Major challenges to research on motivation include accounting for the role of person-to-person interactions, the social systems in which they occur, and the ways in which interactions in one context can influence motivation, learning, and interaction in another. In our longitudinal study of novice teachers’ motivation, identity development, and learning, we have used ethnographic techniques to address these issues. Our theoretical approach is situative, drawing on the work of Lave & Wenger (1991), Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner & Cain (1998), and James Greeno (2006). Conceptual tools we have developed for this work include the idea of “motivational filters,” socially-constructed and constantly-evolving tools learners use to decide what to learn and how well, and “recontextualization chains,” an analytical tool for examining how practices learned in one social context are re-configured through negotiation for use in a different setting.

Studying developing individuals over time and across social contexts requires addressing a number of methodological problems which we will raise on the panel, including:

• Sampling and sample size (trade-offs between representation and thickness of description)
• The ethnographic interview as social context (including the relationship of interviewer and interviewee, the nature of interpersonal regulation that occurs, and its potential effects on the course of development)
• Documenting interactions (instances of co-regulation and negotiation) in social contexts (choice of documentation tools, sampling, timing, potential effects on relationships in the context and the outcome of interactions)
• Interpretive conflict (balancing the emic perspective of participants who live in their social contexts with the etic perspective of the researchers who visit there)

We will suggest future methodological development to address these and related issues arising from studying motivation and learning in developing individuals across social systems.

Studying developing individuals over time and across social contexts requires addressing a number of methodological problems which we will raise on the panel, including:

• Sampling and sample size (trade-offs between representation and thickness of description)
• The ethnographic interview as social context (including the relationship of interviewer and interviewee, the nature of interpersonal regulation that occurs, and its potential effects on the course of development)
• Documenting interactions (instances of co-regulation and negotiation) in social contexts (choice of documentation tools, sampling, timing, potential effects on relationships in the context and the outcome of interactions)
• Interpretive conflict (balancing the emic perspective of participants who live in their social contexts with the etic perspective of the researchers who visit there)

We will suggest future methodological development to address these and related issues arising from studying motivation and learning in developing individuals across social systems.

Major challenges to research on motivation include accounting for the role of person-to-person interactions, the social systems in which they occur, and the ways in which interactions in one context can influence motivation, learning, and interaction in another. In our longitudinal study of novice teachers’ motivation, identity development, and learning, we have used ethnographic techniques to address these issues. Our theoretical approach is situative, drawing on the work of Lave & Wenger (1991), Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner & Cain (1998), and James Greeno (2006). Conceptual tools we have developed for this work include the idea of “motivational filters,” socially-constructed and constantly-evolving tools learners use to decide what to learn and how well, and “recontextualization chains,” an analytical tool for examining how practices learned in one social context are re-configured through negotiation for use in a different setting.

Studying developing individuals over time and across social contexts requires addressing a number of methodological problems which we will raise on the panel, including:

• Sampling and sample size (trade-offs between representation and thickness of description)
• The ethnographic interview as social context (including the relationship of interviewer and interviewee, the nature of interpersonal regulation that occurs, and its potential effects on the course of development)
• Documenting interactions (instances of co-regulation and negotiation) in social contexts (choice of documentation tools, sampling, timing, potential effects on relationships in the context and the outcome of interactions)
• Interpretive conflict (balancing the emic perspective of participants who live in their social contexts with the etic perspective of the researchers who visit there)

We will suggest future methodological development to address these and related issues arising from studying motivation and learning in developing individuals across social systems.

Major challenges to research on motivation include accounting for the role of person-to-person interactions, the social systems in which they occur, and the ways in which interactions in one context can influence motivation, learning, and interaction in another. In our longitudinal study of novice teachers’ motivation, identity development, and learning, we have used ethnographic techniques to address these issues. Our theoretical approach is situative, drawing on the work of Lave & Wenger (1991), Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner & Cain (1998), and James Greeno (2006). Conceptual tools we have developed for this work include the idea of “motivational filters,” socially-constructed and constantly-evolving tools learners use to decide what to learn and how well, and “recontextualization chains,” an analytical tool for examining how practices learned in one social context are re-configured through negotiation for use in a different setting.

