting with educational games. In table 1: A Comparison of Engaged Learning and Game Design Elements, Dickey reveals clear alignments between motivational learning pedagogy and game design. Dickey believes that instructional designers can play pivotal roles in creating engaging and interactive learning environments by viewing game design as "a type of guiding architecture" (p.79). From the perspective of a novice instructional designer who is starting her professional training, models are great to see and learn from when not having any prerequisite schema to draw upon. 

(3).  Social Contest and Student Motivation

• Negative peer influence: My older sister is going through this problem with my 14 year old niece right now. My niece is doing well in school; however, she formed friendships with two neighborhood girls that do not go to her high school. Currently, the problem is that my niece stopped doing her house chores when she gets home from school; instead, she tends to hang out with these girls, who seem to be only interested in partying. Although my sister told my niece that she is against the friendships, my niece is not listening to her because the two girls are very popular with the neighborhood boys. It seems that she thinks friendship and association with these girls will promote interest with her. My sister is very distraught over this whole situation and just does not know what to do because it seems eventually negative peer pressure and after school activities will start to impact my niece's academic achievement.  So as I read the chapter on social context, negative influences seem not only a challenge to teachers in the school setting, but also represents a challenge to concerned parents who want only the best for their kids. 

Best,
~Aja

References
Dickey, M.D. (2007, June). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational technology research and development,  55(3), 253-273.

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

Wang, C.K.J,  Khoo, A., Liu, W.C., & Divaharan, S. (2008). Passion and intrinsic motivation in digital gaming. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11(1),

Week 5 - Supplemental Posting - Effort does not mean minimum, substandard, or no work

Hi All:

Grade for Effort

This is not my reflection posting for week five; however I wanted to comment on Max Roosevelt's article, "Students Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes" that Professor Pusch posted in the enrichment resources folder. The article basically states that today's students have a sense of entitlement and expect to get A grades for doing the minimum amount of work possible like just attending class and doing all the reading assignments. The author then has various pundits chime in with their reason(s) for the above expectation: (1) Cultural/social,psychological pressures (i.e., overbearing family/parents; competitive friends, achievement anxiety); (2) High-stakes testing school environment; and (3) Putting in a lot of effort.

The question I ask is how are we defining effort? Is it all about doing the least amount of work possible such as stated above? In the case of college/university students, is it about arguing with the professor at the end of the academic session or semester about why they should be given an A, although they did not submit any work or do just the bare minimum? Is it about threatening to have their parent(s) sue the professor and Syracuse University? Is it about stating that if they do not get an A, they will not be able to get into (insert name & type of professional school) or get (insert name of career/job/position title/award). I do not think this is the way effort should be defined. The above activities is what I call "the dark side of extrinsic motivation."

When students get ready to make a case about effort, they should ask themselves the following fundamental questions?:

• Did I turned-in all late or outstanding assignments?
• Have I spoken or written to the professor to explain my problem or concern?
• Have I fulfilled all the requirements of the course (even if some are late) in the highest possible manner?
• Have I actively participated in class (Face-to-Face platform) or on the discussion board (online platform)?
• Have I tried to go above and beyond the minimal standard in any of my course requirements or assignments?

At the end of the day, when a teacher/instructor/professor goes to his or her grade-book, there has to be tangible proof, that a student was active, engaged, and committed to the class that goes beyond the minimum standard. In other words, the student has to show that that he or she did indeed make a strong academic effort to do well in the course.

Best,
~Aja

Reference
Roosevelt, M. (2009. February 18). Student expectations seen as causing grade disputes. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html

Image URL Address:  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2LZdShs9pEB6S7hlQbwkkxZgOlgTq2rlyhbHsEoDA0z-4-3TBp6WSz24MF8gHcpvYxYTJp-q-nTXn1ZTUo6MyfKFpFX-Vb-nZSIEtvyVuwZa-csA-X_aUGBUBp2lkgueSqwJUhelxGzbi/s1600/grades.jpg

Save Our Schools Rally For Education July 30, 2011

Thank you Yin for telling me about this rally. Unfortunately, I did not know about this rally in advance. Mr. Kozol's comments were right on the mark - We should be speaking respectfully and lovingly of all teachers.
________________________
Continued call to action: The July days of action are over, but the work continues. Stay in touch by following @SOSMarch on Twitter and causes.com; learn, plan and network on our discussion boards; and explore the rest of the site to get informed and GET INVOLVED!

Best,
~Aja

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.