Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

The changes in learning theory and the topicality of the recent research on motivation
Sanna Jarvelaa,*, Markku Niemivirtab
a

Department of Education, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 222, FIN-90571 Oulu, Finland b Department of Education, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 39, Helsinki, Finland

Abstract The aim of this paper is to consider the motivational basis of learning in a constructivist framework. It is our assumption that understanding the construction of a learners motivation requires more detailed and integrated argumentation than researchers in the eld of constructivist learning theories have recently presented. We also discuss new ideas of learning research, such as learning environment and situated learning. Furthermore, we examine the relevancy of the current research on motivation from theoretical and methodological points of view.
Keywords: Constructivist learning theory; Motivation; Dynamics in learning process

1. Introduction Learning research in recent years has studied the more common preconditions of higher-order learning. Judging by the results, ideal learning is rather easy to hypothesise, but the realities for achieving it still remain; higher-order learning is demanding. One of the most signicant preconditions of learning, particularly when facing challenging and ever changing situations so common in modern society, is the development and maintenance of learning motivation. For the learner to achieve experiences of understanding and success in learning new things, he/she should become motivated and able to commit him/herself to problem solving. The prevailing conceptions of learning are largely based on the idea that learning is not only a process of knowledge construction but also social interaction (see Steffe & Gale,
* Corresponding author. E-mail: sjarvela@ktk.oulu.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 4 7 5 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - 2

58

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

1995). One rather important viewpoint is overlooked, though: where does the learners motivational basis for active initiative, interpretation of situations, and goalorientated activity originate from? In practical teaching, and even in research, learning to learn and self-regulation in learning have become set phrases already. Principles that have been embraced too simplistically may, however, lead to misconceptions and supercial attempts in application: the presumption may be that knowledge evolves, so to speak, within the person, just as long the conditions are made favourable. As far as the development of learning and teaching is concerned, however, self-regulation cannot be conceived as merely a built-in premise or being given from the learning environment. The objectives of the learner are constructed in a dynamic interaction between his/her prevailing motivational basis and the situational interpretations he/she produces in a learning situation. In effect, understanding the mechanics of the construction of the learning objectives, and particularly supporting the constructing process, requires a more detailed and integrated argumentation than learning researchers and developers of learning environments have presented lately.

2. Starting points of the current learning research 2.1. The constructivist learning theory The guiding principle of constructivist learning theories is the learners own active initiative and personal knowledge construction, i.e. the self-regulation of learning. The student does not just passively take in knowledge, but actively constructs it on the basis of his/her prior knowledge and experiences (Piaget, 1972). From a pedagogical point of view, the learners learning activities should be directed at activating his own prior conceptions and relating it to new knowledge. Accordingly, the learning environment, therefore, should provide the learner with opportunities to test and try out his new conceptual understanding in various applied circumstances like problem solving. Radical constructivism (see von Glasersfeldt, 1989), however, has been criticised for separating knowledge from the situations in which it is learned and used (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). According to the so-called socio-constructivist viewpoint, knowledge, being in part a product of activity, is situated in context and culture. Actually, knowledge is constructed and communicated through culture and social institutions, and therefore the dimensions of constructivist learning theories can be differentiated by examining the signicance of the individual and the environment in the process of knowledge construction. This results in the fact that some individual factors connected with learning (like motivation and skills) or pedagogical practices (like social interaction) may be given divergenteven conictingmeanings among representatives of different constructivist trends (see Greeno, 1997; Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996).

