md. spons agency - eric › fulltext › ed365966.pdfuniversity of maryland college park. penny...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 365 966 CS 011 561

AUTHOR Oldfather, PennyTITLE When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy

Learning: How a Responsive Classroom Culture Helps.Reading Research Report No. 8.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 94CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 29p.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Affective Behavior; *Classroom Environment; Classroom

Research; Cognitive Processes; *Cultural Context;Elementary School Students; Grade 5; Grade 6;Intermediate Grades; Reading Research; *StudentAttitudes; *Student Motivation; *Teacher Behavior

IDENTIFIERS Interpretive Research

ABSTRACTTeachers' responsiveness to and empathic

understanding of students' perceptions when they are not motivatedare critical in promoting students' ownership of the literacylearning agenda; in helping students with their motivationaldifficulties; and in establishing classrooms that focus on theenhancement of caring. An interpretive study, conductedfifth/sixth-grade whole language classroom, provides insigl..,s aboutstudents' thoughts, feelings, and actions when not motiva'..ed forliteracy tasks, and examines students' subjective experiences inthree different motivational situations. Forty-eight classroomobservations were conducted that included a series of 41 indepthinterviews over an 8-month period. Results offer clues about theaffective and cognitive processes that enable some students to becomeengaged in literacy activities and prevent others from beginningthem. Findings suggest that a responsive classroom culture thathonors students' voices may enhance students' ownership of literacylearning and alleviate feelings of anger, anxiety, alienation, andpowerlessness. (Contains 72 references.) (Author/RS)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

When Students Do Not Feel MotivatedFor Literacy Learning: How a ResponsiveClassroom Culture Helps

Penny Oldfather

University of Georgia

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOrrice ot Educationat Research and improvernentEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

XThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationorrornhrig ft

rt Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points ol view a opinions stillecttnthrsOOCurnent 1:10 nOt necessardy represent otficietOE RI position or POW:),

NRRC NationalReading ResearchC -.nter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 8

Winter 1994

0

BEST GUY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

When Students Do Not Feel Motivatedfor Literacy Learning:

How a Responsive Classroom Culture Helps

Penny Oldfather

University of Georgia

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 8Winter 1994

The work reported herein was funded in part by the National Reading Research Center of theUniversity of Georgia and University of Maryland. It was supported under the EducationalResearch and Development Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administeredby the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1LS. Department of Education. Thefindings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of theNational Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, orthe U.S. Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert Serpellthdversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesDavid Reinking, Receiving EditorUniversity of Georgia

Linda Baker, Tracking EditorUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Linda C. DeGroff, Tracking EditorUniversity of Georgia

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of Georgia

Research HighlightsWilliam C-. Holliday

University of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity qf Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerMelissa M. Erwin, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Ncitzcy, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Mar2..land Colkge Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Alba!),

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopmentMarshi T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, MontanaAnne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and hnprovement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Technical Writer and Production EditorSusan L. YarboroughUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: NRRCQuga.cc.uga.edu

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: NRRCOumail.umd.edu

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi-ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in prekinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi-ties. Information on NRRC research appears in severalformats. Research Reports communicate the results oforiginal research or synthesize the findings of severallines of inquiry. They are written primarily for re-searchers studying various areas of reading and readinginstruction. The Perspective Series presents a widerange of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

5

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Patricia AdkinsUniversity of Georgia

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Tom AndersonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary SchoolFalls Church, Virginia

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Cynthia BowenBaltimore County Public SchoolsTowson, Maryland

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public SchoolsRockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City SchoolsShaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of EducationHartford, Connecticut

Karin DahlOhio State University

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mariam Jean DreherUniversity of Maryland College Park

Pamela DunstonClemson University

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Valerie GarfieldChattahoochee Elementary SchoolCumming, Georgia

Sherrie Ciibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County SchoolsAthens, Georgia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Jane HaughCenter for Developing Learning

PotentialsSilver Spring, Maryland

Beth Ann IlerrmannUniversity of South Carolina

Kathleen IleubachUniversity of Georgia

Susan HillUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia IllyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Karen JohnsonPennsylvania State University

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Sandra KimbrellWest Hall Middle SchoolOakwood, Georgia

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public SchoolsLawrenceville, Georgia

Sophie KowzunPrince George's County SchoolsLandover, Maryland

Rosary LalikVirginia Polytechnic Institute

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Donna MealeyLouisiana State University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Akintunde MorakinyoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

Awanna NortonM. E. Lewis Sr. Elementary SchoolSparta, Georgia

Caroline NoyesUniversity of Georgia

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Joan PagnuccoUniversity of Georgia

Barbara PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Jessie PollackMaryland Department of EducationBaltimore, Maryland

Sally PorterBlair High SchoolSilver Spring, Maryland

Michael PressleyState University of New York

at Albany

John ReadenceUniversity of Nevada-Las Vegas

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Rebecca SammonsUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Anne SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Liqing TaoUniversity of Georgia

Ruby ThompsonClark Atlanta University

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Sandy TumarkinStrawberry Knolls Elementary SchoolGaithersburg, Maryland

Sheila ValenciaUniversity of Washington

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Chris WaltonNorthern Territory UniversityAustralia

Louise WaynantPrince George's &ray SchoolsUpper Marlboro, Maryland

Priscilla WaynantRolling Terrace Elementary SchoolTakoma Park, Maryland

Jane WestUniversity of Georgia

Steve WhiteUniversity of Georgia

Allen WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Dortha WilsonFort Valley State College

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

About the Author

Penny Oldfather is Assistant Professor in the Department ofElementary Education at the University of Georgia. She hassixteen years of public school experience in teaching andadministration. She received a B.A. from Oberlin College, anM.A. from the University of South Dakota, and her Ph.D. fromThe Claremont Graduate School, where she received the PhiDelta Kappan Peter Lincoln Spencer Dissertation Award in 1991.She is a principal investigator with the National ReadingResearch Center. Her research focuses on student motivationand constructivisia in teaching and learning, with particularinterest in qualitative research processes that explore students'perspectives. She has published in such journals as The ReadingTeacher, Language Arts, Research in Middle Level Education,and Journal of Reading Behavior.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 8Winter 1994

When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning:How a Responsive Classroom Culture Helps

Penny Old fath erUniversity of Georgia

Abstract. Teachers' responsiveness to and em-pathic understanding of students' perceptionswhen they are not motivated are critical in a)promoting students' ownership of the literacylearning agenda; b) in helping students withtheir motivational difficulties; and c) in estab-lishing classrooms that focus on the enhance-ment of caring. This report of an interpretivestudy, conducted in a 5th/6th-grade wholelanguage classr&om, provides insights aboutstudents' thoughts, feelings, and actions whennot motivated for literacy tasks, and examinesstudents' subjective experiences in three differ-ent motivational situations. The study offersclues about the affective and cognitive processesthat enable some students to become enpaged inliteracy activities and prevent others frombeginning them. It argues that a responsiveclassroom culture that honors students' voicesmay enhance students' ownership of literacylearning and alleviate feelings of anger, anxiety,alienation, and powerlessness.