Studying developing individuals over time and across social contexts requires addressing a number of methodological problems which we will raise on the panel, including:

• Sampling and sample size (trade-offs between representation and thickness of description)
• The ethnographic interview as social context (including the relationship of interviewer and interviewee, the nature of interpersonal regulation that occurs, and its potential effects on the course of development)
• Documenting interactions (instances of co-regulation and negotiation) in social contexts (choice of documentation tools, sampling, timing, potential effects on relationships in the context and the outcome of interactions)
• Interpretive conflict (balancing the emic perspective of participants who live in their social contexts with the etic perspective of the researchers who visit there)

We will suggest future methodological development to address these and related issues arising from studying motivation and learning in developing individuals across social systems.

Today there is wide recognition that children’s engagement in self-regulated learning (SRL) is variable and highly context dependent (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Meyer & Turner, 2002a; Perry & Vandekamp, 2000). It is also increasingly recognised that the understanding of children’s SRL and how it emerges in social and naturalistic contexts calls for the use of several methodologies encouraging a move away from the use of traditional self-report measures (Boekearts & Corno, 2005; Van Hout Wolters, 2000). We argue for the use of observation and video analysis as a particularly useful tool in exploring young children’s development of SRL in the context of meaningful social interactions within the classroom and the home. This position is supported by two recent studies.  The first study (Whitebread et al 2007, in press) illustrates how video data allowed the exploration of early verbal and non-verbal indicators of SRL and the examination of environmental and social factors impacting upon the opportunities afforded to young children (3 to 5) to engage in self-regulatory activities. The second study (Pino Pasternak, Whitebread & Tomie, in prep) demonstrates the use of video data in the exploration of socio-emotional and instructional aspects of parent-child interactions and how they impact on children’s SRL in a population of primary-aged children showing low academic performance. We argue that, while such observational approaches can bear rich fruit, they also present significant methodological challenges involving, for example, high levels of inference concerning participants’ goals and intentions, and issues relating to ‘units of analysis’ and the ‘grain size’ of analytical frameworks. The opportunities video data offers for the triangulation of quantitative analyses involving numerical rates of occurrence of behaviours and qualitative analyses of the nature of behaviours or overall features of social learning situations is consequently a vital component of research in this area.

Today there is wide recognition that children’s engagement in self-regulated learning (SRL) is variable and highly context dependent (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Meyer & Turner, 2002a; Perry & Vandekamp, 2000). It is also increasingly recognised that the understanding of children’s SRL and how it emerges in social and naturalistic contexts calls for the use of several methodologies encouraging a move away from the use of traditional self-report measures (Boekearts & Corno, 2005; Van Hout Wolters, 2000). We argue for the use of observation and video analysis as a particularly useful tool in exploring young children’s development of SRL in the context of meaningful social interactions within the classroom and the home. This position is supported by two recent studies.  The first study (Whitebread et al 2007, in press) illustrates how video data allowed the exploration of early verbal and non-verbal indicators of SRL and the examination of environmental and social factors impacting upon the opportunities afforded to young children (3 to 5) to engage in self-regulatory activities. The second study (Pino Pasternak, Whitebread & Tomie, in prep) demonstrates the use of video data in the exploration of socio-emotional and instructional aspects of parent-child interactions and how they impact on children’s SRL in a population of primary-aged children showing low academic performance. We argue that, while such observational approaches can bear rich fruit, they also present significant methodological challenges involving, for example, high levels of inference concerning participants’ goals and intentions, and issues relating to ‘units of analysis’ and the ‘grain size’ of analytical frameworks. The opportunities video data offers for the triangulation of quantitative analyses involving numerical rates of occurrence of behaviours and qualitative analyses of the nature of behaviours or overall features of social learning situations is consequently a vital component of research in this area.

Today there is wide recognition that children’s engagement in self-regulated learning (SRL) is variable and highly context dependent (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Meyer & Turner, 2002a; Perry & Vandekamp, 2000). It is also increasingly recognised that the understanding of children’s SRL and how it emerges in social and naturalistic contexts calls for the use of several methodologies encouraging a move away from the use of traditional self-report measures (Boekearts & Corno, 2005; Van Hout Wolters, 2000). We argue for the use of observation and video analysis as a particularly useful tool in exploring young children’s development of SRL in the context of meaningful social interactions within the classroom and the home. This position is supported by two recent studies.  The first study (Whitebread et al 2007, in press) illustrates how video data allowed the exploration of early verbal and non-verbal indicators of SRL and the examination of environmental and social factors impacting upon the opportunities afforded to young children (3 to 5) to engage in self-regulatory activities. The second study (Pino Pasternak, Whitebread & Tomie, in prep) demonstrates the use of video data in the exploration of socio-emotional and instructional aspects of parent-child interactions and how they impact on children’s SRL in a population of primary-aged children showing low academic performance. We argue that, while such observational approaches can bear rich fruit, they also present significant methodological challenges involving, for example, high levels of inference concerning participants’ goals and intentions, and issues relating to ‘units of analysis’ and the ‘grain size’ of analytical frameworks. The opportunities video data offers for the triangulation of quantitative analyses involving numerical rates of occurrence of behaviours and qualitative analyses of the nature of behaviours or overall features of social learning situations is consequently a vital component of research in this area.

