I like that the authors are learner-centered and that they point out that some people are putting too much emphasis on the idea that accountability should be monitored by standardized tests - I definitely agree. I also like their statement that “what is possible in theory may not be as possible in the day-to-day reality of America’s classroom.” I agree whole-heartedly with this. Although numerous things can be changed to improve our education issues and that the varied theories and plans we've been learning can help us improve them, I also think that it is impossible to be able to accomplish exactly everything that the theories imply. They are a tool and bring up many issues and ideas that should be considered and remembered but they don't contain all the answers and in some cases we may never be able to take the theories and use the ideas and suggestions completely. I liked that they attempted to give some suggestions – although their recommendations still don’t solve the issue of coming up with something that can be used to compare learners across the scope - country or nation wide.

I’m a little confused with their statement that schools should stop trying to create a protypic American. Are they really trying to do this? I assume that the authors just mean that it appears that way since they choose what they think is important to teach and try to get “everyone” to learn the same ideas. In the Am. 2000 plan they make some statement regarding the idea of wanting to compare American schools to other nations. I assume this is already done but am wondering how one makes comparisons if tests and knowledge is so varied between the different nations. How do you really get an actual comparison? In addition, I agree with the authors ideas of using varied assessments such as the 3 they mentioned and can easily see how they can be used in the classroom. However, if people want something to compare across states or nations I don’t see how those tests can be used. If you’re going to compare things, they need to contain the same elements so that comparisons can be made. These tests would be extremely diverse. So although the authors offer some suggestions – it still obviously doesn’t solve it. Also, who would “look” at these tests and again one can’t really use them to compare. The authors state that scaffolding is “increasing the amounts of instructional support” but I thought it was decreasing the support as you teach. In their dynamic assessment perhaps they mean that when you were testing the person you would provide more and more assistance until they were able to accomplish the task.

Overall, however, I don’t think that the authors stated anything that hasn’t already been stated in other readings. I was excited because I thought they were going to make some great suggestions, but they failed short. Sure, we need to make assessments diverse for the individual but how can we really do this – we can improve assessments and teaching but the “perfect” assessment will never be reached.

We’ve heard numerous times in other papers about the idea how teaching and assessments should be varied and diverse to help deal with our diversity of learners and their differences. We’ve heard that to more accurately assess learners that various assessments need to be given. Obviously in my future teaching career I will come across this issue of teaching and assessment. However, I think that if you are an effective teacher and pay attention to your learners so that they actually are learning using multiple teaching styles and assessments that this will help your learners hopefully do better on the standardized tests (even if they are biased and still won’t completely accurately reflect their actual knowledge). A teacher can include strategies that will help them learn, and also strategies to help them do well on the tests. Luckily, I want to teach in nontraditional settings (at a nature center or something similar). Assessments will still be used – but none that will compare learners – only assessments to provide feedback on what’s working and what’s not - to improve my teaching!

week 12

So, I questioned what motivated the learners in the movie and how they develped into a community. Was it simply because he believe in them and no one else really did? I don't know if I would completely buy that reason - expecially persist in a topic such as calculus and at the huge cost it was - using up time after and before class - even on weekends. Something that wasn't mentioned that I believe may have helped motivate some of them was the idea behind not wanting to look stupid in front of their peers. The one girl sat in the "chair" and was laughed at. That would be a big motivator.

Resistant culture wasn't mentioned. The one kid (Lou Phillips Diamond) didn't want his friends to know that he was trying and had books so had books stashed in his desk, locker and at home.

A few times he did say take it step by step - and I know we've read that before in some reading. Breaking it down into simpler parts.

Perhaps the teacher became a more effective by making himself more similiar to the learners. In one of our readings for today it stated somthing about similiar models may be more effective - peers, ect. However, in this case the teacher started to act a little like some of the kids - all tough to some kids, teasing them and threatening them - stooping to their level.

The teacher possessed credibility - he practiced what he preached.

If this teaching method was to really happen I would assume that their would be a high chance of "educational seduction". The teachers personality would overwhelm actual learning.

week 12

Interesting: I originally assumed I was going to enjoy the Bandura reading over Pintrich and Schunck, but was wrong. I thought the Pintrich and Schunck reading overall was more interesting. I thought the "Use of younger child models also could enhance observers' self-efficacy; observers may believe that if younger children can learn, they can too". Several of our past readings have discussed the concept of higher skilled peers and of coarse one (or I) infers same age or slightly older. The simple idea that it could be younger for some reason didn't cross my mind. The interesting part is the idea that it could potentially inspire someone and give them a better boost even more so with younger children being the "teacher" - the whole idea "if they can do it - I can too" comes into play.
Self modeling - having children watch their selves - thus increasing their self-efficiacy and motivation was interesting, yet I wonder how much research has been done. I just know that watching myself in certain tasks may be positive (if I think I was doing good when I watched), may help me improve, but also may be negative (if I thought I looked "dumb" or whatever).