Marcel, a fifth grade student who participatedin an interpretive study of student motivation,described how he felt when he was not able todo an assignment:

Just my whole body feels like I want tothrow up or s9mething, if I don't likesomething....I can't do it at feel

like sick, and I feel so sick.....My bodyfeels completely wrong.

This paper offers the perspectives of Mar-cel and his classmates on their experienceswhen they did not feel motivated for academictasks. Their views provide insights about thesocial, affective, and cognitive processes thatmay enable some children to become engagedin literacy activities, and prevent others fromeven beginning those activities. These indi-cators are derived from an analysis of stu-dents' responses when they did not feel moti-vated for literacy learning in differently evolv-ing situations. The situations include (a) eitherdoing or not doing a particular activity, and(b) either becoming motivated or not becomingmotivated in the process. The elements ana-lyzed include students' reported thinkingprocesses, actions, and their focus on intrinsicor extrinsic goals.

Although Marcel was experiencing moti-vational proolems in the particular situationdescribed above, he and his fellow classmatesgenerally perceived that their classroom expe-riences supported their intrinsic interest inlearning. They also found that even whenthey did not initially feel motivated for anactivity, they were often but not alwaysable to become engaged in their learning.

9

2 Penny Oldfather

The findings reported in this paper arepart of a study exploring students' reasons andpurposes for being or not being involved inlearning activities, with specific attention givento literacy activities. (See Oldfather, 1991,I993a, 1993b; West & Oldfather, 1993). Theword literacy is used broadly and refers to allliterate activity. Examples are drawn not onlyfrom reading and writing, but from science,social studies, and even mathematics (forpurposes of illustrating a particular teach-erstudent interaction). In the next twosections the theoretical framework that under-girds both the focus and methodology of thisresearch will be presented.

The Role of Classroom Culture inMotivation for Literacy

An underlying assumption of this study is thatliteracy is a social accomplishment (Bloome,1986; Dyson, 1992; Santa Barbara DiscourseGroup, 1992). This view is informed by theconstructivist psychological theories of Piaget(1973) and the radical constructivism of vonGlaserfeld (1984). Also central to the theoret-ical frame are Vygotskian (1978) views thatemphasize the interactive processes amonglearners within the social context of learning,and the role of more knowledgeable others infacilitating learning (Wood, Bruner, & Ross,1976). Language is at the heart of the processof becoming literate. Participants in class-room cultures collaboratively construct under-standings about the nature of literacy, thevalues of literate activity, and ways that indi-viduals and groups participate together as thecurriculum is enacted. Reciprocally, through

participation in these interactions, individualstudents construct a sense of self as readers,writers, and thinkers within the culture of eachparticular classroom. These constructions aresalient to students' development of motivationfor literacy learning (Johnston, 1992). Intrin-sic motivation for literacy learning, as concep-tualized in this research, is inextricably boundup with the students' processes of constructingmeaning (See Oldfather & Dahl, in press). Insum, I suggest that if literacy is a social ac-complishment, the roots of motivation forliterate activity are deeply embedded in thesociocultural contexts of literacy learning, andthe transactive processes occurring in thoseparticular contexts. Research aimed at aholistic understanding of classroom motivationfor literacy learning and students' adaptivelearning processes needs to take these socio-cultural processes into account. I must em-phasize that this study is limited to consider-ation of the classroom context, and does notaddress the powerful influences of family orcommunity.

Rohrkemper (1989) proposed a Vygotskianperspective on adaptive learning that empha-sizes the role of classroom interactions.Rohrkemper defined adaptive learning as "theability to take charge of frustration and main-tain the intention to learn while enactingeffective task strategies in the face of uncer-tainty taking charge of one's motivation,emction, and thinking" (1989, p. 143). Rohr-kemper emphasized the importance of interac-tions with others, as well as with tasks, inworking through problems with difficult learn-ing. Rohrkemper and Corno (1988) found thatchildren can learn important adaptive strategies

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 8

o

When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning 3

when they are confronted with stressful situa-tions, and argued that these adaptive strategiescan and should be deliberately promotedwithin classrooms. As students learn to copewith stress and boredom and to respond flexi-bly to new situations, they become able to takecontrol of their own learning.

Cullen (1985) identified four types ofresponses in students reacting to school fail-ure: a) strategy-oriented, b) action-oriented,c) anxiety-oriented, and d) anger-oriented.Parallels to Cullen's four types were found inthe students' responses to motivational strug-gles reported in this paper. Cullen (1981) alsofound that the negative emotions that childrenfelt when they failed in their first attempts tocomplete a task interfered with their ability touse metacognitive strategies.

The Role of Perception in Motivation

A social constructivist understanding of moti-vation for literacy learning encompasses notonly the cultural domain of the classroom, butincludes also the interpersonal and intraperson-al elements of students' constructions aboutliteracy processes. Research literature in

motivation reflects the centrality of the indi-vidual's perceptions in motivational responses.This strand is found in White's (1959) effec-tance motivation, Weiner's (1972) attributiontheory, deCharm's (1984) theory of personalcausation, Glasser's (1986) control theory, andthe theories of cognitive evaluation and organ-ismic integration of Deci and Ryan (1987).Dweck (1975) demonstrated the salience ofperception in relation to issues of learnedhelplessness, finding that students' attributions

of failure to lack of effort (rather than to luck;ability, or other variables) may alleviatelearned helplessness. Within each of thesemotivational constructs, the subjective reality(i.e., the perception of the student) is centralto the nature of his/her response to particularsituations.

Eccles (1983) suggests that in some situa-tions an individual's interpretations of eventsshape his/her actions more powerfully than theevents themselves. Weinstein (1989) empha-sizes the importance of student perceptions asa "missing link" in understanding students'motivation and achievement. "It is only re-cently that we have come to appreciate thatchildren are active interpreters of the class-room reality, as of any social reality, and notsimply passive recipients of instruction"(Weinstein, 1989, p. 190).

We cannot assume that adult or "outsider"perceptions will coincide with those of stu-dents within classroom cultures. In fact,ethnological analysis of interpretive studiesthat focus on children's experiences in schoolindicates that what students view as significantin the classroom is likely to be quite differentfrom what adults see (LeCompte & Preissle,1992). Although a great deal of attention hasbeen paid to students' perceptions by educa-tional researchers, and particularly by motiva-tion researchers, there has been very littlein-depth interpretive research that has beenconducted on student motivation for literacylearning with a focus on understanding stu-dents' subjective experiences or their emic or"insider" views of classroom culture. Erick-son and Shultz (1992, p. 467) in their recentreview of the literature found that "virtually


1 1

4 Penny Oldfather

no research has been done that places studentexperience at the center of attention." How-ever, a few studies representing students' emicperspectives that are relevant to literacy moti-vation are emerging (See Allen, Michalove, &Shockley, 1993; Collins & Green, 1992; Dahl& Freppon, in press; Marshall and Weinstein,1986; Myers, 1992; Nicholls & Hazzard,1993; Oldfather & McLaughlin, in press;Weinstein, 1983, 1989).