REFERENCES

BOEKAERTS, M. & CORNO, L. (2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199-231.

McCASLIN, M. & HICKEY, D. T. (2001) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view in: B. J. Zimmerman & D. J. Schunk (Eds.) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2^nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MEYER, D. & TURNER, J. C. (2002a) Using instructional discourse analysis to study scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 17-25.

PERRY, N. & VANDEKAMP, K. O. (2000) Creating classroom contexts that support young children’s development of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 821-843.

PINO PASTERNAK, D., WHITEBREAD, D. & TOLMIE, A. (in prep.) A multi-dimensional analysis of parent-child interactions during academic tasks and their impact on children’s self-regulated learning.

VAN HOUT WOLTERS, B. (2000) Assessing active self-directed learning in: P. R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden & T. Duffy (eds.) New Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

WHITEBREAD, D., BINGHAM, S., GRAU, V., PINO PASTERNAK, D. & SANGSTER, C. (2007) Development of Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning in Young Children: the role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning, Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 433-55.

WHITEBREAD, D., COLTMAN, P. , PINO PASTERNAK, D., SANGSTER, C., GRAU, V., BINGHAM, S., ALMEQDAD, Q. & DEMETRIOU, D. (in press) The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning.

In my research together with my colleagues we have approached motivation from situated learning perspective (Järvelä & Volet, 2004) and identified motivation in collaborative learning as situated and regulated through individual and social processes (Järvelä, Volet & Järvenoja, 2008). A situated and dynamic conceptualization is critical to represent motivation as a process of engagement and participation in a specific social activity that evolves over time. The drive of individuals to sustain their engagement in a social learning activity emerges through social interactions and is constantly reshaped as the activity evolves.  The conceptual discussion of interpersonal regulation of motivation is active, but the empirical evidencing of phenomenon is still rare – probably because of methodological challenges to tackle “motivation in an activity”.

In our empirical studies on social learning situations (e.g. Järvelä, Järvenoja & Veermans, 2008; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2008) general level decontextualised information on motivation is combined with contextualised micro-level and process-oriented data from different groups of students. The specific purpose has been to investigate students’ motivational beliefs and processes in their immediate contexts of learning. This requires the adoption of several qualitative data collection methods that capture the events that unfold over time and the methods that capture the thoughts and interpretations of individuals and groups of students. Further developments in our research designs involve efforts to combine individual and group-level perspectives and to develop valid methods for analysing interactions occurring at the interface of individual and group-level learning processes (Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen, & Järvelä, 2007).

In this panel discussion my position is to reflect how the different types of data and methods of analyses from our empirical studies on motivation in social learning situations can offer methodological solutions for advancing the field of motivation research.  

In our empirical studies on social learning situations (e.g. Järvelä, Järvenoja & Veermans, 2008; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2008) general level decontextualised information on motivation is combined with contextualised micro-level and process-oriented data from different groups of students. The specific purpose has been to investigate students’ motivational beliefs and processes in their immediate contexts of learning. This requires the adoption of several qualitative data collection methods that capture the events that unfold over time and the methods that capture the thoughts and interpretations of individuals and groups of students. Further developments in our research designs involve efforts to combine individual and group-level perspectives and to develop valid methods for analysing interactions occurring at the interface of individual and group-level learning processes (Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen, & Järvelä, 2007).

In this panel discussion my position is to reflect how the different types of data and methods of analyses from our empirical studies on motivation in social learning situations can offer methodological solutions for advancing the field of motivation research.  

