from Julia

From: Mike Cole (mcole@weber.ucsd.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 06:34:21 PST


Julia is having sending problems. I am forwarding this for her.
>From h-eksner@northwestern.edu Mon Feb 2 19:54:40 2004
I've recently come across a piece that takes an at least somewhat
socio-cultural perspective in considering school environments and
students' previous experiences in their goal pursuit:
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement Goal Theory
and Affect: An Asymmetrical Bidirectional Model. Educational
Psychologist, 37(2), 60-78.

Even though the title does not suggest it, the authors suggest -
within an achievement goal theoretical framework - that the
perception of "surrounding" learning contexts by students critically
influences students' achievement goal motivation. Differences in
students' goal orientations are seen to be a function of differences
in classroom contexts, which include both instructional practices of
teachers and the general school climate.

Best,
Julia

>Mike:
>I agree that it is problematic to assume correspondence among
>differing frameworks. From what I have read, motivation theorists
>have yet to consider motivation from a sociocultural perspective
>much at all, let alone from Leontiev's specific concepts on the
>matter (with which, I must say, I am unfamiliar). There have been a
>couple articles, such as Hickey, D. (1997). Motivation and
>contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives.
>Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 175-193, but extensive work on
>motivation viewed from an activity theoretical perspective seems to
>be in its nascent stages--at least in the motivation literature,
>which is more in a social cognitive framework.
>
>The example of minority "underperformance" illustrates, in my
>thinking, the limits of current goal orientation concepts and there
>may be some benefit from viewing the example from a situational
>perspective rather than from an individual perspective. I agree that
>one must be careful in doing this, so as not to cause
>confusion--although no doubt I have become confused along the way!
>This is especially hard because it is tempting to speak generally of
>motivation and goal orientation regardless of the theoretical
>framework, when perhaps it is not clear that the concepts are
>salient in each framework.
>
>I agree with Eugene that investigation into the relationship between
>institutional structure and individual activity with regards to
>motives would be helpful--I have not seen anything of this sort in
>the motivation literature. In another source, Peter Hall has written
>about power and educational organizations, noting that meta-power
>"refers to the shaping of social relationships, social structures,
>and situations by altering the matrix of possibilities and
>orientations within which social action occurs...altering the type
>of game actors play; it refers to changing the distribution of
>resources or the conditions governing interaction" (1997, p. 405).
>It is in this way I draw upon the idea of legitimacy to come to see
>how motivation may be situated. The institution largely determines
>the parameters for interaction, thus legitimate participation, and
>one could be said to possess a goal orientation so long as there is
>general correspondence between the parameters set by the institution
>and the actors involved. I appreciate Eugene's use of the notion of
>"positive valence" here. Then again, perhaps the notion of goal
>orientation does not hold up at all in this circumstance.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Jayson Seaman
>
>
>
>
>Hall, P. M. (1997). Meta-power, social organization, and the shaping
>of social action. Symbolic Interaction, 20(4), 397-418.
>
>On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:57:20 -0800 (PST)
><mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>mcole@weber.ucsd.edu (Mike Cole) writes:
>> Jayson and Eugene and ...... In so far as I am aware, the
>> discussion of
>> the concept of motivation in the US takes place in complete
>> isolation
>> from Leontiev's attempt to provide a three level hierarchy in which
>> motive
>> is used in relation to the concept of object which has no easy or
>> unique interpretation in English. I fear that mixing discussions of
> > "motivation" form different theoretical frameworks in a piecemeal
>> fashion
>> is likely to lead to massive confusion.
>>
>> Do you see this as an issue?
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>With regards,
>
>Jayson Seaman
>Orford, NH

-- 
H. Julia Eksner
Graduate Program in Learning Sciences
School of Education and Social Policy
Annenberg Hall, R. 307
Northwestern University
2115 North Campus Drive; Evanston, IL 60208-2610
Tel. 847-491-5795
h-eksner@northwestern.edu

