Micro-Dynamics of Motivation and Epistemology in the Classroom Marilou R.

Juachon College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman, QC Glendale School, Inc. / 11 Saint Benedict St., Paradise Village, QC Email: loujuachon@yahoo.com 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

Introduction Students behaviors and subsequent performances can be explained to a large extent by motivationthat which energize and direct goal-related behaviors. The importance of understanding how motivation works cannot be overemphasized, and many studies argue that motivation can be more crucial than ability in determining academic outcomes. Researches framed in the performance-mastery x approach-avoidance orientations (e.g., Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001) are predominant in current literatures. Recently, motivation research has begun to consider the influence of epistemology, personal views about the nature of knowledge and knowing, on learning behaviors and processes. Schommer (1994) proposed epistemology as a system comprised of five distinct belief dimensions: structure, stability, and source pertain to the nature of knowledge, and ability to learn and speed of learning pertain to the nature of learning. The individual is presumed to behave in accordance with his beliefs; learning processes and outcomes are argued to either be hindered or enhanced by naive personal or sophisticated epistemological beliefs, respectively (e.g., Buehl & Alexander, 2005; DeBacker & Crowson, 2006; Harper, 2010; Hofer, 2001; 2004; Hofer and Pintrich 1997; Muis, 2004; Pieschl, Bromme, & Porsch, 2008; Pulmones, 2010). Observations of variations and instabilities in students epistemologies and associated behaviors within and across contexts urged Hammer and Elby (2000; 2002) and their colleagues to propose an alternative framework, the manifold resources model, wherein epistemology is posited to be comprised of highly sensitive fine-grained resources that are activated in patterns according to contextual cues. In this research, I aimed to extend the concept of a resource model of epistemology (Hammer and Elby, 2000; 2002) to motivation. The term resources refers to fine-grained primitive raw materials that comprise phenomena like knowledge, epistemology,

and motivation. The term primitive raw materials implies that resources are the smallest units of structure. They are tacit and unstable, their activation being highly sensitive to and dependent on context. Coordinated resources form larger, more coherent understandings, epistemological stances, or motivations. Although resources are extremely sensitive, resources that are habitually activated together become organized sets or frames. Prior experiences stimulate the habitual response of well-coordinated sets to expectations; as such activation and coordination are not random but organized (Hammer & Elby, 2002; Hammer, Elby, Scherr, & Redish, 2005). The larger research from which this paper was derived yielded separate inventories of aspects and resources of epistemology and motivation (Juachon, 2011). Affect, direction of effort, valence-evaluation of consequences, origin of motivation, reference for achievement standards, and means towards achievement comprise the aspects motivation. Ability to learn, sources of knowledge, structural connections, stability of truth/knowledge, epistemological activities, epistemological forms, and epistemological stances comprise the aspects of epistemology. A host of manifold resources comprise each aspect in turn. My foremost aim herein was to demonstrate the micro-dynamics of motivation and epistemology in an authentic setting. I posit that potentially imperceptible shifts occur as various resources are triggered into activation during task engagement. Specifically, 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. Two groups of students comprised of seven members each were set in opposition against each other: one group was tasked to prosecute Hitler, the other to defend him.

The participants, a mix of 13- to 14-year-old boys and girls, attend a small private school in middle-income community in Quezon City. Data was extracted principally from momentary assessments. The participants accomplished a momentary assessment form twice: just after the activity was introduced (T1) and right after the activity (T2). At each assessment time, they were asked to make a forced choice between four contrasting pairs of words (work hard - avoid work; interested - bored; inspired - discouraged; confident - anxious), which they also rated according to a 5-point scale from very slight to very strong, according to what best described them at that moment. They were also asked to indicate their reason(s) behind each choice and to identify their goal before and after the activity. Notes from observations and casual interviews were used as supplementary data. I drew methodological inspirations from grounded theory (Glaser, 2002; Charmaz, 2006), introspective or phenomenological approaches, and experience sampling methods (Hurlburt, 2009). To allow motivational and epistemological concepts to emerge, I iterated through hermeneutic and framing analyses and coding until I reached theoretical saturation. Results and Discussions The principal goal of this study was to explore micro-dynamics involving personal motivations and epistemologies in the natural setting. Micro-dynamics involve subtle, momentary and potentially imperceptible activations and changes that necessitate miniscule levels of examinations and analyses. By micro, 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. By dynamism, I assert the assumption that motivation is dynamic and state-like rather than stable and trait-like as popularly conceived. Corollary to this, I set aside the categorical view of motivation grounded on the mastery-performance and

