Add your company website/link
to this blog page for only $40 Purchase now!Continue
FutureStarr13 reasons why networking with wealth-money mindsets is achievable.
Linking learner motivation to deeper engagement
The emotional state of the learner.
Professor Annemaree Carrol from the School of Education at the University of Queensland explores some of the factors of the emotional engagement component of the model and talk about adaptive and maladaptive factors which impact upon student motivation
There seems to be a real connection to teachers and peers, a sense of belonging that creates interest and curiosity in their learning. But there is another essential ingredient – Emotions! Learning is both cognitive and emotional.
ANNEMAREE CARROLL: We know that the essential ingredient that enables motivation to facilitate deep student learning is engagement. And as educators, we are very aware of how important it is for our learners to be engaged.
Engagement has been defined as the extent to which students are connected to what they are learning, how they are learning it, and who they are learning from.
Engagement can be behavioral – concerned with attention, effort, persistence and participation. It can be cognitive — concerned with values and goals, or emotional — concerned with belonging to a group or interpersonal relationships.
Engagement can be perceived as the “hook” that captures students’ attention so that the students feel that the experience has value and relevance to their learning and their personal goals and needs.
It’s important to note that as engagement draws on behavioral, social, emotional and cognitive dimensions, engagement in one dimension relates to the level of engagement in another. It’s also important to note that one can be motivated, but not necessarily engaged in a learning episode. Andrew Martin’s Motivation and Engagement Wheel graphically represents the distinction between 11 cognitive and behavioral factors represented as adaptive motivation; adaptive engagement; maladaptive motivation; and maladaptive engagement.
Emotions drive our interests, motivation, and engagement. Immordino-Yang and Damasio define emotions as the perception of emotionally relevant triggers – either real or imagined – that trigger a physiological response leading to a behavioral and psychological outcome. Importantly, they tell us that
“the aspects of cognition that are recruited most heavily in education, including learning, attention, memory, decision making, motivation, and social functioning, are both profoundly affected by emotions and in fact subsumed within the process of emotion.”
For example, when the emotional experience associated with the level of engagement to learning is positive, the outcome is positive. But when the emotional experience associated with the level of engagement is negative, the outcome is negative. As such, when a learner is not emotionally engaged with the learning experience, learning is negatively impacted.
Emotional disengagement or disaffection with the learning context often presents as withdrawal from the learning experience based on anxiety, boredom, frustration or apathy.
If the learner finds the content boring, irrelevant, distressing, too difficult or too easy, they may become cognitively disengaged, as is evidenced through inattention, daydreaming, disruptive behavior and absenteeism. If they are cognitively disengaged, they are most likely to be behaviorally disengaged manifesting in the physical withdrawal of effort and participation.
Where there is increased value and relevance for the learner, there is increased interest, which moves the learning experience into the optimal performance zone for the individual, leading to deep engagement. When enjoyment and interest are combined, the overall effect is one of fun or pleasure, and this is an essential component of creative problem-solving and deep engagement.
The experience of positive emotions and an increased sense of fun has been shown to improve the capacity for creative and flexible thinking, increases persistence, supports the development of higher goals and aspirations, and opens our minds to a wider range of ideas, thoughts and actions.
Interest is essential to initiate and direct attention and exploration, and is fundamental to motivation. Interest is what predicts a learner’s decision to remain engaged in the task or activity. The experience of the positive affect associated with fun and pleasure enhances an individual’s capacity to broaden their perspective, explore possibilities and take creative risks. All are essential for deep learning!
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
How can it be that three students of the same age display such very different levels of motivation?
We know now that motivation is a very important factor in engaging students for deep learning, and that motivation can manifest itself in varied ways. But where does motivation originate? Are there different types of motivation? How does a learner’s mindset effect engagement in a task?
Dr. Julie Bower from the School of Education at The University of Queensland explores some of these questions. Taking from the theories (Ryan & Deci, 2000) of human motivation, human development and wellness, Julie explores self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008) in relation to autonomous motivation and controlled motivation.
JULIE BOWER: What makes one student curious and open to challenge, while another certain that no improvement or growth can be made. It all comes down to the type of motivation.
In broad terms, motivation can be classified into two camps:
We can all identify examples of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our everyday lives, and we know that these types of motivation feel very different.
Perhaps you’ve been reading a spy novel and you’re intrinsically motivated to finish the book, and find what happens to the main character. In this case, you have a genuine intrinsic interest in engaging with this task. But also, perhaps you are required to read documents for a work meeting the following day about a topic which holds little interest for you. Here, the motivation is to appear knowledgeable about the documents in front of your team, and perhaps for fear of penalty, feels very different.
