The main purpose of a dig is to encourage students to dig beneath the surface of the readings and other learning materials such as audiobooks. Towards this end digs are formatted like a discussion.
Over a 10 day period you’ll need to submit at least one comment and at least one question based on the learning materials for the upcoming session 4 on interest theory.
You'll need to make sure to read the previously posted discussion points to see if your question needs to be changed. You’ll also need to keep checking the discussion even if you have already posted a comment and a question: I expect everyone to be up-to-date on the discussion issues when you come to class.
Remember you'll be posting at least one question and one comment (or at least two posts for each person). You can post anytime between September 13 through midnight of September 24.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
First off, for those of you like me, I want to point out that in the audio book, the PP slide numbers do not correspond with the page numbers on the bottom (which he refers to in the audio book). So, if you’re looking for that one-pager, keep looking through the PP; it’s there).
What impresses me is how we can influence personal interest through situational interest (like in the Guthrie et al article). The idea of seductive details, to me, is likened in some ways to extrinsic motivations such as candy or extra free time. I’d love to learn more about how to create situational interest.
In looking at some of the ideas that come up in the articles and in hearing about Mitchell’s research, I am continually thinking about cross-curriculum learning. This is something I was exposed to a lot in my elementary school and some of my fondest memories and also best learning took place with cross-curriculum units. For example, in a social studies class we were studying the Depression, which included history and economics largely. There were a few assignments including our English term paper, which was a paper about the historical context. I learned writing skills, research skills, history, and we had some sort of collaborative experience that involved a radio advertisement. I think the fact that I can remember this alone makes it meaningful, but also at the time, I was very engaged and received a deeper learning than if I had two different topics for my research projects/papers.
I have a difficult time validating the Hulleman and Durik article. I understand their justification of studying two completely different groups: one with situational interest and one based on internal interest. But, these two groups are extremely different in age. Developmentally, a group of coed college students and a group of male high school football players doesn't seem as a valid comparison.
On the other hand, knowing that motivation levels decrease with age, how much does age correlate with interest level - situational and internal, especially since motivation is a link to interest levels.
Amy, like you, I am reminded of cross-curricular units, but I am more reminded of service-learning projects in which students were able to choose a project within a particular theme that related most with their interests and, in turn, motivated their learning experience.
I wonder if teachers were to incorporate more service-learning into their curricula, how much would the number of student motivation levels through self-regulation and interest increase?
Kristina,
Yes, I think you have a good point with the service learning... so often community service (which is a wonderful thing) is mistaken for service LEARNING.
I am not sure that the articles you referred to were not valid because the groups were different, but it is of course necessary to acknowledge those differences and the impact they can have on the study.
My question was going to be about seductive details - the line just seems to be blurred between them and other forms of motivation. It was a bit unclear until I read Amy's comment.
Our power over personal and situation interest amazes me. We often forget that we can encourage and at the same time discourage interest.
Well Kimi, I am so glad I could enlighten you!
After listening to the audiobook and learning about Dr. Mitchell's study, I began thinking about the students who come into my class with high personal interest and the students who come in with low personal interest. The MOE study demonstrated that the students that came in with high personal interest were still interested at the end of the study and the students that had come in with low personal interest had higher personal interest at the end of the study. This makes me think of my own classroom and question if I am facilitating an environment that challenges the high personal interest students and if I am keeping them intrigued with science while trying to get the students with low personal interest to "buy in" to the class.
I'm also wondering if seductive details could be useful to use when introducing new topics or themes as long as they are withdrawn or limited throughout the remainder of the unit.
Perhaps it is just me having a really rough week at work (back to school night was Tuesday and I have been in a fog since then), but as I read the readings I find that I am having a hard time understanding exactly how interest can stand on its own. It just seems like it is really embedded into other theories or are parts of other theories like SRL, self-efficacy, and the rest.
Interest also depends so heavily on affect. I understand that our students come to us and we must do what we can with them, but changing their affect into a value that they also share seems like the biggest challenge in this process. Make my students care about what they are learning! What a concept.
What I really like about the Interest Development article is the fact that the model seems like it is do-able in the typical classroom setting. It provides a really practical series of events for teachers to follow. Finally a theory that actually seems like it can be applied to a general setting!
Hi Kimi, I agree! I think that interest does not stand on its own and is definitely linked to the SDT and self-regulation. If the students come in with individual interest they still have to be self-determined and self-regulated to succeed in their classes. Also, the Interest Development article is very practical and I can see myself applying it in my classroom as well.