approach-avoidance framework. Instead, I extend Hammer and Elbys (2000, 2002) manifold resource model of epistemology to motivation. The mock trial versus Hitler was an authentic classroom activity. The teacher distributed handouts as stimulus material for the activity, then formed by random assignment two groups of seven members each. One group acted as the prosecution panel where Meeka was designated by the group as leader. The other group was the defense panel where Jona was designated by the group as leader. Meeka and Jona were natural choices, because they were consistent performers in class, although Meeka had consistently earned the higher honors. The activity was to be scored by the teacher according to the merits of their arguments. Considering Meekas general academic performance advantage and a position that was easier to argue (i.e. to prosecute Hitler for crimes), one would expect Meekas group to easily win this challenge. Interestingly, the reverse happened. Jona did not have a difficult time trying to rebut Meekas arguments that notably homed in on just about this single line of reasoning, apparently drawn from the handout and common perceptions. Meeka repeatedly argued, E bakit kasi hindi nalang siya sumunod sa kasunduan sa Versailles? E di sana hindi na nagka-World War 2; naiwasan sana yung marami pang namatay at nahirapan. [Why didnt he just abide by the treaty? If only he did, then World War 2 need not have happened; death and suffering could have been avoided.] In contrast, Jona, presented varied, 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; it was so unfair to the Germans. The world must be thankful to Hitler because he saved the world by stopping the spread of communism when they defeated Russia. The world owes him a favour.

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; he must protect Germany. Hitler was not only a brave general, he was a hero. He had a very sincere desire to raise his country up from its defeat in WW I. He performed his duty. That is not a crime! He cannot be punished for loving his country. Soon, the prosecution was way behind in points and Meeka began to weep in frustration. Meeka and her group screened the hand-out in search of the best answer. Finally, with obvious frustration and weariness, she pointed out pertinent sections of the hand-out to the class, saying, Ayan o! Tingnan nalang ninyo yung papel. E kung sumunod nalang ba siya sa usapan, gaya nito, e di lahat nung nakalagay dito sa baba yun ang mangyayari. [There! Just look at the paper. If Hitler only followed the agreements, like here, then everything down here could just have happened as planned.] The activity rapidly lost steam thereafter and the teacher redirected the class into a discussion mode. Epistemological contrasts The outcomes in the above episode were quite unexpected. Various aspects of activated epistemological resources (Table 1) deduced from the episode revealed essential differences between Meeka and Jona that help explain what transpired.

Table 1 Comparisons of Activated Epistemological Resources Between Meeka and Jona

Aspect Source of knowledge Structural connections Malleability Stances Activities Forms Meeka Modeled construction nave interconnections Absolute truth; inflexible Understanding, acceptance Comprehend, analyze, restate/ rephrase, conclude Facts, cause-effects, stories Jona Personally constructed sophisticated interconnections Flexible, tentative, relative Understanding, doubt Comprehend, analyze, evaluate, synthesize Other-awareness, evidence, obligation, values, judgment, 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; i.e. her construction of knowledge is strongly modeled. She failed to establish interconnections among cognitive materials, revealing some epistemological immaturity or naivet. She also tended to hold on to one tract of argument (that Hitler should have kept his side of the bargain), and seemingly accepted information as obvious and indubitable, an inflexible and absolute truth. In contrast Jona exercised freedom to creatively reconstruct the bits of information and generated a host of arguments and positions as the narrative above showsi.e., she was able to personalize the reconstruction of cognitive units, drawing connections from knowledge farther than the immediate information, e.g., He saved the world by stopping the spread of communism... Jonas 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. The acceptance of an alternative view would have makes possible a reshaping of old knowledge to make new information fit in, or in the terminology of Piaget (1970), to

