The Opposite of Control: A Deweyan Perspective on

Intrinsic Motivation in “After 3” Technology Programs

Published in Computing in Human Behavior, 16, 313-338, 2000.

David Wong, Michigan State University

BBecky Packard, Mount Holyoke College

Mark Girod, Michigan State University

Kevin Pugh, Michigan State University

Address all correspondence to:

David Wong, 440 Erickson Hall, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

Co-authors:

Becky Wai-Ling Packard, Dept. of Psychology and Education, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075

Mark Girod, Erickson Hall, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

Kevin Pugh, Erickson Hall, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034


Abstract

A central feature of the design of many “After 3” technology programs is the assumption that student learning and motivation requires that they have choice and control of their activity. Similarly, the dominant cognitive-rational perspective of motivation portrays effective learners as having control of themselves and their environment. In this article, we build on Dewey’s (1934) aesthetics and epistemology – as most fully developed in “Art as Experience” - to suggest that to be deeply engaged in learning, to be truly moved, requires not only control, but also the “opposite of control.” In “Art as Experience” Dewey proposed that aesthetic experience – compelling, transformative experience – requires doing (acting on the world), reflection (standing back from the world), and undergoing (being acted upon by the world). Furthermore, grasping the meaning of these experiences emerges through a qualitative sense in addition to intentional analysis and reflection. Thus, intrinsic motivation, or what we shall call transformative experience, finds a balance between control and its opposite. We elaborate our conception of the “opposite of control” and discuss how this idea helps us appreciate heretofore unilluminated qualities of intrinsic motivation in “After 3” technology programs.


The importance of learner control in “After 3” technology and programs the role of learner control

A common belief to which several successful “After 3” programs subscribe is that participants should be given a large to degree of personal freedom - freedom to choose what, how, and to what degree. For example, the Computer Clubhouse Network centered in the Media lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describes their purpose as being to…

encourage participants to discover their interests and apply their own ideas. Given the support and freedom to pursue their own ideas, young people get beyond their disinterest and apathy about learning, and develop the internal motivation to learn and grow (The Computer Clubhouse, 1999).

Similarly, the role of student control and choice is central into the rationale for the 5th Dimensions program developed at the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC) at the University of California at San Diego.

The first step in participating in the Fifth Dimension begins with children deciding on a goal(s) for engaging in Fifth Dimension activities. Next, children must decidewhere they will begin their journey in the Maze.

Activities must allow children a substantial element of personal choice and self-direction within an overall structure designed to promote all participants’ development of level of expertise (5th Dimensions Clearinghouse, 1999).

The program that we have observed and discuss in this article Kids Learning in Computer Klubhouses (KLICK!). KLICK! is an “After 3,” technology-rich, community learning center designed to support adolescent and adult learning using the latest in computer technology and resources. KLICK! currently serves ten middle schools and their communities in both rural and urban areas throughout the state of Michigan. These schools were targeted as those potentially "isolated," in their lack of technology or lack of community support and successful outreach.

KLICK! is another example of an “After 3” program designed around ideas of student choice, interests, and personal freedom. According to Yong Zhao, KLICK! project designer and director,

"Kids define what learning should be like. Rarely are kids afforded the legitimacy to decide how and what to learn. Largely, adults decide that agenda. We provide access and assistance, kids bring personal interests and ideas” (Zhao, 1999).

KLICK! attempts to provide students virtually unrestricted access to technology, resources, and support and let them decide how to use these as partners in learning. Expertise and scaffolding comes from adult members of KLICK!, other student participants both within their local clubhouse or at other sites around the state, on-line help materials, as well as the staff at Michigan State University. KLICK! kids can learn as much or as little as they choose of whatever they choose. Some kids choose to only play games and they are not discouraged to do so. Choice is critical, in fact, evaluation studies suggest that without it, a KLICK! clubhouse struggles.

One of the most successful KLICK! clubhouses is at a small school located in rural northwest Michigan. The two local site coordinators have let the metaphor of 'clubhouse' guide their actions and management style. Says one of the coordinators,

"We want kids to feel like this (clubhouse) is their place. It belongs to them and they can use it however they'd like. My job is to make sure access is provided fairly, that nothing gets destroyed, and to provide whatever expertise I can - if they ask."

"Freedom to learn" and "choice" have not emerged as the guiding principles in all the clubhouses. The site coordinator at one of the struggling KLICK! clubhouse has treated it as an extension of the regular school day. She used formal training activities, limited access to certain software and peripherals, and employed a timeline to guide the 'administration' of her 'curriculum.' Unfortunately, student participation at this clubhouse has dwindled to just a few kids.

Control and theories of motivation and learning

Research on technology and motivation

The belief that student control is a critical element of motivation and learning found in the design and practice of “After 3” programs is grounded in the theoretical and empirical work on motivation and technology. We turn to a large review piece on technology and learning by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University (CTGV, 1996) to cite a few examples of the role of learner choice and control.

Lepper (1989; Lepper & Cordova, 1992) has been the central figure in work on the relationship between motivation and technology. His research supports the idea that control – along with fantasy, curiosity, and challenge – is a critical feature in what makes particular technologies intrinsically motivating.

Collins (1996) has contrasted the view of motivation associated with CAI to a view of motivation associated with educational technologies based on principles of constructivism. Whereas the former focuses on embellishment as the source of motivation, the latter focuses on authentic activity as the source of motivation. From a constructivist perspective, motivation is often associated with the opportunity to find meaning and relevance in an activity, the opportunity to be self-determining and self-regulating, and opportunity to engage in problem solving. Hence, authentic activity is often advocated because it provides the needed motivational conditions: i.e. “real-word” problems or situations and open-ended problem solving task which allows for self-regulation, self-determination, and choice. Examples of such work include simulation programs, such as SimCity which allows students to experience what it’s like to run a city (Bransford & Stein, 1993); exploratory programs, such as Geometer’s Sketchpad which allows students to explore geometric relationships by manipulating geometric figures (Jackiw, 1991); programming software, such as Logo which allows students to construct their own computer programs; and problem solving programs, such as The Jasper Series which allows to students to try to solve the reality-based problem of getting an injured eagle to safety (CTGV, 1992). Various researchers have reported that students show high levels of interest when engaged in these authentic tasks (CTGV, 1996).