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

59

2.2. From the theory of learning to the practice of learning Wilsons (Wilson, 1996) and some other researchers ideas on learning environment, adapted from the constructivist learning theory described above, form a synthesis on the organisation of learning and teaching. These ideas are mainly based on the concepts of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and socially distributed cognition (see Salomon, 1993), and they aim at turning learning situations into challenging and interesting projects for students to try to solve authentic problems in. Although it is the students themselves who construct and test their own conceptual understanding, the community of learners and interactions with different cultures of expertise have a notable bearing on the quality of learning (Brown & Campione, 1996). This view emphasises the signicance of a communication environment: the aim is to create the kind of a community of learners that enhances the construction of new knowledge and skills instead of just trying to manage already acquired knowledge. 2.3. Learning is individualafter all The intention to apply constructivist learning theories to practice has, then, led to attempts to create dynamic and interactive learning communities that would support the enabling conditions for higher-order learning as much as possible. The problem with this outlook, however, appears to be the partial lack of consideration for individual differences. The common assumption seems to be that making learning tasks more interesting and supporting the students processes of knowledge construction also increases the intrinsic motivation for learning. What makes it problematic, though, is that in that case the new learning environments on one hand require that the learners are already motivated, or on the other hand assume that mere working on such tasks automatically results in adequate task commitment. The principles of learning theories have been developed into some useful pedagogical models to sup port students cognitive practices (see Jarvela, 1996), but the models have not adequately allowed for the central preconditions for higher order learning: the students motivational base, socio-emotional capabilities, and skills for self-regulation. These factors are a fundamental inuence on both how students experience and interpret learning situations and what kinds of learning strategies they adopt. Making learning tasks more challenging and authentic, and increasing the possibilities brought on by technology has not only changed students learning processes but also increased the complexity of learning situations. Thus, a learning situation, for a learner, is not merely a mental performance but also a motivational challenge and an emotional coping situation (Lehtinen, Vauras, Salonen, Olkinuora, & Kinnunen, 1995; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). Therefore, the question is: what individual factors should be considered when examining the development of learning environments on the basis of prevailing learning theories? And inversely: what could the ideas on powerful learning environment offer to support self-regulation in learning and the construction of its motivational basis?

60

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

2.4. Self-regulation in learning Recent research on self-regulated learning has striven for an integrated examination of the cognitive and motivational factors that inuence learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Niemivirta, 1996, 1998). Although the approaches based on various theoretical traditions may differ considerably (see Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989), they share the aim to describe, why, how, and in what connection certain regulatory functions are used. The views also share the fact that self-regulation in learning is mainly dened as merely an effective learning oriented activity (cf. Paris & Byrnes, 1989). In research this premise has mainly led to two different kinds of approaches: one has aimed at identifying the self-regulated students and their characteristics, whereas the other has tried to develop the students capabilities for self-regulation. The ndings of the rst research approach show that the efcient and successfuli.e. self-regulatedstudents are intrinsically motivated and capable of applying relevant learning strategies. They have faith in their own abilities and devote plenty of resources to attain their goals (see Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). The other approach, in turn, has attempted to show that these qualities, or the pursuit of them, can be supported by certain pedagogical practices. Particularly positive results have been attained in teaching effective learning strategies (see Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi, & Brown, 1992). 2.5. Emotional regulation and motivational strategies as a part of self-regulation in learning The premise in studying self-regulation described above, however, leads to one fundamental deciency: in its narrowness it leaves a signicant part of the individual self-regulation in a natural learning situation outside examination. What about when the subject is a student who does not do well or whose strategies do not reach a cognitively complex level? Is there nothing self-regulated in such a students learning activity? Garcia (1995) and Boekaerts (1996), for instance, criticise the current research for limiting the study of self-regulation to only apply to cognitive and metacognitive regulation or resource control. In classroom learning situations, however, self-regulation is also and, particularly, directed at maintaining emotional balance. If the student experiences the learning situation as a risk, i.e. as a performance situation, the results of which are potentially taxing to his/her self-esteem, his/her objective may change from task-oriented performance to emotion-focused coping. For this end he/she may intentionally create obstacles for possible achievement: if you do not even try, failure cannot be attributed to any lack of abilities! This, too, is selfregulation, if not very efcient as far as higher order learning is concerned. Comprehensive understanding of the regulation in learning situations, and therefore identifying the preconditions of effective self-regulation, requires, then, a somewhat wider perspective.