accommodate, as made evident in Ditzs entry: May naitulong din pala si Hitler sa mundo [So, Hitler was actually able to make a good contribution to the world] An acknowledgment that the rightness or wrongness of Hitlers actions (criminal or hero?) would depend on the perspective taken indicates that resources for relative truth is activated. 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. Having thus made a conclusion founded on an apparent acceptance that what she knows is a permanent truth, Meeka failed to move out of her niche to consider other possibilities. In contrast, Jona analysed, evaluated and synthesized ideas in creative ways and activate diverse epistemological forms during in the mock trial activity. I would like to point out how Jona sought (required) evidence, created new ways to judge Hitler favorably, 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, as pointed out earlier, focused on the fact that Hitler signed the Treaty. Motivational Shifts in the mock trial activity. With respect to motivational micro-dynamics, data from the momentary assessments revealed motivation shifted within the duration of the activity in terms of either type or intensity. Reasons behind favorable shifts included, among others, enhanced motivations because we won; interest was enhanced or triggered by the lively exchange and active engagement during the debate (e.g., The comments are interesting, and I want to voice my opinion), or by an emergent confidence about ones competence (e.g., I was able to participate and score). On the other hand, reasons for negative shifts included boredom, an inability to cope with the topic, anxieties about ones personal abilities, and a dispirited outlook consequent to not having been

able to earn points. Most importantly, these data support the contention that motivation is dynamic and responsive to contextual cues. Conclusions and Recommendations The findings herein lend support to the alternative framework (see also Juachon, 2011) that depicts motivation and epistemology as closely related constructs within a manifold resource paradigm, 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. Resources, as previously described by Hammer and Elby (2002), are considered as the most basic units that, once activated, can combine into larger and more coordinated and coherent units of motivation. Understanding tacit coordination among motivational and epistemological resources powerfully brings to surface circumstances not easily evident through casual observation. 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. The dynamism suggests that motivation and personal epistemology are responsive and can be productively modified. And while I have attempted to reframe motivation as comprised of manifold resources, quantitative research anchored on a resource framework is recommended. References
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P.A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students domainspecific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 697 726. Charmaz, K. (2006). Chapter 1. Invitation to Grounded Theory.(Pre-print draft). In Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. (pp. 1-12). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/9548_017586ch1.pdf DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2006). Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. British Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 535-551.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York: Guilford Press. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. Glaser, Barney G. (2002, September). Constructivist Grounded Theory? [47 paragraphs].Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 3(3). Accessed June 22, 2010, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glasere.htm Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2000). Epistemological Resources. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 4-5). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~icls/proceedings/pdf/Hammer.pdf Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169190). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer.In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. (Preprint manuscript retrieved fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu Harper, B. (2010). Epistemology, self-regulation and challenge. Academic Exchange Quarterly. FindArticles.com. 08 Jun, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_4_10/ ai_n29328226/ Hofer, B.K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 133, 353-382. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5 Hurlburt, R. T. (2009). Descriptive experience sampling. In T. Baynes, A. Cleermans, & P. Wilken (Eds.), Oxford Companion to Consciousness, pp. 225-227. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt/hurlburt-2009b.pdf Juachon, M.R. (2011). Micro-dynamics of motivation and personal epistemology on task. (Unpublished dissertation). University of the Philippines, Diliman, QC. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research 74(3), 317377. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003317 Pieschl, S., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2008). Epistemological sensitisation causes deeper elaboration during self-regulated learning. Paper presented at The International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Netherlands, June 24-28, 2008. http://www.fi.uu.nl/en/icls2008/326/paper326.pdf Pulmones, R. (2010). Linking students epistemological beliefs with their metacognition in a chemistry classroom. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, (19)1, 143-159. Retrieved from http://www.philjol.info/index.php/TAPER/article/viewFile/ 1514/1355 Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds). Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 2540). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.