Gaining some access to these subjectiveperspectives (children's realities) is an essen-tial aspect of efforts to understand the cogni-tive mediation involved in children's motiva-tional processes (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Mc-Combs, 1991; Weinstein, 1989). As Bruner(1990) asserts,

A culturally sensitive psychology is andmust be based not only upon what peopleactually do, but what they say they do andwhat they say caused them to do what theydid. It is also concerned with what peoplesay others did and why. And above all, itis concerned with what people say theirworlds are like. (p. 16)

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

The research reported here was conductedover an eight-month period in a whole lan-guage elementary classroom in SouthernCalifornia (Oldfather, 1991, 1993a; West &Oldfather, 1993). "Willow" had a century-oldtradition as a student-centered, experiential andhumanistic learning environment, and a repu-tation for developing self-directed, engaged

learners. The school served a diverse commu-nity of about 30% minority students, whichincluded African American, Mexican Ameri-can and European American children. Stu-dents came from diverse socioeconomic back-grounds, including low income, middle in-come, and upper income families. Willowwas situated in an academic community, anda few of the students were children of collegeprofessors. The district has open enrollmentand half of the students come from areasoutside of the regular attendance area.

The Teacher and the Classroom

Sally Thomas, the teacher of this combination5th- and 6th-grade class of 31 students, is ahighly dedicated professional, respected bystudents, parents, and administrators for herteaching and for her leadership at local andstate levels in whole language practices andalternative assessment strategies. Throughinterviews and through observations with SallyThomas, I learned that she has a social con-structivist educational philosophy, a holisticapproach to curriculum development, an ' a

nurturing interpersonal style. The studentsused the following phrases to describe theirteacher: supportive, caring, understanding,accessible, sharing mutual trust and respect,listening to and respecting diverse opinions,explaining things, not telling all the answers,ftin, humorous, enthusiastic, sharing interests,holding high expectations, and giving specificfeedback.

Sally often articulated to the students herreasons for offering particular activities,topics, or learning processes. For example,


1 2

When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning

when preparing for a cooperative learningjigsaw activity in which students were respon-sible for "becoming experts" on certain socialstudies readings in order to teach their peers,she mentioned that researchers have found thatmore learning takes place when we know wewill be responsible for teaching the material toothers. After the jigsaw, students examinedtheir learning experience in that light. Sallyasked students to critique the value of whatthey were learning, using questions like thefollowing: "Is this a valuable topic to under-stand? Why or why not?"; "Have you everneeded to know how to do this in the "realworld?"; "How might this skill be useful toyou in the future?"; and "Why might the writ-ers of this curriculum believe that this shouldbe included? Do you agree or disagree withtheir decision?" The focus was on valuinglearning, rather than on extrinsic rewards, andas such, fit Marshall's (1990) description of alearning-oriented classroom. As one studentdescribed his views on how his school culturewas different,

Instead of not wanting to read, they'llread. Instead of not wanting to write,they'll write. They want to write. One ofthe things I love in school is that we'retrying to learn not just get the rightanswer. That's really good. You want toget the right answer, out you still learn.You do better because learning is moreimportant than getting the right answer.

This classroom was a caring community oflearners in which the contribution of ideasfrom every member was encouraged and re-

sponded to. Risk taking was explicitly encour-aged by Sally as an important part of learning.She and the students patticipated together aslearners and as teachers. Through seeking andresponding to the ideas and feelings of eachmember of the classroom culture, Sally wasable to convey to her students a sense thattheir ideas and their own construction ofmeaning were important, valuable, and worthyof being taken seriously. Students and teacherfigured things out together in ways describedby Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule(1986) as connected /mowing. Sally shared the"ownership of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992).

The students' desks were arranged ingroups of four or five. The room was filledwith samples of creative work: illustratedpoems, stories written on the computer andplaced in hand-made illustrated books, artprojects, and works in progress, which includ-ed projects in clay, papier-mâche, and othergraphic arts. The classroom contained hun-dreds of books, many related to the thematicunit being studied. The curriculum was devel-oped thematically, incorporating students'interests and suggestions. Topics were basedon large concepts, and often included largeissues that related to current events (e.g., acensorship debate) or environmental concerns.Students read self-selected books and booksfrom the core curriculum. They kept dialoguejournals and reading logs. Writing was thefavorite school activity of most students in theclass. The schoolwide practice was to give nogrades; report cards were in narrative form.Students' dominant experience in this class-room was of interest in and engagement withlearning.


13

6 Penny Oldfather

METHOD

Engaging Students as Co-Researchers

In this study, instead of viewing the studentparticipants as subjects, I invited them to beengaged as co-researchers (Oldfather, 1993b).Engaging the students as co-researchers is

consistent with social constructivist epistemol-ogy (Gergen, 1985; Guha & Lincoln, 1989;Wertsch, 1991). This interpretive study isbas.xl on the interactions that have taken placebetween the students and myself as we haveconstructed understandings about our researchquestions. The co-researchers are the expertsin relation to their own lives and perceptionsand are the "only authentic chroniclers of theirown experience" (Delpit, 1988, p. 297). Inpresenting myself primarily as a learner inter-ested in understanding their ideas, I communi-cated to them that we were "all in this togeth-er, trying to figure things out." I also hopedthat the students' participation in the researchprocess would be personally valuable forthem.

The students report that our explicitlycollaborative relationship in the inquiry in-creased their sense of ownership and involve-ment and led to greater depth in our findings.The students' roles as co-researchers may notappear to outsiders to be very different fromthose of research participants in other studies.In the end, the critical difference lies in theperceptions of the co-researchers about theirparticipation, and how those perceptions haveaffected the processes and outcomes of theresearch. As one student explained, "If Iwasn't a co-researcher, I wouldn't really un-derstand what you are doing, so I wouldn't

take this so seriously. I might not be tellingyou much about how I really feel." They alsobelieve that their active roles as co-researchershave facilitated their understanding of them-selves as literacy learners. For example, Johnexplained:

I never really mlized what I liked. I

realized what I didn't like, but I didn'trealize what I liked. And when I sat downand thought about it and talked about it, Irealized what I like. So it's kind of fun.