For those of you desperate to enlighten me... here are my questions:
Is personal interest (as opposed to situational) the same as intrinsic motivation? I think so, or at least that it's a subsection of it.
From the audio book and PP, how are “content-specific” and “directly tied to content” different? I understand the seductive details piece, but not the other differences.
I am most interested in this interest topic because this is a recurring theme in my remedial math classes. On several occasions, students have asked me bluntly " What good is this stuff", or words to that effect. And,I have always equated motivation with interest.
I now understand and appreciate why different teachers start teaching science classes with some sort of "magic" science demonstration, which I have always thought was not real science.
I am curious about the role of curiosity (I am SO sorry!). Curiosity seems to me to be a precursor to interest, and can certainly be aroused by a stimulating task, as Guthrie, et al., point out. But a stimulating task is only one way to pique curiosity. I wonder if curiosity can be aroused in other ways (besides stimulating tasks, chance and fortuity). Guthrie quotes Hidi & Harackiewicz (2000) at the bottom of page 233 and their quote seems to be a verbose way of saying curiosity. It could be a topic for our blog project.
Terry,
Well, for less motivated students, according to Durik and Harackiewic, situational interest would be piqued by “catch” but it wouldn't engage them deeply. When such students are offered cognitive autonomy opportunities and their prior knowledge and conceptual understanding is activated they will enjoy themselves. Then, according to Hidi and Renninger, teacher positive affect and student cognition are coordinated to develop interest.
Seems to me it takes a compassionate and creative soul to weave this into 50 minutes of daily remedial math!
Hi everyone,
I very much enjoyed the article by Hidi and Renninger on the Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. It makes sense to me that interest is developed over time, must be nurtured, and can become dormant, regress, or disappear altogether. Does this mean that “catch” occurs in phase one, and that “catch” and “hold” both operate (on sliding scales, perhaps?) in phases two, three, and four?
Learners in the third phase (emerging individual interest) might be in a precarious position through no fault of their own, given differences in classroom environments, teacher skill, and student content interest. It makes sense to me that a learner who moves through this phase into the fourth phase does so in part because they are becoming regulated, efficacious, motivated, and determined. These concepts are closely intertwined!
It is interesting to me that “only personal involvement and the meaningfulness of tasks maintain their interest over time” (p. 116). The operative word is “only.” Therefore math teachers must provide opportunities for choice, regulation skill development, self-reflection, and appropriate levels of questioning for each phase of interest in order to ensure and encourage personal involvement and meaning. Aren’t we talking about relevance for the student, not about meeting grade-level based state standards? Doesn’t this mean teachers should have a more learner-centered and collaborative frame of mind when they enter the classroom each day? And aren’t we then obligated to help students answer their own curiosity question, “What good is this stuff?” for themselves?
Finally, what about the student who shows up to class unprepared? This student might not have any awareness of his/her level of interest. What theory could a teacher rely on here? One shouldn’t assume that because the student is unprepared s/he is disinterested – perhaps s/he has not yet been “caught” by a teacher with positive affect, or perhaps the path from situational interest to personal interest has not yet been laid.
Hi Dionne,
You're right in thinking that teachers should have a more learner-centered curriculum. The idea is to have more self-sufficient students. Teachers should be able to present information and then allow the students to fly with it, be free to explore, to take risks.
I think that so many students (even parents) are afraid to take the risks of exploring and breaking out of the realm of conformity because making the grade is so emphasized if not by colleges/universities then by the government that has implemented so many standardized tests. There was a recent article on BBC about a group of female students in Tanzania (I think) fainting and becoming ill when taking their version of a standardized test.
How can we raise interest if students are too afraid to be genuinely interested in something very well knowing that the administration is more concerned about tests and grades?
After reading the articles, I was considering how teachers could increase Situational Interest through instruction. The four-phase model suggests that individual interest (a desired outcome) evolves out of maintained situational interest. On a surface level, we can influence SI through the manipulation of the classroom environment/setting, selection of materials (perhaps this is where seductive details may come into play), games, computers... But on a broader more interactional level it seems to come down to what teachers do and say. It seems to come directly back to an autonomy supportive teaching:understanding students' thoughts and feelings, supporting students personal growth, listening to students, asking questions, and offering encouragement.