Confusing: I'm wondering if in coping models (Pintrich) instead of just demonstrating deficiencies and typical fears that you can just discuss. The way it is discussed it seems like you actually have to "mess up". Can it be more of a discussion/slash demonstration. (Perhaps I'm thinking more of "similiarity" ideas with modeling.) I'm just thinking of people who are "models" and explain there past mistakes in life or a past activity. For example, stating that you, too, use to be bad at (whatever) and you would make mistakes and then you learned to correct or improve by doing "so and so". That would be coping too - although not like the math example where it was done on the spot - more past tense. I would assume that seeing and experiencing it in the now would be more beneficial but...
The Bandura reading made it more clear what the difference between self-concept and self-efficacy along with the difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy. However, now I'm confused, is there (and if so what is it) a difference between self-concept and self-esteem? The reading leads me to think they are the same.
I'm curious, when Pintrich and Schunck's refer to "educational seduction" - how often does this typically occur? In there example the students thought they learned and it was just nonsense. Later they state that "enthusiastic teachers help foster students' interest and motivation" and "model enthusiasm seems to be an important way to enhance student motivation and thus learning". Does that mean that occasionally thinking you are learning something is OK - it may boost your motivation, ect, which may help you at other potential learning times?

Familiar or anticipate: Pintrich and Schunck's statement that "the best models may be students who are equal to or slightly more competent than observers" is very familiar to ideas stated in previous readings. It's Vygotskian - working with more highly skilled peers - boosting your ZPD - ect.
An idea in stated in Bandura's reading reminded me of Piaget and his idea of accommodation - we adjust to new information. I think this is a constant occurrance - both consciously and unconsciously - sometimes to a large degree and sometimes to only a minute degree.

I like that the authors mentioned that more research must be done on the affects on the individual with mastery and high-performance interactions. The whole time reading, I wondered about the individual that was always had others performing much better than then. I remember in gym class being chosen last for teams frequently because I wasn't very athletic. Gym class is a very performance goal based class and it wasn't a very good feeling being chosen last. I wonder about the potential negative affects of certain individuals that may always be at the bottom. Some competition may be good, but where does it draw the line?
Overall I liked the readings far less than the other readings we've had. I really liked the motivation readings from last week and so thought that I'd enjoy the "attribution theory" paper since it is a cognitive theory of motivation. However, the attribution reading I feel was less helpful from a potential future teacher's perspective. Most of the prior readings I've felt have been extremely beneficial in assisting me personally becoming a more effective teacher. However, although it is beneficial to be aware of what affects or contributes to "success and failure" the reading also discusses some aspects that I, as a teacher can't change. I find these less interesting because I can't do a whole lot to change those. For example, perhaps someone does do bad on a test because they got into a fight with their boyfriend or girlfriend - as a teacher this doesn't help me a whole lot, obviously. Also, it seems the consensus/consistency/distinctiveness concept is just plain logical deduction or cause and effect.
I understand how the authors define the difference between approach performance and avoidance performance but I think it can be hard to distinquish the difference. Approach performance if doing better than others and avoidance performance is not looking stupid. However, if everyone looked "stupid" than one may care that they "perform" better than someone else. I mean they are kind of tied together - at least sometimes. I imagine few people want to look stupid. However, if for instance no one "knows the answer" than it doesn't matter as much performing better than others. My opinion is typically people want to "fit in", too.
We've read about "prior knowledge and beliefs" in previous readings. We haven't discussed Dewey and I don't really know anything about him - but did he say something about prior experiences and how it affects a persons behavior (and thus also thinking)? I'm just wondering what big theorists the ideas from these papers came from.

Reflection

So the readings defined motivation as choice, persistence, vigor and performance (or choice, persistence and effort). However, without motivation or low motivation one won't choose, persist or give any effort. I personally think of motivation as what causes motiviation - the attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value and cost.
Although, I don't think the Bransford framework addresses motivation directly, I think that it still plays into the framework. If you are attempting to make the classroom learner centered then in theory this should boost motivation (not necessarily, of coarse and not perhaps for everyone). If your providing learners with "just manageable difficulties" this also has the potential for increasing motivation. If the learners are succeeding, it builds confidence and thus perhaps motivation. Having a community centered classroom may also help boost attainment value, intrinsic value and utility value thus increase motivation.

When reading I also wondered about how very different motivation can be for a preschooler versus a middle school age child versus an adult. One of the papers did mention that what motivates one individual could be very different from what motivates another. Working with young children, it seems that intrinsic value and interest is the biggest motivator. Although, as you said, just because one is highly motivated does not mean that there is learning occuring - I still think that typically it correlates and thus motivation should really be addressed and thought of when develping a lesson plan. For young children I think that fun and enjoyment should be emphasized in lesson plans. I also think that a good teacher should be able to incorporate learning into almost every activity. If you have a group of very energetic young children and need to play a run around game to get some of that energy out - go ahead and play tag, but put a slight learning element to it. (Of coarse you can't teach a huge in depth concept by playing - but you can still tie some aspect of it to it).