The values of the process for students en-gaged as co-researchers are much the same asthose for teachers engaged in research. Theygain voice and ownership of their agendas,and are enriched and empowered by the newknowledge constructed in the process (Oldfath-er, 1991, 1993b; Duckworth, 1987; Goswami& Stillman, 1987; Kincheloe, 1991). Theybelieve that their own motivation for learninghas been enhanced through their researchparticipation. For example, Nicki explained:

I find myself in class sometimes now,saying, "This is what I was talking about[in our research]. This is what we shouldbe doing better." I feel like we've lookedinto it so much, we've talked about it somuch, that I've used it positively towardsmy work and how I feel about school.

Selection of Interviewees

The study employed purposive sampling toselect information-rich cases (Patton, 1990).The sample of students selected for interviewsincluded eight males and six females repre-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RUSEARCH REPORT NO. 8


senting widely diverse achievement levels anddifferent degrees of internal and external moti-vational orientation. The teacher's profession-al assessment of motivational orientation wasrepresented by a scattergram showing achieve-ment scores on one axis and students' domi-nant motivational orientation on the other.The range of degrees of motivation was judgedin relation to the classroom context. Somestudents who were seen as having extrinsicmotivational orientations might have beenassessed quite differently in other settings inwhich extrinsic rewards were emphasizedmore and meaning construction was empha-sized less. The teacher knew many of thestudents very well, having taught a number ofthem the previous year.

Data Collection and Analysis

As participant/observer I conducted 48 class-room observations (95 hours) that included aseries of 41 in-depth interviews over the eight-month period. In order to gain a representa-tive perspective on the classroom processesand interactions, I observed at various times ofthe school day (during different periods ofacademic work time, recess, lunch, P.E., andcomputer lab time) and attended various spe-cial events and field trips. Field notes includ-ed thick description of the students, the teach-er., and their multidirectional interactions.Also included were accounts of my actions,thoughts, and conversations, as well as theo-retical and methodological notes.

The open-ended interviews were usuallyconducted in the outdoor courtyard at picnictables. Questions were based on my class-

room ob.servations or were developed fromprevious interviews, often in response tostudents' comments The students themselvesfrequently suggested issues and topics. Ques-tions explored students' experiences when notfeeling motivated: "Do you remember a timewhen you were supposed to do some work (oran activity) in school, and you really didn'tfeel like doing it? What was it? Did you doit? Why or why not? How did you feel whendiis happened?"

The constant comparative method of dataanalysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Glaser &Strauss, 1967) provided a feedback loop toshape both the methodological and analyticalfacets of the study. To illustrate, before thefollow-up interviews with each co-researcher,I analyzed the content of the prior interviewsand prepared questions for clarification, cor-rection, and elaboration of the student's ideasto find out "if I got it right" (Geertz, 1973).I also conducted theoretical sampling (Bogdan& Biklen, 1982; Strauss & Corbin, 1990)during those interviews, checking the percep-tions of each student about categories thatwere emerging from the study. For example,early in the data collection, a few co-research-ers described their experiences of being able totake charge of attitudes about work, that is, to"choose a positive attitude" and thereforeovercome their lack of motivation about aparticular task. Subsequently, specific ques-tions about this issue were posed to otherstudents and properties emerged. Thus, ourongoing analysis of the interviews helpedshape our understanding of important issues tobe explored more fully in subsequent inter-views.


1 5

8 Penny Oldfather

Categories and properties were inductivelygenerated (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Erickson,1986). The field notes were cut into segmentsaccording to identified units of meaning basedon relationships to particular categories andproperties. The units of meaning ranged inlength from a single phrase to a couple ofparagraphs. For example, Paul's comment "Isee math as something that we have to do andsomething that I want to get off my chest so Ican do something else" was sorted into thecategory of Lacking Motivation and given theproperty of Getting It Over With.

These segments were placed on hundredsof index cards and sorted into piles by catego-ries and properties. The categories wereformed through analysis across students. The14 final categories were analyzed to identifyways in which they related to each other.Frequencies of responses were counted, andpatterns for individual student profiles wereanalyzed in relation to particular categoriesand properties. There was much diversity inthe experiences described by the students inthis research, but a few findings were repre-sentative of all students. For example, allstudents preferred being motivated to beingunmotivated for learning activities. Individualproperties within categories sometimes reflect-ed the unique perspective of a single student(e.g., Marcel's feeling paralyzed, which wasreported in the opening vignette).

Validity checks on the coding processeswere conducted by two experienced qualitativeresearchers who coded randomly selectedsections of the field notes and compared thesewith my coding. A high degree of initialconsensus was found. Co-researchers also

provided verification, correction, clarification,and elaboration during subsequent individualinterviews, through focus groups, and throughwhole class discussions.

In order to conduct further theoreticalsampling of the categories and properties, Iheld a series of small group sessions in whichall students in the class participated. In focusgroups of about eight members (Patton, 1990),students expressed and audiotaped their ideason questions central to the study. Data analy-sis processes and tentative findings wereshared in a whole-class meeting that was fol-lowed by a videotaped in-depth discussion inwhich essentially no new ideas emerged, thusproviding strong indication that the categorieswere saturated.

This research establishes a basis of com-parison (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) to beused by researchers and practitioners in study-ing other contexts and other students. Furtherresearch is needed in other contexts with stu-dents of different ages and varying culturaland socioeconomic backgrounds, and in class-rooms where teachers have different educa-tional philosophies, teaching styles, and per-sonal attributes.

FINDINGS/DISCUSSION

As indicated in Figure 1, three different pat-terns emerged from students' responses:

Situation I: Students lacked initial motiva-tion, but ultimately gained motivation forthe tasks and completed them;

Situation II: Students lacked initial moti-vation, did not gain motivation, but com-pleted the tasks;



Situation III: Students lacked motivation,did not become motivated, and either feltunable to complete tasks or avoided them.

There were undoubtedly cases in whichstudents felt motivated and did not completetasks (potentially Situation IV). However, asthis report focuses on ways in which studentsmanaged when they did not feel motivated,Situation IV was not explored.

In this section, students' experiences inthese three situations will be described, as wellas their emotions and physical responses whenlacking motivation.

There was unanimity among students inrelation to two findings: First, all of the four-teen co-researchers occasionally experiencedlack of motivation even in this class that theygenerally found interesting and engaging.Second, all the co-researchers preferred to beinterested and involved, rather than bored oruninvolved, in their reading and writing.Although certain students felt stalled in theirwork occasionally, most found ways to workthrough the discomfort they experienced whenthey lacked motivation.

Situation I: Lacking Motivation, Doing theActivity, and Becoming Motivated

Students used a variety of approaches whenattempting to become more motivated for anactivity. These included (a) choosing a posi-tive attitude, (b) maintaining open-mindedness,(c) searching for worthwhileness in a task, (d)observing classmates' interest, (e) plunginginto an activity, and (1) self-regulating atten-tion to their work. One student reported

"learning from boredom." These approachesare illustrated by the following examples.

