This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Juachon College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman, QC Glendale School, Inc. / 11 Saint Benedict St., Paradise Village, QC Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract Motivation, internal processes that energize and direct behavior towards certain goals (Buehl & Alexander, 2005; Elliot, 2006), and epistemology, personal views about the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing (Hofer, 2004; Muis, 2004), are both popularly conceived by current theories as relatively stable, trait-like constructs, each comprised of a specific set of dimensions. Yet, do these constitute accurate portrayals of motivation and epistemology? Using a grounded theory and hermeneutic approach to analysis, the dynamism of motivation and epistemology was brought to surface. Conceived as highly dynamic constructs, how do
motivation and epistemology act together in the process of learning? Data, extracted principally from momentary assessments, supplemented by data from interviews and observations, provide evidence of the interactions between motivation and epistemology in an authentic classroom setting and support the assumptions for a manifold resource structure and the dynamic nature of motivation and epistemology. This paper brings to the fore the value of analysing motivation and epistemology at the micro-level and introduces the concept of micro-dynamism. Microdynamism refers to the momentary and transitory nature of motivation and epistemology as processes that involve subtle, momentary and potentially imperceptible changes that are assumed to be responses to contextual stimuli. A manifold resource theory of motivation and
epistemology is proposed. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords: motivation, epistemology, manifold resource model, micro-dynamics
Harper. 2006. 2001. 2002) to motivation. & Porsch. . The individual is presumed to behave in accordance with his beliefs. I aimed to extend the concept of a resource model of epistemology (Hammer and Elby. 2005. Buehl & Alexander.Introduction Students’ behaviors and subsequent performances can be explained to a large extent by motivation—that which energize and direct goal-related behaviors. and ability to learn and speed of learning pertain to the nature of learning. learning processes and outcomes are argued to either be hindered or enhanced by naive personal or sophisticated epistemological beliefs. the manifold resources model. 2004. 2004. Elliot & McGregor. respectively (e. on learning behaviors and processes. Elliot.. Hofer and Pintrich 1997. Observations of variations and instabilities in students’ epistemologies and associated behaviors within and across contexts urged Hammer and Elby (2000. The importance of understanding how motivation works cannot be overemphasized. Bromme. 2008. and source pertain to the nature of knowledge. The term ―resources‖ refers to fine-grained primitive raw materials that comprise phenomena like knowledge.g. Pieschl. and many studies argue that motivation can be more crucial than ability in determining academic outcomes. In this research. 2010). Pulmones. Hofer. epistemology. 2002) and their colleagues to propose an alternative framework. 2001) are predominant in current literatures.g. stability. 2000. wherein epistemology is posited to be comprised of highly sensitive fine-grained resources that are activated in patterns according to contextual cues. 2005. Recently. DeBacker & Crowson. Schommer (1994) proposed epistemology as a system comprised of five distinct belief dimensions: structure.. Researches framed in the performance-mastery x approach-avoidance orientations (e. motivation research has begun to consider the influence of epistemology. personal views about the nature of knowledge and knowing. Muis. 2010.
sources of knowledge. Although resources are extremely sensitive. I addressed these questions: How may micro-dynamic processes involving motivation and epistemology be described? How do motivation and epistemology interact during task performance? Methodology The micro-dynamics of motivation and epistemology was explored in a mock trial activity in a History class. The larger research from which this paper was derived yielded separate inventories of aspects and resources of epistemology and motivation (Juachon. & Redish. epistemological forms. The term ―primitive raw materials‖ implies that resources are the smallest units of structure. resources that are habitually activated together become organized ―sets‖ or ―frames‖. as such activation and coordination are not random but organized (Hammer & Elby. Scherr. or motivations. valence-evaluation of consequences. and epistemological stances comprise the aspects of epistemology. My foremost aim herein was to demonstrate the micro-dynamics of motivation and epistemology in an authentic setting. Coordinated resources form larger. Ability to learn. Elby. origin of motivation. 2005). epistemological activities. Affect. 2002. Hammer. structural connections. stability of truth/knowledge. direction of effort. I posit that potentially imperceptible shifts occur as various resources are triggered into activation during task engagement.and motivation. reference for achievement standards. Two groups of students comprised of seven members each were set in opposition against each other: one group was tasked to prosecute Hitler. more coherent understandings. Specifically. 2011). their activation being highly sensitive to and dependent on context. . the other to defend him. epistemological stances. They are tacit and unstable. Prior experiences stimulate the habitual response of well-coordinated sets to expectations. and means towards achievement comprise the aspects motivation. A host of manifold resources comprise each aspect in turn.
