Motivation

Obviously, from looking back over this semester's work my dissertation work will have something to do with motivation. It is the tie that binds everything I write, or impressions I make.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
PROJECT BASED LEARNING
ARCS
COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIPS
MAKER MOVEMENT
ARTS EDUCATION
CREATIVITY
VISIBLE THINKING
IPAD STRATEGIES
TECHNOLOGY AND MOTIVATION

Areas I see limited research:
art classes and intrinsic motivation, especially when trying to quantify creativity
motivating effects of technology
Google+ Communities as effective discussion boards. Does using Google+ communities for discussion increase the level of motivation in the art classroom?

Does using technology in the K-12 (or 9-12) art classroom affect motivation?

Technology and Motivation

Does using the ARCS model increase quantity and quality of AP Studio art student's work?

Levels of motivation

Motivation types

The ARCS model could provide a template for guiding AP students through the AP portfolio creation process.

Thoughts on ARCS, the 6 C's and motivation.
Most of this is from another discussion post, but it is very relevant to have in this blog also.

ARCS – I really enjoyed the section on the PROCESS of motivational design. Particularly the section on analyzing the audience. I believe I use many components of the ARCS model in my classroom, some more than others, but the process has me rethinking much of my work thus far in motivation, particularly how to design instruction to promote creativity in the classroom. Can this be done through using the ARCS model specifically? But on to the question, which I am looking at through the process of designing instruction.

If I were to analyze my art classroom audiences I think I would classify projects with student choices imbedded as high. Exercises, because the relevance is often not understood, would be low on the attention scale. Most students are in my upper level art classes because they want to be, so attention in general is high, especially when using a new medium, of course unless that new medium is related to something that they previously have confidence issues with. See, how this is all interrelated! An analysis of the audience before each class period would be a very valid task. I do this in general, but I could see creating an analysis form for me to do before each day starts. Could a form like this be generated and it's usefulness tested?

Well, well, well. Just when I think I have a clear picture on my goals for the doctoral program, along comes some new information that makes me question what I am doing and the route I am taking.

The ARCS models and the 6 C’s made me rethink my whole idea for researching motivation. I have been researching intrinsic motivation, creativity and ways to enhance intrinsic motivation. My thought is that controlling for extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation could be enhanced and creativity in the art classroom could be affected. More intrinsically motivated students = more creative work? Maybe, maybe not. However, designing for intrinsic motivation is almost counter-intuitive, and maintaining or undermining extrinsic motivators, difficult to measure. Not to mention the challenge in measuring creativity. We can measure quantity of creative ideas, use a portfolio assessment, use a panel of independent judges, so I still think it’s doable.

This semester’s information on qualitative and quantitative research has me realizing that I need to be sure I can quantify using good, reliable methods if that is the direction I choose to take. Any research needs to be able to be replicated, I need to investigate measurement instruments already available, and consider things such as sample variances.

So, ARCS. Very interesting. I seem to be using this intuitively often, some components more than others. Could instruction be designing using the arcs model specifically and then measure creativity? Does the ARCS model of motivation influence creativity in the high school art room? Hmmmmm….

Seems a more straightforward question.

UPCOMING POSTS:

Lessons planned with the ARCS model

Analyzing individual AP ART students using the ARCS model

Thoughts on ARCS, the 6 C's and motivation in general. 

Spent the past 10 days in China visiting schools and learning about the Chinese education system with other educators from around the country. Due to lack of wifi, doing anything else was difficult, but allowed for lots of time for reflection. Particularly interesting to me was the Chinese take on Project Based Learning and creativity. The Chinese we spoke with used a lot of American education buzzwords: Project Based Learning, collaborative learning, technology infusion, distance learning, experiential learning. But they seemed to be just for show, not really implemented. The majority of instruction we saw was that of teacher in front of the room lecturing and students taking notes. I saw one classroom where students were at the board working on problems, and in another, taught by an American teacher questions were being asked, with little to no response. One elementary school had an amazing "discovery" lab. One which would rival any children's science museum. But again, it seemed just for show, the students were here playing with the displays, we were not privy to how this center was actually used to promote thinking and learning. In one of the high school settings (a boarding school of 6000 10th - 12th graders) the term project based learning was tossed around a great deal. We were shown (empty) classrooms for science experiments, robotics, and drivers ed. When pressed though, we were told the students got to use these rooms 2 times a week. And considering the number of students at the school, it did not seem that many would benefit from these classrooms, or that there was any type of teacher facilitation, scaffolding or other instructional methods being employed during the "free" research time twice a week. 

The other idea discussed was creativity, and the nurturing of the whole child. While I saw many beautiful artworks created, most work, with the exception of an elementary school ceramics class, stressed copying master work over creative expression. In one elementary class there was a large variety of artworks being created, some coloring book type, some more creative, but it was such a wide assortment, with little teacher interaction, one wonders if this class was just set up for show. It seemed improbable that these diverse projects all were taking place in the same lessons time frame. In another class students were interpreting a Rousseau painting, this was one of the only examples of the taxonomy of interpretation being used.

Very typical in Asian culture, art and apprenticeships have a long history, and technical prowess is highly praised over artistic interpretation. 