In my research together with my colleagues we have approached motivation from situated learning perspective (Järvelä & Volet, 2004) and identified motivation in collaborative learning as situated and regulated through individual and social processes (Järvelä, Volet & Järvenoja, 2008). A situated and dynamic conceptualization is critical to represent motivation as a process of engagement and participation in a specific social activity that evolves over time. The drive of individuals to sustain their engagement in a social learning activity emerges through social interactions and is constantly reshaped as the activity evolves.  The conceptual discussion of interpersonal regulation of motivation is active, but the empirical evidencing of phenomenon is still rare – probably because of methodological challenges to tackle “motivation in an activity”.

In our empirical studies on social learning situations (e.g. Järvelä, Järvenoja & Veermans, 2008; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2008) general level decontextualised information on motivation is combined with contextualised micro-level and process-oriented data from different groups of students. The specific purpose has been to investigate students’ motivational beliefs and processes in their immediate contexts of learning. This requires the adoption of several qualitative data collection methods that capture the events that unfold over time and the methods that capture the thoughts and interpretations of individuals and groups of students. Further developments in our research designs involve efforts to combine individual and group-level perspectives and to develop valid methods for analysing interactions occurring at the interface of individual and group-level learning processes (Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen, & Järvelä, 2007).

In this panel discussion my position is to reflect how the different types of data and methods of analyses from our empirical studies on motivation in social learning situations can offer methodological solutions for advancing the field of motivation research. 

  References

 Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative learning in context. Learning and Instruction, 17, 448-459.

  Järvelä, S., Veermans, M. & Leinonen, P. (2008). Investigating students’ engagement in a computer-supported inquiry - a process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology in Education, 11, 299–322.

 Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 1, 122-135.

 Järvelä, S. & Volet, S. (2004). Motivation in real-life, dynamic and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies. European Psychologist, 9, 4, 193-197.

 Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H. & Volet, S. (2008, submitted). Motivation in collaborative learning: new concepts and methods for studying social processes of motivation.

However, the practical application of this approach is challenging.  I will make use of Rogoff’s (1995) three planes and dynamic systems theory (Magnusson & Stattin, 2006; Thelen & Smith, 2006) to explicate my position. Rogoff’s three planes framework focuses simultaneously on the changing person, the person in transaction with others, and the community, emphasizing their holistic nature.  Dynamic systems theories postulate that development is a non-linear process, marked by periods of stability and change, and that no one level of the system (e.g., personal, interpersonal, or cultural) can account for change.  Both approaches take activity, rather than the person, as the level of analysis.  I will illustrate with an analysis of the evolution of a community of learners in one classroom over nine months.

A major methodological challenge in motivation research is to measure how motivation develops and why it changes (Turner & Patrick, 2008). This challenge has both theoretical and practical importance. From a theoretical perspective, it is impossible to study change over time unless one can conceptualize how the person and the context are related.  I will take the position that these two must be studied together, in transaction.  Dewey defined a transaction as the involvement of the “organism and environmental objects jointly at every instant of their occurrence, and in every portion of space they occupy” (Dewey & Bentley, 1949, pp. 122, 129; italics added).  Practically speaking, education is meant to be a process of change and interpersonal processes are at its heart. Yet many teachers view motivation and ability as stable personal characteristics.  As researchers, we must document that change happens and explain how the process works to inform both theory and practice. 

However, the practical application of this approach is challenging.  I will make use of Rogoff’s (1995) three planes and dynamic systems theory (Magnusson & Stattin, 2006; Thelen & Smith, 2006) to explicate my position. Rogoff’s three planes framework focuses simultaneously on the changing person, the person in transaction with others, and the community, emphasizing their holistic nature.  Dynamic systems theories postulate that development is a non-linear process, marked by periods of stability and change, and that no one level of the system (e.g., personal, interpersonal, or cultural) can account for change.  Both approaches take activity, rather than the person, as the level of analysis.  I will illustrate with an analysis of the evolution of a community of learners in one classroom over nine months.

A major methodological challenge in motivation research is to measure how motivation develops and why it changes (Turner & Patrick, 2008). This challenge has both theoretical and practical importance. From a theoretical perspective, it is impossible to study change over time unless one can conceptualize how the person and the context are related.  I will take the position that these two must be studied together, in transaction.  Dewey defined a transaction as the involvement of the “organism and environmental objects jointly at every instant of their occurrence, and in every portion of space they occupy” (Dewey & Bentley, 1949, pp. 122, 129; italics added).  Practically speaking, education is meant to be a process of change and interpersonal processes are at its heart. Yet many teachers view motivation and ability as stable personal characteristics.  As researchers, we must document that change happens and explain how the process works to inform both theory and practice. 