Choosing a positive attitude. Suki ex-plained that her reading for the science projectmight be a little boring at first, but "I have tothink of it as important, because if you thoughtit wasn't important, you wouldn't do anythingabout it." Similarly, Brian commented, "Ifyou say 'I don't like science' to start out with,you're really not going to pay a lot of atten-tion. You're not going to be reading all thescience things." Several students demonstrat-ed metacognitive awareness and attempted to"take charge" of their attitudes in positiveways. The strategies appeared similar to thosedescribed by Manning (1990) as part of aperson's inner language. These same ap-proaches were reflected in the next category.

Choosing Open-mindedness and Search-ing for Worthwhileness. In remembering hisinitial reactions when asked to write a poetrydialogue, Andrew reported, "If I come intosomething open-minded and I don't know whatthe purpose is, but I think it might be worth-while, I probably will get to like it." WhenAndrew could maintain an open attitude aboutthe possible value of reading and writing poet-ry, he found he might have increased willing-ness to be involved. The teacher's frequentarticulation of purposes and students' regularconsideration of the value of what they werelearning seem to have promoted the students'sense of the worthwhileness of learning activi-ties.

Observing classmates' interest. Briandescribed his feelings about a science project:"It seems kind of like 'Oh, no! I have to dothis!' But when you look at all the others'


1 7

10 Penny Oldfather

STUDENTS DID THE ACTIVITY STUDENTS DID NOTDO TRE ACTIVITY

STUDENTS BECAME STUDENTS DID NOT BECOME MOTIVATEDMOTIVATED

SITUATION I SITUATION H SITUATION III

Thinking Thinking AVOIDANCE

choosing a positive attitude wanting to "get it over with" Thinking

choosing open-mindedness meeting requirements and "I'll just huff and puff and saysearching for w9rthwhileness expectations 1 didn't have time."

self-regulating attention remembering the classroom "I'll hide my homework."learning from boredom accountability system

PARALYSIS

Doing Doing Thinking

observing classmates' interest not doing my best: "If it's "1 can't do this."

plunging into an activity wrong, it's wrong." "I feel sick."just doing the activity

Purposes Purposes

intrinsic extrinsic

Figure I. Comparison of students' thoughts and actions when lacking motivation in threeevolving situations.

[ideas], it's kind of interesting." Andrew alsoindicated that observing peers who were inter-ested and involved, and seeing how the othersapproached the task, helped him overcome hisown resistance (Ames & Ames, 1984): "See-ing that everybody else likes it in there, I mustlike it too, once I figure it out." The prospectof competence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Deci& Ryan, 1987) seemed to help motivate An-drew to get started on the tasks. His statementillustrates his experience in a supportive com-munity of learners that encouraged him to beopen to possibilities of being interested in andenjoying learning (Ames & Ames, 1984; Deci& Ryan, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

Plunging into an activity. Lily oftenexperienced a change in attitude after initialresistance to reading or writing: "SometimesI'm feeling like I'm stuck with something.But if I can just start to do it, I may get reallyinto it and start to put more effort into it. I

don't like having to sit down, but once I getthere, I get involved." Lily's statement re-flects interest generated through interactionwith a task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1978).

Self-regulating attention. Lily usedself-regulation, specifically, self-correction(Manning, 1990, 1991) in describing herapproach to a task: "I kind of daze along withit. I do it, but I don't do it that well. And


18

When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning 1 1

later on I catch myself [not doing the task],and I do it." Consciously regulating herattention processes, Lily was able to focus ondoing the literacy activity and reported in-creased subsequent engagement.

Learning from boredom. John had aunique view of boredom, which he used in aconstructive manner:

John: My favorite thing is to write. It'sjust from boredom. You think of boredomas nothingness but sometimes it really getssomething.

Penny: What do you mean by that?

John: Well, sometimes people think bore-dom is really boring. And it is, but itteaches you things. It teaches you how toplay by yourself, how to write, how tolearn other things, and just, it teaches you.Like it'll teach you while you're at homealone and it's just something that you canlearn from.

John sought engagement in activities as arelief from boredom. Yet, he also recognizedthat boredom precipitated learning and creativeactivities as he sought to make life more inter-esting.

Students in Situation I who were able tobecome motivated for an activity usually didso when they plunged into a task. But plung-ing in was not enough (as is illustrated bythose in Situation H, who did not becomemotivated when doing a task). Those who didbecome motivated also kept an open mind.They looked to their peers for inspiration,encouragement, and approval for doing well.

They respected and trusted in the teacher's fre-quently held dialogues about what kinds oflearning might be valuable and interesting.They experienced a sense of control abouttheir learning, not only in terms of makingchoices about what and how they learned, butalso in relation to how they thought about theirlearning: They could monitor attention to atask or choose a positive attitude.

Situation II: Lacking Motivation, Doing theActivity, Not Becoming Motivated

As described in the previous section, somestudents found ways to become engaged inliteracy activities after initially lacking motiva-tion. Oth,:tr students were not able to becomeengaged, but managed to complete the re-quired tasks, though without interest or enthu-siasm. Ten students made unsolicited state-ments that they did not do their best workwhen lacking motivation. Their primarydesire was to get it over with. Nicki did whatshe considered unpleasant assignments: "Justto get the work done, you know. Just to getit done." Lauren honestly explained, "I'll doit, and if it's wrong, it's wrong."

When asked why they did these tasks ifthey did not want to do them, students identi-fied reasons or purposes that were extrinsic tothe task. They frequently referred to theclassroom accountability system, known asSuperkid. The system provided that thosewho had completed all their weekly assign-ments were allowed to choose an activityduring free time, or they were given otherincentives. Those who had not completed allassignments were required to work on them.Parents were informed weekly of whether


1 9

12 Penny Oldfather

students were up-to-date on assignments. Paulanalyzed his own reactions to Superkid:

Doing Superkid. . . it's not like the goal ofmy life. But I guess it's something in yoursubconscious that wants you to do it still.I don't know why. . . . You see, if I don'tdo Superkid, I'm not going to get punishedor anything. So I think it's kind of dumb,but I think something in your subconscioussays "Go do it." So I always do every-thing.

All of the students reported being influ-enced at least occasionally to participate insome !earning activities for extrinsic rewards.The Superkid program appeared to play animportant role, particularly for those in Situa-tion II, although it had quite different mean-ings for different students. In some instances,the extrinsic rewards were seen as indicatorsof self-competence. In other cases, it ap-peared that rewards were valued for them-selves. It appeared that Superkid served as a"motivational safety net" or a "purpose of lastresort" (Oldfather, 1991) for students in Situa-tion II who did not value the activity forintrinsic purposes. The accountability systemobviously did not work for those in SituationIII, as they did not do the activity.

Situation III: Lacking Motivation, AvoidingTasks, or Feeling Paralyzed

When children did not do an activity becauseof motivational problems, avoidance or per-ceived helplessness was involved. Thesemotivational responses were occasionallyfound in this classroom, particularly for two of

the students. Overall, however, these re-sponses were not common.

