This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The child discussed within this case study is male, age 10 and currently attending a local Primary school within the Thanet area in a year 5 year group. The child that will be within this case study will be called Philip in this case to remain autonomy.
Philip is from a family home within 8 miles of the setting in which he attends. He lives with family consisting of 1 sibling (younger) mother and father. Philip has an older sibling which current resides with another family member. Philip in the past has been placed on school report for unacceptable behaviour on a number of occasions of the major offences within the behaviour policy (2007). This is seen as a link between home and school to obtain a supportive positive relationship as parents are also finding it difficult to deal with Philips unacceptable behaviour (Appendix- behaviour-YIP).
Through observations within different lessons Philip is seen to enjoy Mathematics although very disruptive towards others learning but more so within the Literacy lessons as well as the afternoon sessions of all subjects. Philip struggles to maintain relationships although does have a girlfriend he willing expressed whom is also in his class. Due to the lower level of social skills and understanding of others emotional states he attends a lunch time group 5 days a week to raise his awareness which was but into place by Senior Management (SM) as a long term arrangement.
Philips academic levels are age appropriate in accordance with the Primary National Curriculum (2000) attainment levels in English (reading, writing), Mathematics, and Science. He has also been assessed through the means of a Visual Auditory Kinesthetic (VAK) test. The result of this established Philip to be a visual learner.
However, in accordance with an assessment through Speech and Language within the last two weeks they indicated that Philip has a well below average of knowledge and understanding of Language together with slow processing skills. Controversially, the staff argues that this is not correct as his academic levels do not match this suggestion. In addition, there have been no formal diagnoses taken place as a result of this observation by speech and language assessment.
2 or 3 areas theorist
Motivation- make it fit==== personality overlaps this area
Motivation appears in many different forms as well as different amount varying from person to person, therefore, it is the attributions that drive us.
Attribution theory cognitive- intrinsic 286
An attribution is the alleged cause of a person's explanation of why or how an outcome has resulted the way it has. Additionally, the cognitive theory of motivation serves to create intentions and goal-seeking acts (Ames & Ames, 1989). These can be described as achievement with incentivesGoal theory- Locke& Latham 1994-mastery goals
. September 2002 â- American Psychologist Vol. 57, No. 9, 705-717 "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation" A 35-Year Odyssey Most children, as they work through their years of school do, in fact, find areas of study they genuinely enjoy. But these areas are different for different people. The general problem of matching individual interests to fixed curricula is one that is impossible to solve. People obviously have different backgrounds, beliefs, and goals. What is relevant for one will not be relevant to another. Of course, we can force something to be relevant to students--we can put it on the test. But this only makes it have the appearance of significance, it does not make it interesting.
Within an academic setting such as the workplace, typical attributions might include effort, skills and knowledge of a subject being taught, strategies in which are taught in order to tackle a set task as ones own ability (sets within the work place). Further to this the teacher's mood moreover mistakes by the teacher may lead to this. In addition Weiner (1984, 1985), suggests that attributions links to emotional states, which may have consequences for behaviours, such as motivation. An outcome, whether positive or negative causes us as humans react in an emotional state leading to either a positive or negative motivational response. However, factors may influence attributions some of which may include personal characteristics (history of failure or success). Further to this, Bandura (1993) would additional state that ability and effort would appear within the attributions which in turn all so would influence motivations through emotional state. In addition circumstances (e.g. feeling ill, fire-alarm sounded, lesson interruption, as often seen within the workplace) or comparison to others of the same ability can lead to the negative states of motivation (failure attribution).Furthermore, as the cause of the failure attribution is unlikely to change, the pupils may feel hopefulness in the expectations of further requirements, compared to those whom feel equally at ease with satisfaction moreover failure are more likely to have a raised self esteem therefore have more motivation to tackle a task in which needs higher cognitive ability.
However, Dweck (1986) would argue that the pupils would need to accept the failure and learn from this turning into positive success enables motivation to develop.