However, the practical application of this approach is challenging.  I will make use of Rogoff’s (1995) three planes and dynamic systems theory (Magnusson & Stattin, 2006; Thelen & Smith, 2006) to explicate my position. Rogoff’s three planes framework focuses simultaneously on the changing person, the person in transaction with others, and the community, emphasizing their holistic nature.  Dynamic systems theories postulate that development is a non-linear process, marked by periods of stability and change, and that no one level of the system (e.g., personal, interpersonal, or cultural) can account for change.  Both approaches take activity, rather than the person, as the level of analysis.  I will illustrate with an analysis of the evolution of a community of learners in one classroom over nine months.

A major methodological challenge in motivation research is to measure how motivation develops and why it changes (Turner & Patrick, 2008). This challenge has both theoretical and practical importance. From a theoretical perspective, it is impossible to study change over time unless one can conceptualize how the person and the context are related.  I will take the position that these two must be studied together, in transaction.  Dewey defined a transaction as the involvement of the “organism and environmental objects jointly at every instant of their occurrence, and in every portion of space they occupy” (Dewey & Bentley, 1949, pp. 122, 129; italics added).  Practically speaking, education is meant to be a process of change and interpersonal processes are at its heart. Yet many teachers view motivation and ability as stable personal characteristics.  As researchers, we must document that change happens and explain how the process works to inform both theory and practice. 

However, the practical application of this approach is challenging.  I will make use of Rogoff’s (1995) three planes and dynamic systems theory (Magnusson & Stattin, 2006; Thelen & Smith, 2006) to explicate my position. Rogoff’s three planes framework focuses simultaneously on the changing person, the person in transaction with others, and the community, emphasizing their holistic nature.  Dynamic systems theories postulate that development is a non-linear process, marked by periods of stability and change, and that no one level of the system (e.g., personal, interpersonal, or cultural) can account for change.  Both approaches take activity, rather than the person, as the level of analysis.  I will illustrate with an analysis of the evolution of a community of learners in one classroom over nine months.

The potential of collaborative learning activities to produce high level learning is of the utmost interest to teachers and educational psychologists. Recent research on socially shared co-regulation and collaborative interactions suggests that successful collaborative learning is enabled by groups’ coordinated and co-regulated engagement in the shared problem space. Yet, reliance on self-reports of engagement is not well suited to understand how productive collaborative learning processes emerge and are sustained. Inspired by Greeno’s (2006) proposal to merge the strengths of cognitive science and interactional studies to understand “learning in activity”, we developed a situative framework that combines the constructs of social regulation (individual, group)  and content processing (low, high) as two continuous dimensions. The quadrants created by the intersection of the two dimensions provide four dominant forms of social regulation and level of content processing, which can be used for examining group engagement in collaborative learning.  The usefulness of the framework was validated using video footage of groups of students’ engagement in an informal, student-led group learning activity (Volet, Summers & Thurman, in press). The methodological challenges involved in group analyses of social regulation, and their relationship with individual analyses will be discussed.

The potential of collaborative learning activities to produce high level learning is of the utmost interest to teachers and educational psychologists. Recent research on socially shared co-regulation and collaborative interactions suggests that successful collaborative learning is enabled by groups’ coordinated and co-regulated engagement in the shared problem space. Yet, reliance on self-reports of engagement is not well suited to understand how productive collaborative learning processes emerge and are sustained. Inspired by Greeno’s (2006) proposal to merge the strengths of cognitive science and interactional studies to understand “learning in activity”, we developed a situative framework that combines the constructs of social regulation (individual, group)  and content processing (low, high) as two continuous dimensions. The quadrants created by the intersection of the two dimensions provide four dominant forms of social regulation and level of content processing, which can be used for examining group engagement in collaborative learning.  The usefulness of the framework was validated using video footage of groups of students’ engagement in an informal, student-led group learning activity (Volet, Summers & Thurman, in press). The methodological challenges involved in group analyses of social regulation, and their relationship with individual analyses will be discussed.

References

Greeno, J.G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York: Cambridge.

Vauras, M., Salonen, P. & Kinnunen, R. (in press). Influences of group processes and interpersonal regulation on motivation, affect and achievement. Advances in Motivation and Achievement (vol 15). New York: Elsevier.

Volet, S.E., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2008). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001.