For example, the avoidance situation wasarticulated by Lauren, who explained frankly,"Sometimes I'll just huff and puff and say Ididn't get around to it." The more seriousstate of perceived helplessness was exper-ienced by Marcel, who remarked poignantly,"My body feels completely wrong." Marcelfelt "homework can be pure torture for kids."Both students volunteered that they had at-tempted to conceal from the teacher and par-ents the fact that their homework was not fin-ished.

Analysis of the Three Situations

As indicated in Figure i , there were cleardifferences in how students in the three situa-tions thought about their relationship to litera-cy learning activities. Students in Situation Inot only did the activities, they combined thedoing with thinking about the possible interestand value of the task. They focused on learn-ing, rather than extrinsic purposes. Theirthinking was often metacognitive (e.g., choos-ing a positive attitude or monitoring attention).Those in Situation II who did the activitywithout becoming motivated relied on theclassroom accountability system (extrinsicpurpose), rather than personal interest orvaluing the activity (intrinsic purpose). Al-though students in Situations I and II all didthe task, those in Situation II often reportedthat they did not put forth their best effort ("Ifit's wrong, it's wrong"). When students inSituation I became motivated for an activity,they had a greater sense of self-determination.



Some students in Situation III who avoided anactivity may also have experienced self-deter-mination, by virtue of having evaded therequirement. In contrast, Marcel ("My bodyfeels completely wrong"), who was also inSituation III, experienced helplessness, ratherthan self-determination.

Students' Feelings WhenLacking Motivation

When students were struggling with motivationthey experienced a range of negative feelings,including anger, rebellion, anxiety, frustration,and helplessness. As indicated by representa-tive comments below, students were clearabout their desire for autonomy under thesecircumstances. Some students emphasized therelationship between competence and level ofmotivation.

Feeling anger and rebellion. Anger andrebellion were common reactions when stu-dents felt unmotivated. Andy explained,"Teachers kind of get on your back and every-thing. I get really mad. I want to tell them togo away." Brian reported, "You begin andyou've gotta do a geography map or some-thing. Then you get real mad, because youdon't want to do it. But then you have to."Feelings of anger appeared to be associatedwith students' feeling that they were deniedopportunity for self-determination.

Wanting to have autonomy. When stu-dents felt unmotivated to do required tasks,they became aware of their desire for autono-my. For example, John described his reactionto a required science project: "I want to wantto do a science project. But I can't want to do

a science project if they say you have to do ascience project." As he explained, "I want tobe myself. I want to imagine what I want. I

want to like what I want. I want to enjoywhat I want. I want to be me."

Feeling anxious and less than competent.Students reported lacking motivation in situa-tions in which they felt less than competentand/or highly anxious. Marcel explained thathe did not often want to do math, especiallywhen he did not understand it. When Marcelfound that other students completed a timedmath test before he did, he expressed discour-agement:

I just don't really liked being timed. Itdoesn't feel good when you see some otherpeople get ahead of you, and you hearsomebody say "Oh yeah, good, I'm fin-ished." It just makes me feel like I'm soterrible at it.

Some students who felt anxious and lessthan competent also experienced extremephysical symptoms, as described in the follow-ing section.

Children's Physical Responses and Needs

Physical responses and physical needs wereprimary concerns in relation to some students'engagement with learning. Their concerns inthe physical domain were a) coping withfeeling physically ill when reacting to motiva-tional problems, b) feeling the need for energyrelease, c) wanting freedom of movement asan aspect of choice and autonomy, and d)valuing hands-on activities as a key to in-creased engagement in learning.


14 Penny Oldfather

Feeling physically ill. As mentionedpreviously, Marcel, whose body felt "com-pletely wrong," had a severe physical reactionwhen he felt unable to do a required task.Marcel's experiences can be understood froma variety of perspectives. Anxiety has beenrecognized as negatively related to intrinsicmotivation (Gottfried, 1982). Physical symp-toms such as headaches may be experiencedby individuals who perceive a lack of controlover outcomes (Pennebaker, Burnam, Schaeff-ener, & Harper, 1977). Lack cf perceivedcontrol can lead to a sense of .helplessnesswhich then impairs learning and performance(Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). Miller and Ross(1975) suggest that attribution of failure to aphysical problem may be a self-serving biasthat preserves the individual's ego.

All explanations aside, Marcel's strongphysical reaction virtually paralyzed his partic-ipation. Marcel's first remedy was to "waituntil it's time to do something eke. It's likewhen you eat too much of something, you feelfull for that, but sometimes you can eat some-thing else." Marcel explained that he feltbetter when he couid go outside and "get hisenergy out," or read a book he liked. Mar-cel's teacher was able to recognize his condi-tion and to provide some support and relief.When Marcel voiced his fee:ings of anxietyabout timed tests, the teacher's empoweringresponse was to make participation in timedtests optional and use untimed assessmentsinstead.

Needing to move. Andy, who said heliked to read, described what he experiencedat Hebrew School:

Andy: I have so much energy, I have tokeep moving. Sometin.e..s I get reallynervous and my hands start shaking and Ican't read, so I just stop.

Penny: How do you feel Ithen you haveto sit still?

Andy: Well, sometimes I just wiggle mytoes.

As Andy's experience in Hebrew Schoolillustrates, some students had to struggle tocarry through their reading activities whenthey were required to sit still or to remain intheir seats for long periods of time. If thechildren were not allowed to move about andrelease energy, they had difficulty sustainingengagement with learning. The commondisciplinary practice of depriving students ofrecess must create problems for students likeAndy. The "sometimes-I-just-wiggle-my-toes"strategies may not provide an energy releasesufficient to allow the student to reconnectwith the work.

Summary of Analysis of Findings

To summarize the analysis of the findings:

1) Students' lack of motivation causedthem great discomfort unless or until theywere able to feel motivated;

2) Students preferred to be motivatedrather than unmotivated;

3) Those who became motivated afterbeing unmotivated for an activity (Situation I)were interested in finding intrinsic meaning inthe activity. They combined empowering ways



of thinking with the doing of an activity.These empowering ways of thinking wereoften self-regulatory and metacognitive innature (e.g., choosing a positive attitude,open-mindedness, searching for worthwhile-ness, self-regulated attention, learning fromboredom).

Qualities of Classroom Culture ThatAlleviate Motivational Struggles

Although all the students were oc-_.asionally notmotivated, .zhey perceived that the responsiveclassroom culture alleviated the motivationalstruggles in all three situations describedabove. (See Oldfather, 1993a and Oldfatherand McLaughlin [in press] for in-depth de-scriptions of the classroom environment.)Students in Situation I who lacked motivation,did the activity, and became motivated, oftenreported being strongly influenced by theirmore motivated peers. As Andrew comment-ed, observing peers' being motivated helpedhim think he "might like it, too." In thisclassroom it was "cool" to do well academical-ly. Brian reflected this in reporting thatstudents wanted to do well on their socialstudies reports, because "you want [otherstudents] to respect the way you think."