2) Achievement motivation- Atkinson& Raynor 1974-need for achievement fear of failure, fear of success,, 376 Cognitive theories deal with intrinsic motivation (i.e., goals) If something is not understood or how something relates to your goals, you will not care about that thing. Because educators do not want children to be motivated solely by a desire to please the teacher or to obtain the stickers, we promote Self motivation within the setting as Personal Social Health Education (PSHE appendix Plans1) as well as Social Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL, DATE) to which all pupils are involved including Philip which aids knowledge and understanding of individuals seeking for success of his or hers own ability level, therefore tend to achieve the grades. However, Rogers (1994) states that drive themselves to achieve and this motivates learning. Further to this Malone (1981) would argue that intrinsic motivation appears in three different areas; challenge (in choosing an activity that has an uncertain outcome due to hidden information), fantasy (skills which are required to complete the task set) and curiosity (when the learner has low self-esteem that they can not complete the task set due to lack of skills) . Deci & Ryan (2000) would additionally state that the intrinsic motivation is innate and therefore do not need the extrinsic rewards in order for pupils (humans) to be motivated. Malone (1981) suggests that intrinsically motivating tasks allows the learner to challenge themselves, learn new skills as well as have set goals in which they are to achieve in order to gain feedback. Controversially, educators can not always rely upon intrinsic motivation as not all of the curricula are enjoyable to al therefore, promoting extrinsic motivation become a necessary part of the system of education.
Deci & Ryan state that extrinsic motivation is seen as a task that is completed to a desirable outcome formed by others (2000).Weiner (1990) indicates extrinsic motivation (i.e., rewards) as seen within the wbrt?? to appears to link with behavioral theories. In most behavioural theories, motivation seems to be recorded as a primary drive such as hunger, sex, sleep, or comfort evident within Maslow's hierarchy of need (1943). In addition, Skinners (....) Stimulus-Response (S-R) theory suggests that by reinforcing with rewards the desired outcome is achievable, furthermore, Skinner (1957) states that this was also possible in motivation (operate conditioning paradigm) in such aspects including classroom management and verbal language. Yet, Skinner (1950) did not agree with the theories of learning. Further, would suggest that that all behaviours are motivated by rewards. Extrinsic-behavioural theorists Bandura suggests that within theory of personality one's environment causes one's behaviour. Later in his studies he further suggested that not only environments cause behaviour, but behaviour causes environment. This concept was labeled as reciprocal determinism: meaning together the world and person's actions (behaviour) cause one another. Further to this three factors (human's psychological processes, behaviour as well as environment) contributed to personality where pupils can resent, resist moreover, and seem disinterested within the curricula subject area.
However, the long term use of this theory can have detrimental effects on intrinsic motivation as Deci &Ryan (?????) suggest. However, Woods(â€¦.) argues that extrinsic motivation can have a positive affect on negative behaviour and therefore motivate the pupils to achieve expectable things. Whereas Claxton (â€¦.) simply states the extrinsic motivation is no-existent.
Achievement goal theory One well-developed area of research highly relevant to learning is achievement motivation (e.g., Atkinson & Raynor, 1974).
Achievement goal theory posits that students' academic motivation can be understood
as attempts to achieve goals (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls
et al., 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). The premise of goal theory is that students'
behaviours are a function of desires to achieve particular goals, and research has
focused primarily upon the two dominant goals of learning (also called mastery, task)
and performance (also called ego-oriented,) Students pursuing mastery
goals have been described as self-regulating and self-determining (Seifert, 1997) and
their dispositions foster cognitive development. They believe that effort (or more
importantly, some internal, controllable factor) is the cause of success or failure and
intelligence is malleable (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
They also indicate a greater preference for challenge (Seifert, 1995a), engage in
more strategy use, especially deep strategy processing (Meece et al., 1988; Pintrich
& de Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Seifert, 1995b), make more positive selfstatements
(Diener & Dweck, 1978), report more positive affect and less negative
affect, and are more likely to take responsibility for success and less likely to deny
responsibility for failure (Seifert, 1995b). The learning goal student is task and learning orientated, processing tasks and situations in terms of challenges to be
overcome, demonstrating competence and learning new skills and knowledge.
Students pursuing performance goals, on the other hand, have been described as
being preoccupied with ability concerns. They are more concerned about how well
they perform relative to others and how others will perceive them. They are more
likely to believe that ability is the cause of success and failure, that intelligence is a
fixed entity, view difficulty problems as failure (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), engage in
less sophisticated strategy use (Nolen, 1988; Seifert, 1995b), make more negative
self-statements, attribute success to uncontrollable factors (Seifert, 1995b) and are
less likely to process information relative to previous success (Diener & Dweck,
1978). In other words, the performance goal student is self, other and failure focused,
processing information in terms of self and others. Specifically, pursuit of a performance
goal is a self-protective process in which the student seeks to gain a favourable
judgement of competence or avoid an unfavourable judgement of competence
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001) and to be, or appear to be,
superior to others (Nicholls et al., 1990) or achieve an extrinsic reward such as a high
grade (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). However, what is worth noting is that the performance
goal student will display adaptive behaviours if confidence is high, but will
display maladaptive behaviours if confidence is low (Dweck, 1986).