Amy and Kimi,
Your comments regarding seductive details and likening them to forms of extrinsic motivation really made me think. If I understand you correctly, seductive details, like many extrinsic motivators, may motivate us on a superficial level but once removed may not lead to any level of sustained interest/motivation. The initial interest was truly in the lure of the details. I guess the hope is that the learner will "hang around" long enough to find the material, situation, or more likely the text/topic interesting enough to pursue on a deeper level. Isn't this the core of marketing? Unlike marketing however, we need learners to do more than buy a sale of goods. I think this is where instruction and instructors need to go to the next level ie: providing an autonomy supportive environment. Thanks for your comments.
On a separate note, I question the notion that K-12 teachers cannot expect to support students in developing expertise (Alexander, 2004). Further, Sansone and colleagues found that students in the latter years of HS and college could develop maintained SI. What about younger students who have maintained consistent and prolonged interest in a sport, music, or content area. I agree that their interests were most likely triggered situationally, but many young people even seem to display the characteristics of emerging individual interests. What is the connection with age that seems to be suggested?
In response to your question Amy, personal interest vs. intrinsic motivation, I'm not quite sure that these can be dealt with in the same way. I perceive personal interest as a broad interest in a topic such as politics. However, although a student may have a personal interest in politics, they may not be intrinsically motivated to complete a specific task such as preparing a campaign for student government. The personal interest in politics can still exist without intrinsic motivation to complete a related task. What do you think? Do you agree that seperation is possible?
Yes I think that makes a logical and clear distinction. However, I do not see them as separately as you do.
I thought the Hulleman et al article was interesting. The way they split goals into mastery and performance goals is analogous to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. What surprised me the most was that there was no correlation (ok weak) between either initial interest and grades or mastery goals and grades. The only correlation with grades that had even low significance were performance goals ( I am going to beat the class) and utility (future value).
I think using seductive details, even unrelated to the topic, can be an incentive to get undergraduate students to come to class.
In the Hidi and Renninger article they refer to SI as being mostly, if not all, externally supported. I am not exactly clear on what they are referring to. Anyone?
To Bianca & Amy.
I really liked your arguments on the differences of personal interest (PI) and intrinsic motivation (IM). Initially, I agreed with you Bianca that personal interest in politics does not automatically translate to intrinsic motivation that leads to specific action within the realms of politics. Very often, people personally interested in politics but fail to gain or maintain their intrinsic motivation as they realize the complexities of the political craft and the enormous influence of extrinsic motivations that is driving the political process.
However, after reading the Influences of Stimulating Task… article, I see where Amy is coming from not seeing PI and IM as separate. I think if a person is in an environment that has elements of the events structures as described on pg.234 in the Influences of Stimulating Task… article, he or she can have and maintain a constant link between PI and MI. Based on the results stated in the Influences of Stimulating Task paper, a daily dosage of interest based reading on politics could provide such a link between PI and IM. (See Event1, 2,3, for detailed outline of the process on pg. 234).
Question:
According to Hootstein (1995) “research stimulating task must be academically significant in order to provide for enhanced motivation” meaning, for math and history the stimulating task must vary (Influences of Stimulating Task ,pg.244) This means that a student is likely to experience several stimulating tasks during a single day. Is it possible to have too much stimulating tasks? In political science there is several documented and tested theories on voting and donor fatigue. Since my students are adults who receive only a once a week instruction (rarely running the risk of too much stimulation) I would like to know what are your opinions from other settings. Thanks.
Hi Jozsef,
In my opinion I don't think there is such thing as having too many stimulating tasks during a single day, especially in middle school. Personally, I feel that when students have "down-time" or don't find lessons stimulating, they withdraw and it is very hard to "catch" their attention again. It's interesting how students in middle school can identify teachers that try to create stimulating lessons and teachers that teach from the text and do not provide motivating or stimulating lessons. Many students express that they get bored in classes where the lessons are not delivered in a stimulating fashion.
Hi Jozsef,
Thank you for weighing in on our PI vs IM discussion. I'll take another look at the pages you suggested in the Influences of Stimulating Task… article.
In response to Amy's question personal interest versus intrinsic motivation. I am wondering what role extraneous variables such as balancing work, school and family play in the individual’s level of interest on a given day. And if the task is stimulating enough will that stimulation catch the student allowing them to put the other interests which maybe via for their attention on the back burner so to speak.
Teri
It is interesting to me that your recurring theme shows up in my introduction to nursing class. The assumption is that the students are interested in the subject matter as their stated long term goal is to become a registered nurse. However, at least 2 or 3 students a semester ask why do I have to know this stuff?
In most cases I think it is a lack of prior knowledge which prompts the question. However, I don't have the research to support my assumption; this might be a good dissertation topic.