The focus on collaborative construction ofmeaning also supported students' motivation.As Paul explained, the teacher "helps us buildour thoughts." The co-researchers felt thatbeing part of this community of learners madethe transition from being unmotivated to be-coming motivated less difficult.

Students in Situation II who did not be-come motivated for an activity, but did corn-

plete the activity were, nevertheless, supportedby the learning-oriented classroom culture.Even if their reasons for doing an activitywere extrinsic rather than intrinsic, moststudents valued being "good students." Theresponsiveness of the classroom to their ideas,feelings, and interests helped alleviate thefeelings of resistance or alienation that areoften experienced when students are not intrin-sically motivated to do required tasks. Thus,they were more open to moving 'nto intrinsi-cally motivated modes of engagement in theirlearning.

For students in Situation III, who lackedmotivation and were either unwilling or unableto do a task, the nurturing, responsive aspectsof the classroom culture met a particularlycritical need, not only for promoting students'engagement in learning, but in supportingthem through their motivational struggles.This is exemplified by Marcel's case. Whenhis body felt "completely wrong," he was ableto communicate his needs and feelings to theteacher. She responded to students with careand empathy and took action that alleviatedanxiety levels and allowed students to have agreater sense of self-determination. Marcelfelt much better.

RESPONSIVE CLASSROOM CULTUREAND MOTIVATION

A deeply responsive classroom culture thathonors student voices supports both motiva-tional and ethical goals in the following ways:

1) It develops a community of learners thatpromotes the maintenance and enhancement ofcaring (Noddings, 1984);


16 Penny Oldfather

2) It gives teachers access to importantinsights for meeting children's educationalneeds;

3) It alleviates motivational struggles andpromotes students' perceptions of self-deter-mination, and thus their ownership of theirown learning agenda.

Establishing Caring ClassroomEnvironments

Empathic understanding of and response tochildren's thinking and feeling form the basisfor creating nurturing classroom environmentstnat maintain and enhance caring (Belenky, etal., 1986; Deci & Ryan, 1990; Gilligan, 1982;Grumet, 1988; Noddings, 1984). Noddings(1984, p. 20) makes a critical distittction be-tween instructional and educational goals,asserting that "the student is infinitely moreimportant than the subject." She proposes:

The primary aim of every educationalinstitution and of every educational effortmust be the maintenance and enhancementof caring.... I am drawing attention topriorities. I certainly do not intend toabandon intellectual and aesthetic aims. Ifwhat we do instructionally achieves theinstructional end A learns X we havesucceeded instructionally, but if A hates Xand his teacher as a result, we have failededucationally [italics added] (p. 174).

Noddings' statement puts into perspectivethe broader outcomes of education and empha-sizes affective goals as integral to learning,self-esteem, and caring. If, as Noddings

suggests, we view the student as infinitelymore important than the subject, we will bemore likely to respond to children's motiva-tional struggles in ways that empower andmotivate them, rather than in ways that makethem feel powerless and alienated. The re-sponsive classroom environment has the poten-tial to nurture students' ownership of learning.

Belenky et al. in Women's Ways of Know-ing (1986) further explore the concept ofcaring and nurturing in education, articulatingthe process of connected teaching. Connectedteaching is based on a construct;vist epistemo-logical stance that all knowledge is constructedand that the knower is an intimate part of thatwhich is known (Belenky, et al. 1986). Theconstructive process of each individual learneris respected. The teacher "shares the owner-ship of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992). Thisstance changes the power relations in theclassroom. Connected teachers create a caringcommunity of learners that encourages risktaking. Everyone in the community (includingthe teacher) teaches, as well as learns. Con-nected teachers invite students' collaborationin the construction of meaning, and they nur-ture students' voices by facilitating "the havingof wonderful ideas" (Duckworth, 1987). Insuch an environment, students become morefully engaged in their learning.

Gaining Information AboutStudents' Needs

In a classroom in which students' voices arehonored, the teacher gains access to informa-tion about children's perspectives and subjec-tive experiences that promotes responsiveness



to children's educational, social, affective, andphysical needs (Dewey, 1904; Erickson &Shultz, 1992; Oldfather, 1991; Weinstein,1989). When Marcel, who said "My bodyfeels completely wrong," was essentially para-lyzed, his teacher might not have understoodhis problem. She might have punished him ortreated him as a lazy or rebellious child. Shemight have taken actions that would haveexacerbated Marcel's frustrations, underminedhis sense of competence and self-esteem, andestablished an adversarial relationship. In-stead, his teacher Sally recognized what Mar-cel was experiencing, talked with him, andeased his anxiety. She was able to gain accessto important information about Marcel's needsthrough her receptive posture. Taking actionbased on that information, she negotiated someof the conditions and requirements of learningactivities, thus responding to his learningneeds and to his affective needs, which areinevitably intertwined.

CONCLUSION

The perspectives of students in Sally Thomas'sclassroom have pointed toward ways in whichresponsive classroom culture facilitated stu-dents' adaptive learrting processes. The learn-ing environment supported the motivationalprocesses of those who were undergoingmotivational struggles as well as those whowere deeply engaged in literacy learning.

This research was conducted in the contextof one classroom. Students' experiences infamily and community contexts are likely tohave significant impact on their motivation forliteracy learning, and those elements are notencompassed by this study. In order to pro-

vide a basis for comparability, further researchis needed in a variety of other contexts, in-cluding other whole language classrooms,other grade levels, different socioeconomiccontexts, with students of varied cultural back-grounds, and in classrooms with differentstyles of teaching. A longitudinal study isunderway to follow the original fourteen co-re-searchers into other classroom contexts.

In contrast to many studies on motivation,it was not the intent of this study to measureeither motivation or achievement. I haveattempted to understand and represent stu-dents' experienccs as fully and fairly as possi-ble, and to report (in Bruner's words) "whatthey say their worlds are like." As in allresearch, these findings are interpreted firstthrough the lens of the researcher and thenby the reader. In spite of the limitations ofour constructed understandings, it is importantthat we attempt, as Beekman (1986) suggests,to see students' motivational struggles and theworld of classroom literacy from a "commonhorizon" with 5tudents.

REFERENCES

Allen, J., Michalove, B., & Shockley, B. (1993).Engaging Children: Community and Chaos inthe Lives of Young Literacy Learners. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ames, R., & Ames, C (1984). Research on moti-vation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation.New York: Academic Press.

Beekman, T. (1986). Stepping inside: On partici-pant experience and bodily presence in thefield. Journal of Education, 168(3), 43.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., &Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing:


5

18 Penny Oldfather

The development of self, voice and mind. NewYork: Basic Books.