Sporadically, researchers have suggested the possibility of a work avoidance goal as
distinct from learning and performance goals (Nicholls et al., 1990; Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1996; Seifert et al., 1996; Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001; Jarvis & Seifert, 2002).
Students pursuing a work avoidance goal have been described as those who consistently
avoid putting in effort to do well, do only the minimum necessary to get by
and avoid challenging tasks. Recent research suggests that students pursuing work
avoidance goals tend to perceive their work as lacking meaning, may feel less competent
than students pursuing learning goals and may have a greater tendency to make
external attributions than learning goal students (Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001).
Several reasons why students may be work avoidant have been suggested (Jarvis &
Seifert, 2002). One reason students may engage in work avoidance is that they are
failure-avoidant or learned-helplessness students (Covington, 1984; Jarvis & Seifert,
2002). Failure-avoidant students do not do the work because the work is a threat to
ability perceptions or self-worth. Students who are learned helpless do not do the
work because they do not feel capable of doing the work.
Students may also be work avoidant if they feel capable of doing the work but see
no reason for doing it. They find little challenge, stimulation, satisfaction or meaning
in the work they do and, consequently, only do enough work to get by.
Work avoidance may also emerge as a passive-aggressive mechanism (Jarvis &
Seifert, 2002). In this mechanism, students do not perform the work for the teacher
because the student is withholding effort as a means of seeking revenge. The student
is harbouring feelings of resentment and hostility towards the teacher because he/she
feels embarrassed by the teacher or has been treated unfairly by the teacher, or for
some other reason the student does not like the teacher. Consequently, the student
withholds effort as an attempt to either seek revenge or otherwise exert some sort of
control over the teacher by foiling the teacher's plans by not cooperating.
2)Performance goals 280
Pupils pursuing performance goals have been preoccupied with ability of the pupil. The pupils themselves are more concerned with how they achieve against others in academic levels following how others will see them in the academic settings. Furthermore, pupils believe that the ability in the acadmic setting stipulate a pass or fail and that this can not change, Dweck & Leggett (1988) Therefore, the pupils , seek to gain a positive judgement of ability or avoid it altogether (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001)
However, from time to time, this may lead to moreover has been suggested by researcher that a possible work avoidance goal which is distinctifly from learning and performance goals (Nicholls et al., 1990; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Seifert et al., 1996; Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001; Jarvis & Seifert, 2002) can be evident within educational settings.
Pupils following this goal maybe described as a pupil consistently avoid putting in effort to do well (lazy) and will therefore not chanllenge themselves further in ones learning. Additionally, they may not see the point of carrying out the tasks set as they have no meaning to what they wish to achive in later life (career) (Seifert & O'Keefe, 2001).
Students may actively avoid set tasks if they feel that they are above the capability of completing it moreover see no outcome or reason for learning of the task. Work avoidance may also emerge as a passive-aggressive mechanism (Jarvis & Seifert, 2002). Within this passive- aggressive unconscious reaction, pupils will not complete the set task as mean of revenge towards staff members by lowering their levels of effort as the pupils resentment is greater towards staff members than motivation.
WORKPLACE Keller (1983) presents an instructional design model for motivation that is based upon a number of other theories. His model suggests a design strategy that encompasses four components of motivation: arousing interest, creating relevance, developing an expectancy of success, and producing satisfaction through intrinsic/extrinsic rewards.
Conclusion (500) bring data from c/study
Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
Maslow, A Psychosomatic Medicine, 1943, 5, 85-92)
Skinner, B.F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), 193-216.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.
Atkinson, J. & Raynor, O. (1974). Motivation and Achievement. Washington: Winston.
Ames, C. & Ames, R. (1989). Research in Motivation in Education, Vol 3. San Diego: Academic Press.
Malone, T. (1981). Towards a theory of instrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.
Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. Riegeluth (ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.