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

61

2.6. The systemic perspective The view described above is advocated by a Finnish group of researchers, who have been theoretically as well as empirically developing the description of the motivational bases of learning into a more systemic and interpretative direction. The basic idea of their model is to describe the dynamics of the learning situation as an interaction between the students activity and the social context (Jarvela, 1996; Leht inen, Vauras, Salonen, Olkinuora, & Kinnunen, 1995; Olkinuora & Salonen, 1992; Salonen, Lehtinen, & Olkinuora, 1998). According to them every learning and performance situation is a certain kind of a coping situation for the student, and the students activity reects his/her individual tendency to meet the cognitive demands and emotional burdens in a learning situation. The activity takes shape in interaction with the students situational interpretations and the sociocultural factors (like teaching practices) that determine the situation. The meaning the student has given each situation is based on his/her learning history. In accordance with this situational interpretation the student attempts to further adopt the kinds of strategies that can help him/her to meet the requirements of the situation. If the student experiences the learning situation as a meaningful challenge that emphasises the learning intention, he/she can concentrate on the task itself and on what it takes to perform it. Instead, if the student feels his/her own resources are inadequate, he/she will direct his/her activity towards easing the emotional burden instead of trying to learn. These different regulation strategies, therefore, can be directed towards the task itself (concentration and direction of attention, self-evaluation) or towards factors irrelevant to the task (disparaging the performance, social games, withdrawing, and substitute activities). When cumulated, learning experiences make students more sensitive to certain interpretations and maladaptive strategies. The systemic research approach and its ndings shed light on the complexity of regulatory activities in learning situations, thereby contributing essentially to the research on self-regulation in learning by emphasising both the signicance of individual situational interpretations in strategic learning and their social and interactive bases. The perspective also has clear implications in the theorisation of constructivist ideas on learning and the development of practical applications: even if the learner is mentally active, the construction of high-level mental structures requires adequate task commitment. Active adaptation to the learning situation requires a sense of selfcontrol and faith in ones own abilities. Also, the learning situation itself should offer enough time, opportunities, and support for the students to conceptualise the tasks and the phenomena they deal with. 2.7. Situated learning and the basis for the construction of motivation The recent ideas on situated learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) have inspired researchers to consider the signicance of the environment as a motivating factor. The research based on the sociocultural tradition (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990) has criticised the fact that the knowledge and skills learned at school are not directly, as such, applicable to situations outside school, in which case the

62

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

commitment to learn is left inadequate and factitious. Instead, they propose that, because learning is determined as a communal function of keeping up cultural traditions, institutional learning, too, should take place in authentic and complex social contexts. Although the perspective described above is of rather great importance in, for instance, the examination of the connections between formal and informal learning, there is also cause for some reasonable criticism (cf. Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). For instance, it is a rather questionable assumption to make that authenticity or complexity per se would be adequate preconditions for learning orientation. The research on the development of expertise has shown that a near-absolute prerequisite for the accumulation of higher order knowledge and task-oriented commitment is partnership in a social environment. Functionally, though, it is more a question of to what extent the individuals efforts and task commitment are supported by the context than to what extent the individual is motivated by the complexity of the task per se (Geary, 1995). The criticism can also be directed against the views that emphasise collaborative learning. Although several researches (see Slavin, 1989) suggest certain successful results on collaborative learning, its complex effects on the level of the individual are forgotten almost as often. For instance, Salomon & Globerson (1989) list many cases in which emphasising collaboration may even lead to distinctly weakened motivation. What is essential, therefore, is not the social context or collaboration per se, but how the activities are harnessed to enhance intentional learning (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Brown & Campione, 1996). It is also more important to support the students commitment to the relevant processes of thinking and problem solving than to motivate them by means of situational incentive or learning results. As far as the learners motivation and direction of goals are concerned, it is essential to discuss the themes that motivate the students collaboration, or the factors that form the common goal for the collaboration and at the same time makes the individual learner commit him/herself to the joint performance or discussion. These experiences during the process of learning are what count in later learning and performance situations and other contexts (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996).

3. Considerations for the construction of an integrated frame of reference 3.1. Conceptual clarication Viewed separately, prior approaches in the research on learning and motivation have produced plenty of valuable knowledge. At the same time, however, they have been examining the dynamics of motivation in learning only from a perspective, which is both theoretically and methodologically limited. For instance, the research on self-regulation in learning is primarily situated in the tradition of psychometric testing, which mainly produces rather static knowledge (Bong, 1996). And even if many of these approaches do include the signicance of social and contextual factors in their theoretical rationale, the empirical focus is often only on dispositions that