Bloome, D. (1986). Reading as a social process ina middle school classroom. In D. Bloome(Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 123-149).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitativeresearch for education. Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Collins, E., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning inclassroom settings: Making or breaking a cul-ture. In H. H. Marshall, (Ed.), Redefiningstudent learning: Roots of educational change(pp. 59-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards andemergent moth ation. In M. Lepper & D.Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward:New perspectives on the psychology of humanmotivation (pp. 205-216). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Cullen, J. L. (1981). Children's reactions to schoolfailure. New Zealand Journal of EducationalStudies, 16, 58-68.

Cullen, J. L. (1985). Children's ability to copewith failure: Implications of a metacognitiveapproach for the classroom. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller(Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and humanperformance (pp. 267-300). Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (in press). A

comparison of inner-city children's interpreta-tions of reading and writing instruction in theearly grades in skills-based and whole languagecla:srooms. Reading Research Quarterly.

deCharms, R. (1984). Motivation enhancement ineducational settings. In R. E. Ames & C.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation on edu-cation: Vol. 1. Student Motivation (pp. 275-312). New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1990). A motivationalapproach to self: Integration in personality.Paper presented to the Nebraska Symposium onMotivation, Lincoln, NE.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Powerand pedagogy in educating other people's chil-dren. Harvard Educat!mal Review, 58, 280-298.

Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to prac-tice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.),Third Yearbook, Part I. National Society forthe Scientific Study of Education (pp. 9-30).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderfulideas and other essays on teaching and learn-ing. New York: Teachers College Pre-.;.

Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectv.tionsand attributions in the alleviation of learnedhelplessness. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 31(4), 674-685.

Dyson, A. H. (1992). Whistle for Willie, lostpuppies, and cartoon dogs: The socioculturaldimensions of young children's composing.Journal of Reading Behavior 24(4), 433-462.

Eccles (Parsons), J. (1983). Expectancies, values,and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives:Psychological and sociological approaches (pp.75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in re-search on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook on Research in Teaching (3rd ed.,pp. 119-161).

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students' expe-rience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum(pp. 465-485). New York: Macmillan.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.New York: Basic Books.


26


Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionistmovement in modern psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 40, 266-275.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psycho-logical theory and women's development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago: Aldine.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the class-room. New York: Harper & Row.

Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (1987). Reclaim-ing the classroom: Teacher research as anagency for change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Gottfried, A. (1982). Relationships between aca-demic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in chil-dren and young adolescents. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 20(3), 205-215.

Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women andteaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massa-chusetts Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourthgeneration evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Hiroto, D., & Seligman, M. (1975). Generality oflearned helplessness in man. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 31, 311-327.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learn-ing together and alone: Cooperative, competi-tive, and individualistic learning. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnston, P. H. (1992). Constructive evaluation ofliterate activity. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers:Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment.

New York: Falmer Press.LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1992). Toward

an ethnology of student life in schools andclassrooms: Synthesizing the qualitative re-search tradition. In M. D. LeCompte & J.Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative

Research in Education. New York: AcademicPress.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnog-raphy and qualitative design in educational re-search. San Diego: Academic Press.

Manning, B. (1990). Cognitive self-instruction foran off-task fourth grader during independentacademic tasks: A case study. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 15, 36-46.

Manning, B. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction forclassroom processes. New York: State Univer-sity of New York Press.

Marshall, H. H. (1990). Beyond the workplacemetaphor: The classroom as a learning setting.Theory into Practice, 29(2), 94-101.

Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986).Classroom context of student-perceived differ-ential teacher treatment. Journal of Education-al Psychology, 78, 441453.

McCombs, B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelonglearning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2),117-127.

Miller, D., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-servingbiases in the attribution of causality: Fact orfiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.

Myers, J. (1992). The social contexts of schooland personal literacy. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 27(4), 297-332.

Nicholls, J. G., & Hazzard, S. P. (1993). Educa-tion as adventure: Lessons from the secondgrade. New York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Oldfather, P. (1991). Students' perceptions of theirown reasons/purposes for being or not beinginvolved in learning activities: A qualitativestudy of student motivation (Doctoral disserta-tion, The Claremont Graduate School, 1991).Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 853A.

Oldfather, P. (1992). Sharing the ownership ofknowing: A constructivist concept of motivationfor literacy learning. Paper presented at the


(7

20 Penny Oldfather

annual meeting of the National Reading Con-ference, San Antonio, TX.

Oldfather, P. (1993a). What students say aboutmotivating experiences in a whole languageclassroom. Reading Teacher, 46(8), 672-681.

Oldfather, P. (1993b, April). Facilitating partici-pation and ownership through engaging stu-dents as co-researchers. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Education-al Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (in press). Toward asocial constructivist reconceptualization ofintrinsic motivation for literacy learning.Journal of Reading Behavior.

Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, J. (in press). Gain-ing and losing voice: A longitudinal study ofstudents' continuing impulse to learn acrosselementary and middle level contexts. Re-

search in Middle Level Education, 17.Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and

research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Pennebaker, J., Burnam, M., Schaeffener, M., &

Harper, D. (1977). Lack of control as adeterminant of perceived physical symptoms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,35, 167-174.

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: Thefuture of education. New York: Grossman.

Poplin, M. (1987). Self-imposed blindness: Thescientific method in education. Remedial andSpecial Education, 8(6), 31-37.

Rohrkemper, M. M. (1989). Self-regulated learn-ing and academic achievement: A Vygotskianview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academicachievement: Theory, research and practice.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rohrkemper, M. M., & Corno, L. (1988). Suc-

cess and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptivelearning and classroom teaching. ElementarySchool Journal, 8.5(3), 297-312.

Santa Barbara Discourse Group (Green, J., Dixon,C., Lin, L., Floriani, A., Bradley, M. withPaxton, S., Mattern, C., & Bergamo, H.)(1992). Constructing literacy in classrooms:Literate action as social accomplishment. In

H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining studentlearning: Roots of educational change. Nor-wood, NI: Ablex.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quali-tative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction toradical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick(Ed.), The Invented Reality (pp. 17-40). NewYork: Norton.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological processes.(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: Frommechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham.

Weinstein, R. (1983). Student perceptions ofschooling. Elementary School Journal, 83(4),286-312.

Weinstein, R. (1989). Classroom perceptions andstudent motivation. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education:Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 187-221).New York: Academic Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Asociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

West, J., & Oldfather, P. (1993). On workingtogether: An imaginary dialogue among realchildren. Language Arts, 70, 33-44.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: Theconcept of competence. Psychological Review,66, 297-333.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, B. (1976). Therole of tutoring in problem solving. journal qfChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.


NRRCNational

Reading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71252102J. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park,, MD 20742

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 29

md. spons agency - eric › fulltext › ed365966.pdfuniversity of maryland college park. penny...

Documents