My question after reading Tsai et. al What makes learning interesting? …
If a student with a learning disability is interested in the subject will that be sufficient motivation for that student to overcome the obstetrical to learning the material. If so then could a teacher incorporate multiple subjects or tasks into a topic of interest to the student, therefore increasing motivation to learn?
I really liked the Yi-Miau article about what makes lessons interesting. I realyy liked that this study was conducted an actual classrooms. What I'm a bit confused about is what exactly the teachers were doing? What kind of lessons proved to be more interesting or not interesting to students? Also, could the teacher have effected the outcomes. If a student has a more favorable view point towards the teacher themselves, couldn't that effect the interest levels in the activities/lectures? I'm not sure if that was all really taken into account.
I liked Kristina's comment about Service Learning and having students choose projects that interest them. This of course, would be to 'catch' and 'hold' their interest, but the idea of experiential learning would, perhaps, be a way to continue along the path towards well-developed individual interest (Hidi and Renninger.) Kimi asks if interest can stand on its own - I am not sure what she means by that, but experiential learning can provide initial interest and then move through the four phases of interest development. Why not have students learn through personal discovery the wonders of science, math, literature, or whatever it is we are trying to teach them? Terry asks pretty much the same question - his students question "What good is this stuff?" If we can take academic material out of an 'academic' setting (read: classroom lecture) and make it relevant to their daily lives, they will be much more likely to maintain their interest. As educators, we need to find ways that the initial interest can be maintained and ultimately integrated into the student's knowledge base. I believe experiential learning, problem-based learning, and other active learning strategies are ways to 'catch,' 'hold,' maintain, and move interest towards intrinsic motivation.
I enjoyed reading the Hidi & Renninger article. Looking over the comments of the class, I see that a number of people wrote about the four-phase model, too. I would just like to add that the statements in the article about helping students sustain attention, provide opportunities to ask curiosity questions, and create resources that promote problem solving and strategy generation (pg 121) were intriguing. How does one go about doing this. Later in the article, the authors mention ideas such as problem-based learning and cooperative project-based work. I have tried to incorporate problem-based learning into my classes, and along with experiential learning, I agree with the authors that these are powerful tools to help sstudents move along the path towards well-developed individual interest.
After more reading and pondering, I have answered my own questions about "curiosity". A stimulation of any kind can arouse curiosity ( a restricted meaning of the term) and put someone in phase 1. As Hidi and Renniger state, other curiosity questions may arise in later phases, but they are using the term in a more general sense of "inquisitiveness". It all fits.
I started my Physics students asking critical questions like "Is that always true", "what assumptions are they making?", et al. I will suggest to them tomorrow to apply those questions to the current issue about CFLs.
In the Hidi & Renninger (2006) study, while describing the four-phase model of interest development, they mention that genetic disposition can play a role in the development of individual interest in students. I'm not clear on the connection between genetic disposition and developed individual interest. Does this have anything to do with the capacity to develop interest? Are learners genetically disposed to having the same individual interests of their parents? Are learners natural curiosities part of their genetic make-up? Maybe I'm taking this way to far out of context but it is not clear to me what role genetic disposition plays in the development of individual interest. Any thoughts?
I don't know if I'm turning into a grumpy old conservative educator in my mid-30's, but I worry about the assumptions I see in stock complaints about testing, experiential learning, and service learning. I look at all these things through the lens of a chemistry teacher and feel like all of the things are content-related.
Chemistry is taught through experiential learning when you consider experiments and laboratory work, but it's not like students can go and choose their own experiments and somehow wind up with a solid grounding in chemistry. To really learn the subject and to get the foundation requires direction, guidance, and probably a teacher.
That isn't to say that you can't learn the material on your own. (I had one class in college that I stopped attending because of bad lectures, then taught myself the content from the textbook, and got an A in the course--but I don't think that is normal.) But students aren't going to come up with experiments that teach them most of the subject matter. (And if they could come up with the experiments, how would they get the materials?)
That doesn't mean that their learning can't be enhanced by things like food chemistry and cooking. (Go Alton Brown and America's Test Kitchen!) But to understand what's going on for those shows, one must know the basics of chemistry.
In defense of classroom learning and efficiency, many high school graduates now learn by age 18, the entire content of the world's mathematical knowledge when the calculus was invented in the 17th century--and back then, most mathematicians were self-taught from their own interest. And it took most of them a lifetime to learn what we consider a "sound beginning" thanks to modern teaching methods that are in no way "natural."