attend a small private school in middle-income community in Quezon City.to 14-year-old boys and girls. and experience sampling methods (Hurlburt.The participants. They were also asked to indicate their reason(s) behind each choice and to identify their goal before and after the activity. To allow motivational and epistemological concepts to emerge. which they also rated according to a 5-point scale from very slight to very strong. The participants accomplished a momentary assessment form twice: just after the activity was introduced (T1) and right after the activity (T2). 2009).discouraged. I assert the assumption that motivation is dynamic and state-like rather than stable and trait-like as popularly conceived. Results and Discussions The principal goal of this study was to explore micro-dynamics involving personal motivations and epistemologies in the natural setting. At each assessment time. confident . they were asked to make a forced choice between four contrasting pairs of words (work hard . By dynamism. Notes from observations and casual interviews were used as supplementary data. Charmaz.bored. Micro-dynamics involve subtle. 2006). I set aside the categorical view of motivation grounded on the mastery-performance and . I drew methodological inspirations from grounded theory (Glaser. a mix of 13. introspective or phenomenological approaches. inspired . I insinuate that behind motivation are minute details that are significant but tended to either be overlooked or become invisibly lost once clustered into broader concepts. interested .anxious). according to what best described them at that moment.avoid work. 2002. By micro. momentary and potentially imperceptible activations and changes that necessitate miniscule levels of examinations and analyses. I iterated through hermeneutic and framing analyses and coding until I reached theoretical saturation. Data was extracted principally from momentary assessments. Corollary to this.
Meeka and Jona were natural choices. because they were consistent performers in class. Jona did not have a difficult time trying to rebut Meeka’s arguments that notably homed in on just about this single line of reasoning. The other group was the defense panel where Jona was designated by the group as leader. Interestingly. The activity was to be scored by the teacher according to the merits of their arguments.approach-avoidance framework. Meeka repeatedly argued. I extend Hammer and Elby’s (2000. [Why didn’t he just abide by the treaty? If only he did. naiwasan sana yung marami pang namatay at nahirapan. then World War 2 need not have happened. 2002) manifold resource model of epistemology to motivation. one would expect Meeka’s group to easily win this challenge.]‖ In contrast. presented varied. the reverse happened. The world must be thankful to Hitler because he saved the world by stopping the spread of communism when they defeated Russia. Jona. apparently drawn from the handout and common perceptions. elaborate and creative counter-arguments: What evidence do you have that Hitler actually master-minded an offensive war? The Treaty of Versailles was the one that was offensive. death and suffering could have been avoided. to prosecute Hitler for crimes). . The world owes him a favour. “E bakit kasi hindi nalang siya sumunod sa kasunduan sa Versailles? E di sana hindi na nagka-World War 2. it was so unfair to the Germans. although Meeka had consistently earned the higher honors. The mock trial versus Hitler was an authentic classroom activity. Considering Meeka’s general academic performance advantage and a position that was easier to argue (i.e. The teacher distributed handouts as stimulus material for the activity. One group acted as the prosecution panel where Meeka was designated by the group as leader. Instead. then formed by random assignment two groups of seven members each.