Given the huge number of students needing to be educated, the large classroom sizes (50-60 students in a class), structure is definitely needed. Is it even possible to implement effectively the type of student centered learning we try to facilitate here in the States? The entire cultural structure of China seems an antithesis to such educational practices, but the educators we met would like us to believe they are striving more towards those practices. This is a fairly new strategy for the Chinese, it will be interesting to see if it actually will be embraced, or continue to be superficial buzzwords. 

As far as how this applies to my research.....high levels of extrinsic motivation abound here. There is a huge amount of pressure to get into the good schools, and attend universities outside of China. Intrinsic motivation, and the creative thinking that comes from engaging in learning simply for the sake of learning, seems to be undervalued here. It makes me curious to find out how Chinese students fare in a variety of American University classes. Do they struggle more in settings where ill structured problem solving is stressed? Adjusting for language barriers would be something a researcher would have to consider. Overall a very interesting trip, one which I will ponder for quite a long time.

I would like to know if using the visible thinking strategies from Harvard's Project Zero site makes a difference in the number of ideas generated in a creative thinking assignment.
As this doctoral class progresses I find myself with more questions, but also beginning the process of fine tuning my ideas about how to conduct such research. Up until now I have just used the visible thinking strategies in a fairly haphazard way, and because even by using this random method, I see a difference, it compels me and inspires me to move forward using a more methodical approach.
Chapter 9 had me making some notes in the margins.
Independent Variable = visible thinking activities
Dependent Variable = number of ideas generated
I am still deciding on the best way to quantify the dependent variable.
I see a few ways:
number of ideas generated when given a brainstorming task
quality of work generated after using a visible thinking strategy technique
student reflections on work
Obviously some of these lean more towards a qualitative approach. The first could be done quantitatively using the quasi-experimental approach: control group, time-series design. I could use the strategies sometimes and other times use my traditional methods of introducing a creative thinking assignment.
The other note I made was on the issue of control when using two different classes, which is what I was thinking of doing to begin. I see now that it would probably be best to use just one class. My art 2 classes are so different, a major potential threat to validity according to the Campbell and Stanley list would be maturation and selection. One of the classes has a much higher proportion of high school seniors, and this would definitely cause the groups to be unequal. The classes also meet at different times, are subject to different interruptions, and have different skills levels overall.

No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.

Ansel Adams

It's Saturday. I posted in my blog about my high school art classes and our adventures with iPads and visible thinking, I posted numerous posts in our discussions board, and now I am posting on this blog.
I think two thoughts:
A. There must be a way to consolidate all these discussions.
B. Perhaps this is the way of communication. We will have multiple decisions using multiple online forums and formats. One issue is though, are we repeating ourselves over and over, or are the audiences different so its a way to reach and have our voice be heard over a larger area?

All these discussions posts being made by me personally, as well as the discussion board work my students are doing in their Google+ communities really has me thinking.
Me & Thinking. Not a good combo. Usually leads to more work for me. 
But whatever.
I REALLY want to know why my students behave and respond and react the way they do in these discussion boards.

This is what I thought would happen:

• Me or a student would post a question.
• Students would respond thoughtfully to the question.
• Other students would respond to the responses. 
• These online discussions would lead to further investigations into the subjects and prompt conversations outside of the discussion forum.
• They would use the community outside of school on their smart phones, tablets, etc.
• Students would +1 interesting comments leading to large numbers of +'s on popular posts.

This is what is happening:

• I post a question and one or two students answer short answer, albeit thoughtful ones, and other than that I am basically ignored.
• I make the students post questions.
• Their questions get better after they see questions posted by other students.
• They respond, but half the time not to the question specifically.
• They tell us a lot what they like.
• They do take time to think about what they are posting, but it still suffers disconnect.
• They make fun of me for my enthusiasm!
• They begrudgingly +1 post, they will +1 photos of themselves and classmates however. 
• They do not read comments above their own.
• They do not read the whole forum, concentrating instead on what catches their eye.

Exceptions to the rule: the Resharer: finds all the funny trending stuff and reshares.
                               the Questioner: does ask insightful questions, gets more responses than I do
                               the Commenter: comments on everything, short to the point
                               the Friday nighter: comments and posts on Friday or Saturday nights, mostly                                      either funny stuff or thoughtful commentary.

We read classmates' bibliographies this week and some of my classmates found some interesting articles that I think address the phenomena I am observing.

Clarke, S. (2011). Peer Interaction and Engagement Through Online Discussion Forums: A Cautionary Tale. Liverpool Law Review, 32(2), 149-163. Retrieved September 6, 2013 from http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=65243283&site=ehost-live

Sarah Schrire, Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis, Computers & Education, Volume 46, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 49-70, ISSN 0360-1315. Retrieved on October 16, 2013 from http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-02725-004&site=ehost-live

Bai, H. (2009). Facilitating Students' Critical Thinking in Online Discussion: An Instructor' Experience. Journal Of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 156-164. Retrieved on September 16, 2013 from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.2.4.pdf

Chen, S & Caropreso, E. (2004).  Influence of Personality on Online Discussion.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning.  Retrieved on September 16, 2013 from: http://www.openu.ac.il/Personal_sites/download/Avner-Caspi/Caspi_et_al_2006.pdf

Smith, C. & Winking-Diaz, A.  (2004).  Increasing Students Interactivity in an Online Course.  Journal of Interactive Online Learning.  Retrieved on September 16, 2013 from: http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v2/n3/increasing-students-interactivity-in-an-online-course#.UlKikCSoWyQ