I don't do much with service-learning or project-based learning in chemistry because all my experiences with those kinds of learning have really done much to dilute and slow down my students' acquisition of chemical knowledge, and to greatly increase the amount of effort they put into learning the same amount of chemistry. (That doesn't mean that these methods don't work well in other subjects, they just don't hold up to lab experiments and well-designed chemistry curricula.)
At the same time, I feel I should say that I'm not the old lab-and-lacture-and-that's-it kind of chemistry teacher. I incorporate a lot of hands-on activities and mini-experiments, demonstrations, videos, and other projects to keep things fresh and interesting--provided that each one of those activities is really an enhancement that helps students to learn more.
And as for testing, I've become a big fan of a new kind of testing that I can do because my students are using an online instructional program. To qualify as having mastered a topic (i.e., type of question--such as basic chemical equation balancing), a student must correctly balance three equations in a row. Then a few days later, the program requires a student to balance another equation to demonstrate that the knowledge has been retained. The program continues to re-check the student at longer and longer intervals to make sure the knowledge is retained. If a student mis-balances an equation at some point, the student is directed to practice until s/he is able to balance three in a row correctly again. I wish all my tests could be ongoing assessments of my students' abilities like this online test is.
Having said that, I will still use pencil and paper tests as a way of determining if my students have learned what I have been teaching (since not everything is based on the online program). In almost every case with my students, the ones who could not demonstrate knowledge of a topic in chemistry on a test could not demonstrate knowledge of that topic in other ways--lab reports, one-to-one conversations, etc. Tests are a useful way to gauge student knowledge and are not going away. I hope they turn into something more like the online assessment program I am using. :-)
Like others, I liked the 4-phase model because it was clear and fit together nicely. Kimi and Navdeep were wondering whether the various theories were stand-alone, but I think they are complimentary. Something like the blind men trying to describe the elephant story. Hidi and Renninger rationalize the past research with their model as they explain the 4 phases and more starting on p. 118 of their article.
Hidi and Renninger explain the 4 phases in detail and show that they are sequential, but the sequence can stop anywhere along the line. I ask if the sequence can start in phase 2, that is, without stimulation, or, spontaneously. As an undergraduate, I was forced by the college to take classes that I had not considered before. I found myself immediately in phase 2, being stimulated in class, or providing some self-stimulation. This also has happened in the workplace, when a new assignment was dumped on me for which I had no prior stimulation (budgeting, preparing a quote, et al.)
I really like how the articles (well, maybe except for Hulleman) all connected on how interest develops and how teachers (classrooms, situations) play a role in at least the initial spark of developing interest, if not also in maintaining interest so that it can become independent of the teacher/situation and become a part of the individual ("individualized").
I also liked how the Tsai, et al paper connected back to SDT to include autonomy support and control as part of developing interest (situational and maintained).
The articles give me hope that I can develop students' interest in chemistry--and a theoretical understanding for what I may have done (or not done) in the past to generate interest in a subject many people would rather avoid.
Amy and Kristina brought up the subject of cross-curriculum tasks to generate interest. I had some success with this last year in mt Physics class where I let the students select a project (autonomy) from another class, their career, or their hobby, then study the Physics involved, and report it to the class. Based on the presentations, I think they loved it, and did some interesting Physics studying. I'm doing it again this year.
This semester, in my Math class, I am walking the students through a project of setting up a checkbook register in Excel. It's too early to tell if they are very excited about it.
I need some more ideas.
Thanks for your comments, Dionne. I see your point about the catch being necessary but not sufficient. But right now I am seeking some effective catches. Because my Math students have deep-rooted math issues (maybe in -1 phase), it will take several stimulating tasks to snag them.
Once I tried sending them on independent research quests for extra credit. It did not work well as a catch task but maybe I could use that for a hold task.
To answer your question about catch tasks, I would say that a catch task, or 2, is required in phase 1, but after that they may not be necessary unless one is used to recapture the interest or to reinforce it.
Bianca,
It's really interesting that you mention being genetically disposed to being interested in certain things. Herrera and Zajonc (2003) belive that birth order plays an important role in what profession people become. Maybe that is what is meant by genetic disposition. Supposedly first borns become doctors and lawyers. While later borns choose more crafty professions like acting, art, and photography. They tend to be more creative. This might possibly link to interest the person has in their life, therefore the chosen profession. Just a thought.
Shannon- hands-on chemistry experiments are experiential learning. Using food or other topics to teach chemistry are just the 'catches' for many students. I remember in college chem classes being given a substance and having to figure out what it was through experimentation. Sounds like problem-based and experiential learning to me...
Post a Comment