Motivation in real-life, dynamic, and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies

European Psychologist

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 193-197

  Järvelä, Sanna ^a,b   Volet, Simone ^a,c  

^a Department of Educational Technology ^*  (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^c MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Context; Motivation; Multiple research methodologies; Real life learning environment

Indexed keywords

EID: 9344251631     PISSN: 10169040     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040.9.4.193     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Anderman, L.H. (1999). Expanding the discussion of social perceptions and academic outcomes: Mechanisms and contextual inf uences. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Series Eds.) and T. Urdan (Vol. Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 11. The role of context (pp. 303-336). Stamford, CT: JAI.
2. Anderman, L.H., & Anderman, E.M. (2000). Considering contexts in educational psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychologist, 35, 67-68.
3. Anderson, J.R., Greeno, J.G., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29, 11-13.
4. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Motivated learning: The study of student-situation transactional units. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 41-55.
5. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle N., & Van Merriëboer, J. (Eds.). (2003). Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier.
6. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
7. Browr, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (2000). Adventures in anchored instruction: Lessons from beyond the ivory tower. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 35-99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
11. Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. London: Sage.
12. Harakiewicz, J.M., Barren, K.E., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.
13. Harakiewicz, J.M., Pintrich, P.R., Barron, K.E., Elliot, A.J., & Trash, T.M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638-645.
14. Hickey, D.T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socioconstructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175-193.
15. Järvelä, S., & Niemivirta, M. (2001). Motivation in context: Challenges and possibilities in studying the role of motivation in new pedagogical cultures. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 105-127). London: Pergamon/Elsevier.
16. Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? A reply to Harakiewicz et al. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646-648.
17. Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
18. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
19. Patrick, H. (1997). Social self-regulation: Exploring the relationships between children's social relationship, academic self-regulation, and school performance. Educational Psychologist, 32, 209-220.
20. Perry, N. (Ed.). (2002). Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning (Special issue). Educational Psychologist, 37, 1-3.
21. Pintrich, P. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221-226.
22. Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., & Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10, 76-101.
23. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C, & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190.
24. Veermams, M., & Järvelä, S. (2004). Generalized learning goals and situational coping in inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 32, 269-291.
25. Volet, S.E. (2001a). Emerging trends in recent research on motivation in context. In S.E. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 319-334). London: Elsevier.
26. Volet, S.E. (2001b). Learning and motivation in context: A multidimensional and multi-level, cognitive-situative perspective. In S.E. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 57-82). London: Elsevier.
27. Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications. London: Pergamon/ Elsevier.