This contrasts sharply to motivation for external rewards, as outlined by Schunk and Usher (2012). What recent research tells us is that where there is true intrinsic motivation, providing extrinsic rewards actually reduces this intrinsic motivation.
The majority of classrooms operate on a system of extrinsic rewards and yet we know that children are curious about exploring their world and thus are already intrinsically motivated. A baby strives with all his might to take his first steps as he truly wants to walk. And not because there’s an external reward for reaching this milestone. That’s not to say that some forms of external motivation are not wholly appropriate.
Deci and Ryan in 2011 note that for autonomous motivation to be present, three needs must be in place. We must have a level of competence, connect with others, and have a sense of autonomy in our goals.
Teachers who provide opportunities for students to become self-determined and to enjoy a level of competence, have more motivated students. This is further explored in Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (2008). Based on theories (Ryan & Deci, 2000) of human motivation, human development and wellness, self-determination theory addresses the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, as predictors of performance and outcomes. It’s important to note that both types of motivation direct and empower thought, but in very different ways and leading to very different outcomes.
Autonomous motivation involves both intrinsic motivation and some forms of extrinsic motivation that are integrated into ‘one’s sense of self’. Deci and Ryan described autonomously motivated learners as those who value and experience self-endorsement of their actions.
Control motivation on the other hand, consists of the external regulation of one’s behavior, resulting in the need for approval, avoidance of shame or punishment, or self-esteem contingent on the controlling factor.
Self-determination theory proposes three fundamental needs which must be met for motivation to occur.
So what might this look like in the classroom?
Jang, Reeve and Deci (2010) suggest that autonomy supportive teachers, empower their student’s personal autonomy by empathizing with students’ perspectives. They identify and nurture ‘students’ needs’ their interests and their preferences, and they provide achievable challenges. They highlight meaningful learning goals, they present interesting, relevant and enriching activities.
Dresel and Hall in 2013, suggest that in facilitating students need for autonomy, students might be encouraged to set their own learning and behavioral goals, and choose the content or the process of some learning tasks. To assist with fostering ‘students’ needs for competence, teachers should provide clear, purposeful, specific and individualized feedback. As well as clear instructions and explanatory rationales for learning activities, a level of structure and guidance to model leadership and a range of learning activities that account for learning preferences and skills.
To facilitate the need for relatedness, teachers can ensure the inclusion of collaborative activities. They can build a positive rapport between students and the teacher, and they can make known that the progress of each learner is really valued by the teacher.
With this theory in mind Carol Dweck has identified two types of mindsets.
Timothy Sifert’s (2004) research highlights that students who attribute success and failure to internal controllable causes, are more likely to feel pride, satisfaction, confidence, and have a higher sense of self-esteem. They’ll then choose to work on more difficult tasks, display greater self-determination and higher levels of cognitive engagement. They have a strong sense of control, they learn from their mistakes and they produce work that is of a higher quality. Such learners are intrinsically motivated. They exhibit a positive affect, they’re flexible and they engage deeply with the task.
Students that believe that their failure is attributed to uncontrollable factors are more likely to feel shame and will demonstrate reduced effort or cognitive engagement. They are performance, self, other and failure focused, and they view their self-worth as being tied to their performance, and as compared to the performance of others. They may engage in task avoidance, which comes from the wish to protect self-worth. But it’s not as simple as high ability students do well, and lower ability students do not.
We know that intelligence, achievement and motivation are malleable and subject to change. Learning oriented students understand this and they work to be task focused, in an optimistic manner. Students who perceive themselves as capable, are more likely to be self-regulating, strategic and metacognitive than students who do not.
Teacher talk in the classroom usually reveals an allegiance to either a fixed or a growth mindset, but Carol Dweck emphasizes the importance of teachers supporting a not yet mindset. Supporting a growth mindset for students can really increase motivation and self-belief, and ultimately deeper cognitive engagement.
This work is by Reid Wilson for elementary students is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To learn more about Growth Mindset go to the Mindset Kit website https://www.mindsetkit.org/– and find a wealth of information and resources, including, lesson plans, videos, downloadable resources, and an actual “course” of information to teach you about growth mindset so you can use what you have learned with your students.
Also go to Mindsetworks.com to learn more, including the research supporting growth mindset , teacher practices, case studies and more.
Professor Annemaree Carroll, from The University of Queensland, explores what self-regulation is and how this changes as a learner matures.
Click here watch this video lecture. (10:07 minutes)