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. </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., & 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 "surrounding"<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 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> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">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.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </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 "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.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">Any suggestions?</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times">Jayson Seaman</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <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, 2 Feb 2004 12:57:20 -0800 (PST) <a href="mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu">mcole@weber.ucsd.edu</a> (Mike Cole) writes:<br> > Jayson and Eugene and ...... In so far as I am aware, the<br> > discussion of<br> > the concept of motivation in the US takes place in complete<br> > isolation<br> > from Leontiev's attempt to provide a three level hierarchy in which<br> > motive<br> > is used in relation to the concept of object which has no easy or<br> > unique interpretation in English. I fear that mixing discussions of</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>> "motivation" form different theoretical frameworks in a piecemeal<br> > fashion<br> > is likely to lead to massive confusion.<br> ><br> > Do you see this as an issue?<br> > mike<br> ><br> ><br> ></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>With regards,</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </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