saying. the prosecution was way behind in points and Meeka began to weep in frustration. .What assurance did Germany have that Britain and France can be trusted to follow the agreements in the Treaty and that Germany will not be attacked? Those two countries also had dreams to become Empires! Hitler had no choice. gaya nito. Epistemological contrasts The outcomes in the above episode were quite unexpected. That is not a crime! He cannot be punished for loving his country. If Hitler only followed the agreements. E kung sumunod nalang ba siya sa usapan. with obvious frustration and weariness. [There! Just look at the paper. Various aspects of activated epistemological resources (Table 1) deduced from the episode revealed essential differences between Meeka and Jona that help explain what transpired. He performed his duty. then everything down here could just have happened as planned. He had a very sincere desire to raise his country up from its defeat in WW I. Finally. he must protect Germany. Soon. like here. he was a hero.]‖ The activity rapidly lost steam thereafter and the teacher redirected the class into a discussion mode. Meeka and her group screened the hand-out in search of the best answer. she pointed out pertinent sections of the hand-out to the class. ―Ayan o! Tingnan nalang ninyo yung papel. Hitler was not only a brave general. e di lahat nung nakalagay dito sa baba yun ang mangyayari.
e.. She also tended to hold on to one tract of argument (that Hitler should have kept his side of the bargain). synthesize Other-awareness. “He saved the world by stopping the spread of communism. to . In contrast Jona exercised freedom to creatively reconstruct the bits of information and generated a host of arguments and positions as the narrative above shows—i. doubt Comprehend. tentative. She failed to establish interconnections among cognitive materials. evidence. inflexible Understanding. acceptance Comprehend. drawing connections from knowledge farther than the immediate information.. stories Jona Personally constructed ―sophisticated‖ interconnections Flexible. her construction of knowledge is strongly modeled. conclude Facts. obligation. an inflexible and absolute truth. and seemingly accepted information as obvious and indubitable. The acceptance of an alternative view would have makes possible a reshaping of old knowledge to make new information fit in.g. or in the terminology of Piaget (1970).. evaluate.” Jona’s sophisticated epistemology was quite evident and was able to defend an unpopular position by switching to a doubting stance: ―How sure are you? Where is your evidence?‖ A doubting stance invokes epistemological resources that view knowledge as tentative. revealing some epistemological immaturity or naiveté. relative Understanding. judgment.Table 1 Comparisons of Activated Epistemological Resources Between Meeka and Jona Aspect Source of knowledge Structural connections Malleability Stances Activities Forms Meeka Modeled construction ―naïve‖ interconnections Absolute truth. i. e. she was able to personalize the reconstruction of cognitive units. restate/ rephrase. analyze.. analyze. etc It was clear that Meeka understood the information in the handout but she was not able to go beyond it and use it productively. values.e. cause-effects.
. In contrast. interest was enhanced or triggered by the lively exchange and active engagement during the debate (e.g. I would like to point out how Jona sought (required) evidence. among others. and a dispirited outlook consequent to not having been .. With respect to motivational micro-dynamics. Hitler was actually able to make a good contribution to the world…]‖ An acknowledgment that the rightness or wrongness of Hitler’s actions (criminal or hero?) would depend on the perspective taken indicates that resources for relative truth is activated. an inability to cope with the topic. Reasons behind favorable shifts included.g. Meeka mostly restated and rephrased her understandings and used her analysis to draw a conclusion that Hitler entered into a Treaty (fact) and was therefore under an obligation (form) to comply with the terms of the agreement. data from the momentary assessments revealed motivation shifted within the duration of the activity in terms of either type or intensity. Meeka. focused on the fact that Hitler signed the Treaty. Jona analysed. “I was able to participate and score”).accommodate. as pointed out earlier. and tapped the human values system as grounds to seek justice in favor of someone who the world has largely perceived as an antithesis of justice and righteousness. Meeka failed to move out of her niche to consider other possibilities. and I want to voice my opinion”). anxieties about one’s personal abilities. “The comments are interesting. reasons for negative shifts included boredom. Motivational Shifts in the mock trial activity. or by an emergent confidence about one’s competence (e. enhanced motivations because ―we won‖. evaluated and synthesized ideas in creative ways and activate diverse epistemological forms during in the mock trial activity. Having thus made a conclusion founded on an apparent acceptance that what she knows is a permanent truth. On the other hand. as made evident in Ditz’s entry: ―May naitulong din pala si Hitler sa mundo… [So. created new ways to judge Hitler favorably.