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

63

regulate activity and on the examination of individual differences. With the perspective emphasising interaction and situational interpretations the situation is partly reversed: even though the signicance of the dispositional tendencies and other individual factors in the construction of interactive processes is often included in the theoretical frame of reference, the systematic empirical study of this assumption has not been sufcient enough. Being aware of the intrinsic inadequacies of these approaches can enhance creating theoretically more substantiated and methodologically more solid researches. Probably more essential, though, is recognising the basic ideas that link the approaches and lling the common holes in the pertinent researches. Achieving this aim requires a challenging, theoretically coherent view that, comprehensively and by integrating different approaches, deals with the development of motivation, the dynamics of learning processes, and their social and contextual preconditions. The primary task, therefore, would be to construct an integrated set of concepts. 3.2. Towards a systematic description of the dynamics of the learning situation and the process of learning The recent theories on learning have offered theoretical principles and pedagogical possibilities to support the learner in becoming a more goal-oriented and intentional learner. It appears to be that, for instance with the help of the ideas on constructivist learning environment, learning situations can be made into something that can bring about new feelings of understanding and emotional coping in students (Jarvela, Leht inen, & Salonen, 1998). Through experiences like these the students prior motivation, irrelevant to the quality of learning, can be made more expedient for learning. The pedagogical choices and various technology-based learning environments, which are in accordance with the ideas on powerful learning environment, offer possibilities for the reorganisation of the dynamics, i.e. interactive processes, strategy use, and situational interpretations. However, the empirical study of this phenomenon and its mechanisms requires both theoretically and methodologically new means. Trivial constructivism does not have sufcient substance for the interpretation of a complex learning situation. Instead, it can easily lead to naive concepts of learning and the construction of knowledge. On the other hand, the sociocultural approach does not account for the basic learning mechanisms of the individual learner. Research, therefore, should intensify its emphasis on the learners intrinsic processes like cognitive activities, emotional states, and motivational interpretations of situations, as well as their social preconditions and interactive dynamics. Methodologically, achieving (or even pursuing) this challenging goal requires an intrinsic and reciprocal consistency of the theoretical methods, of the basic axioms and phenomena connected with them, and of the means of data collection and analysis (Valsiner, 1996). The integrated study of the intentional and developmental nature of the learners objectives should, therefore, include both the comprehensive description of the students motivational tendencies, situational interpretations, and their interactive processes, and the methods to make the processes of thinking and interpretation during learning processes transparent.

64

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

References
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 511. Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation. European Psychologist, 1, 100112. Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149165. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning. New environments for education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242. Garcia, T. (1995). The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Geary, D. C. (1995). Reections of evolution and culture in childrens cognition. American Psychologist, 50, 2437. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 517. Jarvela, S. (1996). New models of teacherstudent interactionA critical review. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 3, 249268. Jarvela, S., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (1998). Socio-emotional orientation as a mediating variable in teaching learning interaction: implications for instructional design (submitted for publication). Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E., & Kinnunen, R. (1995). Long-term development of learning activity: Motivational, cognitive and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30, 2135. Niemivirta, M. (1996). Intentional and adaptive learning modesThe self at stake. Paper presented at the 2nd European Conference on Educational Research, Sevilla, Spain. Niemivirta, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in motivational and cognitive factors affecting self-regulated learningA pattern-oriented approach. In P. Nenniger, R. S. Jager, A. Frey, & M. Wosnitza (Eds.), Advances in motivation (pp. 2342). Landau: Verlag Empirische Padagogik (in press). Olkinuora, E., & Salonen, P. (1992). Adaptation, motivational orientation and cognition in a subnormally performing child: A systematic perspective for training. In B. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 190213). New York: SpringerVerlag. Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to selfregulation and learning in the classroom. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practise (pp. 169200). New York: SpringerVerlag. Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge. London: Penguin Press. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167199. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, L., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanations: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511554. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function as they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89100. Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Olkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations and beyond: The development of motivation and learning in a classroom context. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265283.

S. Jarvela, M. Niemivirta / Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 1 (1999) 5765

65

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance. Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R. (1989). Cooperative learning and students achievement: Six theoretical perspectives. In Maehr, M. L., & Ames, C. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol 6. Motivation enhancing environments. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Steffe, L. O., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Valsiner, J. (1996). Development, methodology, and recurrence of unsolved problems: On the modernity of old ideas. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55(2/3), 119125. von Glasersfeldt, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen, & T.L. Postlethwaite (Eds.). The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1112). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Ed.), (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.