I think one thing that I will need to be careful with is the whole idea behind "We can never assume that our beliefs will automatically be shared by those around us." and motivation. Obviously I know that everyone has different beliefs and not everyone values the same things as I do, but sometimes when I'm so extremely interested and excited about what I'm teaching I can see how I may forget that others may not share my enthusiam. I have a feeling that sometimes I'm going to think that learners intrinsic value is higher than it really is (or should be higher than it is). However, the plus side is that with enthusiam - that may actually (perhaps in some anyways) boost their motivation. I think I may also run into utility value dilemas, too. I want to teach environmental educaion - which to me is obviously useful because it can "help the environment we live in". To me there is lots of utility value in that and thus should be high motivation. However, there is obviously going to be learners that don't share my opinions and beliefs.

Tangible incentives are pretty much equal to bribes. With children (in my experience) they become fixated on the bribe not the learning or task and then yes, they expect it all the time.

motivation

I really enjoyed both papers. I personally believe that motivation plays a huge part in what people learn and how well they learn a particular concept. There has to be some "reason" as to why to learn something. Especially of interest to me are the ideas of intrinsic value and utility value. When teaching there should be "utility value" present. Wigfield and Eccles state that "Utility value or usefullness refers to how a task fits into an individual's future plans". This is similiar to a teachers goal for a lesson plan or unit except the goal refers to the entire group. The difficult task is to then have the learners actually believe that it is usefull to them individually and personally. It's often difficult to see the bigger picture or to see into the future, especially with younger children. I think with younger children, intrinsic or interest probably plays a bigger part in achievement value for them. I also thought it was interesting older elementary children valued math, reading and instrumental music less than younger children did (Wigfield and Eccles). Is it because it becomes harder? Is it because they learn it and then don't think that they really need it in their everyday lives? Or do other things take there place in importance? For example, the authors state that the value of sports was higher with older elementary children. It sounds like society and television acting upon that.

I'm a little confused with the difference between interest value and intrinsic motivation. Also, in "Motivation Gaps: Belief is (Almost) Everything" the authors state "the root motive influencing all human behavior is a desire to be effective in our lives." I keep getting hung up on that phrase. Is the root motive for preschoolers or elementary children really the desire to be effective? The authors also state that "different people have very different ideas about what makes them effective." So, with a preschooler maybe it is just having fun and staying out of trouble and that is how they are "effective".
My biggest issue is that I keep trying to tie motivation to strongly to interest, intrinsic motivation and fun. When working with younger children it just seems that fun, games and interest are what keeps them motivated and then you can use that to help you get them to learn. The whole idea of "learning is fun".

In "Motivation Gaps:" they discuss "tangible incentives" and disputes about pay incentives. In the past I've tried to offer "tangible incentives" to younger children in the form of candy. This has back fired so much that I typically don't use it anymore. The participants "motivation" is no longer on the task but is on the "pay". I've used it to try to "bribe" them, which are what "quota schemes" and "piece-rate schemes" really are and as a reward. However, when giving young children rewards I've discovered that rewarding only a few and not rewarding the others is not a very pleasant experience. You can't give one candy without giving them all candy - which I end up doing. I tried stickers and bookmarks, which work better. However, I've discovered that a pat on that back, compliments, and corrective feedback works much better.
Also, in "Motivation Gaps:" the authors state "project your own expectation that they will succeed. If you do not expect them to succeed, you may be (or may become) part of the problem." This reminds me of the Garcia? paper - where learners can become self-fulfilling prophecies and issues of stereotyping.

Memory......

I thought the "The 7 Sins of Memory" was extremely interesting. I specifically liked the various research examples in the 7 different categories (such as switching people who were getting directions and seeing if the people giving the directions even noticed or the child who made up a detailed story of being lost in the mall after suggestion even though the event never happened - very intriguing). Sin # 2 - absent-mindedness, sounds like what happens when one doesn't reach "deep understanding" that we've been discussing in past classes. The misconceptions that we've also discussed when reading Bransford would fit into the bias "sin". I've, of coarse, already encountered misconceptions in past classes and will continue to encounter misconceptions in future classes. I wonder where dejavu would fit? Also, I've had times where I couldn't remember if something had really happened or if it had been a dream - I guess that would fit into misattribution? I'm not sure what I think about calling them "sins" especially since the author suggests not thinking of them as flaws. If you're going to refer to them as "sins" your going to think of them as flaws and in a negative manner. I'm also a little confused why the authors would use Clinton as an example - it seemed very unscientific and not backed by any research. Did he really have a superior memory? Did he later actually forget certain events or was it selective memory? I just thing that these last two points kind of take away from the paper.
I thought the overall concept behind "The Magical # 7" was interesting, too. There is a movie called "The Number 23" and the main character relates everything to the number 23 - his name, phone number, birthday, address, the color pink. It kind of reminded me of that. I always get skeptical with statistics. I've taken a few stat. classes and you can always manipulate the tests and numbers (not saying that all these researches did that, of coarse) but even scientific peer-reviewed papers can have incorrect stats. The research examples used to support the paper were confusing, I'd like to learn more about them to really understand where this "magical number seven" stems from.