--============_-1136342030==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 } --></style><title>Re: Motives and goals</title></head><body> <div><font size="+1">I apologize, but I can't post directly (I don't know why). Please be so kind to forward.&nbsp;</font></div> <div><font size="+1"><br></font></div> <div><font size="+1">I've recently come across a piece that takes an at least somewhat socio-cultural perspective in considering school environments and students' previous experiences in their goal pursuit:</font></div> <div><font size="+1">Linnenbrink, E. A., &amp; Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement Goal Theory and Affect: An Asymmetrical Bidirectional Model.<i> Educational Psychologist, 37</i>(2), 60-78.</font></div> <div><font size="+1"><br></font></div> <div><font size="+1">Even though the title does not suggest it, the authors suggest - within an achievement goal theoretical framework - that the perception of &quot;surrounding&quot;<u> learning contexts</u> by students critically influences students' achievement goal motivation. Differences in students' goal orientations are seen to be a function of differences in classroom contexts, which include both instructional practices of teachers and the general school climate.</font></div> <div><br></div> <div>Best,</div> <div>Julia</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Mike:</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I agree that it is problematic to assume correspondence among differing frameworks. From what I have read, motivation theorists have yet to consider motivation from a<font face="Times"> sociocultural perspective much at all, let alone from Leontiev's specific concepts&nbsp;on the matter (with which, I must say, I am unfamiliar). There have been a couple articles, such as Hickey, D. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives.<i> Educational Psychologist, 32</i>(3), 175-193, but extensive work on motivation viewed from an activity theoretical perspective seems to be in its nascent stages--at least in the motivation literature, which is more in a social cognitive framework.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">The example of minority &quot;underperformance&quot; illustrates, in my thinking, the limits of current goal orientation concepts and there may be some benefit from viewing the example from a situational perspective rather than from an individual perspective. I agree that one must be careful in doing this, so as not to cause confusion--although no doubt I have become confused along the way! This is especially hard because it is tempting to speak generally of motivation and goal orientation&nbsp;regardless of the theoretical framework, when perhaps it is not clear that the concepts are salient in each framework.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">I agree with Eugene that investigation into the relationship between institutional structure and individual activity with regards to motives would be helpful--I have not seen anything of this sort in the motivation literature. In another source, Peter Hall has written about power and educational organizations, noting that meta-power &quot;refers to the shaping of social relationships, social structures, and situations by altering the matrix of possibilities and orientations within which social action occurs...altering the type of game actors play; it refers to changing the distribution of resources or the conditions governing interaction&quot; (1997, p. 405). It is in this way I draw upon the idea of legitimacy to come to see how motivation&nbsp;may be&nbsp;situated. The institution largely determines the parameters for interaction, thus legitimate participation, and one could be said to possess a goal orientation so long as there is general correspondence between the parameters set by the institution and the actors involved. I appreciate Eugene's use of the notion of &quot;positive valence&quot; here. Then again, perhaps the notion of goal orientation does not hold up at all in this circumstance.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">Any suggestions?</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">Jayson Seaman</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;<br> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Hall, P. M. (1997). Meta-power, social organization, and the shaping of social action.<i> Symbolic Interaction, 20</i>(4), 397-418.<br> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>On Mon,&nbsp; 2 Feb 2004 12:57:20 -0800 (PST) <a href="mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu">mcole@weber.ucsd.edu</a> (Mike Cole) writes:<br> &gt; Jayson and Eugene and ......&nbsp;&nbsp; In so far as I am aware, the<br> &gt; discussion of<br> &gt; the concept of motivation in the US takes place in complete<br> &gt; isolation<br> &gt; from Leontiev's attempt to provide a three level hierarchy in which<br> &gt; motive<br> &gt; is used in relation to the concept of object which has no easy or<br> &gt; unique interpretation in English. I fear that mixing discussions of</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&gt; &quot;motivation&quot; form different theoretical frameworks in a piecemeal<br> &gt; fashion<br> &gt; is likely to lead to massive confusion.<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Do you see this as an issue?<br> &gt; mike<br> &gt;<br> &gt;<br> &gt;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>With regards,</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>&nbsp;</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Jayson Seaman<br> Orford, NH</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>H. Julia Eksner<br> Graduate Program in Learning Sciences<br> School of Education and Social Policy<br> Annenberg Hall, R. 307<br> Northwestern University<br> 2115 North Campus Drive; Evanston, IL 60208-2610<br> Tel. 847-491-5795<br> h-eksner@northwestern.edu<br> </div> </body> </html> --============_-1136342030==_ma============--



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PST