697– 726. And while I have attempted to reframe motivation as comprised of manifold resources. & Crowson. K. References Buehl. The dynamism suggests that motivation and personal epistemology are responsive and can be productively modified.able to earn points.76. once activated. are considered as the most basic units that. Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. Motivation and performance differences in students’ domainspecific epistemological belief profiles.A.(Pre-print draft). T. as previously described by Hammer and Elby (2002). 42(4). M. 1-12). Understanding tacit coordination among motivational and epistemological resources powerfully brings to surface circumstances not easily evident through casual observation. 2011) that depicts motivation and epistemology as closely related constructs within a manifold resource paradigm. American Educational Research Journal. British Journal of Educational Psychology. can combine into larger and more coordinated and coherent units of motivation. comprised of manifold resources that are highly sensitive to contextual stimuli and their manifestations depend on which resources are activated and coordinated at the moment. (pp. Conclusions and Recommendations The findings herein lend support to the alternative framework (see also Juachon. H. M. Charmaz. K. quantitative research anchored on a resource framework is recommended. Invitation to Grounded Theory. Retrieved from http://www. In Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Most importantly. . Chapter 1. Resources. & Alexander..sagepub. A view that motivation and epistemology are dynamically responsive to classroom and other contexts implies that teachers should include a consideration of the learning context in making instructional plans. (2006).pdf DeBacker. (2005). these data support the contention that motivation is dynamic and responsive to contextual cues. 535-551.com/upm-data/9548_017586ch1. (2006). M.. P.
A. F. 2540).nl/en/icls2008/326/paper326. Resources. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds. Mestre (Ed. In B. D. E.. Educational Psychologist. R.). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Greenwich.A. M. Hillsdale. J. Academic Exchange Quarterly. .1207/s15326985ep3901_5 Hurlburt.ist.pdf Hammer. Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.pdf Pulmones. In B. QC.philjol. B. (2010). Wilken (Eds. from http://www.). R. Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. M. A. Diliman. 2010.. Paper presented at The International Conference for the Learning Sciences.pdf Juachon. Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah. FindArticles. Fishman & S. R. Bromme..uu. R. Hofer & P. D. Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective.). 39(1). 133. (19)1. (2010). 317–377. (Unpublished dissertation). Elby. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.ist. Netherlands. (1994). D.psu.info/index. (2001). N.php/TAPER/article/viewFile/ 1514/1355 Schommer. Constructivist Grounded Theory? [47 paragraphs]. Linking students’ epistemological beliefs with their metacognition in a chemistry classroom. 225-227. 3(3). Review of Educational Research 74(3). 52–72). Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2001).unlv.edu Harper. NJ: Erlbaum. 143-159. In T. September). (2005). Epistemological Resources.htm Hammer. A.. (2004). S..net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glasere. (2000). Muis.).umich. 169190). & McGregor. 4-5). Educational Psychology Review. (Preprint manuscript retrieved fromhttp://citeseerx. Dweck (Eds. http://www. In R. doi:10. New York: Guilford Press. Pintrich (Eds. self-regulation and challenge. Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp.R. University of the Philippines.qualitative-research.Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal].com. (2008). 2008.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_4_10/ ai_n29328226/ Hofer. & Elby. 08 Jun. E. B. T. doi: 10. & P. & Redish. R. T. Baynes.: L. A.edu/~icls/proceedings/pdf/Hammer. R. On the form of a personal epistemology. Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. (2004). & Porsch.UK: Oxford University Press. June 24-28. J.edu/hurlburt/hurlburt-2009b. Descriptive experience sampling.K. Oxford. K.edu Hammer. framing..3102/00346543074003317 Pieschl. Cleermans. Oxford Companion to Consciousness. Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Retrieved from http://faculty. Alexander (Eds). 501-519. K. Barney G. Garner & P. (2005). Mahwah. A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. and transfer. Accessed June 22.In J.fi. Epistemology. 43-55. A. (2002). Micro-dynamics of motivation and personal epistemology on task. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.. In A.. Retrieved from http://www. H. http://findarticles. Retrieved from http://www. 80. K. Scherr. 353-382. (2011).psu.J. CT: Information Age Publishing. Hofer.Elliot. Glaser. pp. 2010. Epistemological sensitisation causes deeper elaboration during self-regulated learning. Elliot. (2002. A. An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. & Elby. (2009).). Elliot & C. B.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.