From a social constructivist perspective, motivation is often conceived of as stemming from participation in a learning community (Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996). Hence, technologies designed to foster learning communities through the support of collaborative knowledge construction and problem solving reflect the idea that motivation comes from participation. A well known example of such technologies is CSILE (computer support for knowledge-building communities) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). CSILE is a computer system that fosters collaborative knowledge construction among students. In doing so, it also supports intentional, self-directed learning. Theoretically, students’ motivation to learn in such an environment stems from their opportunity to participate in the community and be self-directed.

Each of these perspectives on motivation and technology make reference to the issue of choice, control, self-determination, or self-direction in some form or another. The work on CAI suggest that adding choice to computer programs can increase interest. The constructivist perspective argues that motivation stems from opportunities to be self-determining and self-directed, and that computer technologies which engage students in authentic tasks provide students with these opportunities. Finally, the social constructivist perspective argues that motivation can arise from participation in technology supported learning communities which support intentional, self-directed learning.

Theories of motivation and learning

These perspectives on motivation and technology – especially with regard to the role of learner control – pick up on long-held assumptions in general theories of motivation and learning. The individuals’ ability to separate themselves from the object or situation has been a central feature characterizing higher level psychological functioning (for examples specific to motivation, see Deci, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Nicholls, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Desirable learner attributes such as objective thought, rational thought, reflection, and critical thinking all describe individuals as “standing back” from the activity or object at hand. The ability to set self apart from the world or the activity is related to controlling both oneself and the activity – another key characteristic of higher level functioning (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). For example, metacognitive theory posited a separate layer of cognition that can, then, operate on and control regular cognition. How else could an individual control cognition without being somehow separated from it? Even for Vygotsky (cf. 1978) – from the socio-historic perspective, rather than the cognitive-rational perspective that has dominated much work in motivation - the development of language is critical because it functions as a tool for controlling thinking and action. For instance, Vygotsky (1986) attached considerable significance to what he labeled “scientific” concepts. Such concepts are important to Vygotsky because he believed that their hierarchical, systematic nature, allowed a person to stand back (decontextualize) and reflect on the concept; that is be able to separate the concept from the object or event it refers to (Wertsch, 1985).

The cognitive perspective is, in large part, a response to more behaviorist, extrinsic ways of thinking about motivation. Instead of being simply reactions to environmental stimuli, cognitive theories portray human activity as being thoughtful, planful, and, thus, under the control of the individual. Cognitive theorists developed constructs firmly grounded in the idea of control to account for differences in individual’s learning, motivation, attitude. The following are some examples of these constructs:

-  self-regulation, (Paris, S. G. & Newman, R. S., 1990; Pintrich, P. & DeGroot, E. V., 1990);

-  learned helplessness, (Dweck, C. S., 1975);

-  mastery orientation, (Ames, C. & Archer, J., 1988);

-  perceptions of competence and control, (Weiner, B.,1986);

-  self-determination, DeCharms, R. (1976), Deci, E. L. (1980).


The opposite of control: and A Deweyan’s image perspective onof learning

The importance of being able to step back from experience and to reflect, make sense of it, and control it can not be disputed. Our concern is that attention to this dimension of experience comes at the expense of attending to other vital interactions between the person and the world. In this article, we build on Dewey’s (1934) aesthetics and epistemology – as most fully developed in “Art as Experience” - to suggest that to be deeply engaged in learning, to be truly moved requires not only control, but also the “opposite of control. ” We will make the point that transformative experience – our term for intrinsic motivation - can only occur when the distance and distinction between person and world decreases, rather than increases. Dewey writes,

“The uniquely distinguishing feature of esthetic experience is exactly the fact that no such distinction of self and object exists in it, since it is esthetic in the degree in which organism and environment cooperate to institute an experience in which the two are so fully integrated that each disappears” (Dewey, LW10:36).

The person can not step outside the experience – and, thus, can not control it in the conventional sense. To do so would fundamentally change the experience. We will argue that in a Deweyan account, learning and motivation can not be fully understood from perspectives that position the individual separate from the activity or world. We suggest that important qualities of motivation - its essence - lie inside the experience of learning. That is, rather than just considering the value of an experience from the outside, we suggest one must consider the value of the experience itself.

Doing and reflecting: An incomplete and problematic portrait of learning

In education, “learning by doing” has become a popular one-line synopsis of Dewey’s philosophy. Although action is central to Dewey’s epistemology, one merely has to consider any example of mindless activity to see how this characterization can only be either an incomplete or incorrect characterization of Dewey’s perspective on learning. Mere “doing” does not assure learning. Most educators realize this simple point and, as a result, recognize the importance of the activity of reflection - a second element often associated with Dewey’s perspective on learning. One learns by both doing something and then reflecting upon what one has done. Many cognitive perspectives on learning are at a basic level some elaboration of these two components and portray ideal learners or learning environments as optimizing opportunities to do and reflect. For example, the Fostering a Community of Learners (FCL) classrooms designed by Brown and Campione (1990, 1994) emphasize “learning by doing” and metacognitive reflection. Likewise, many of the technology environments mentioned above (e.g. the Jasper series, CSILE) were designed to support student action (exploration, problem solving, participation in a learning community, etc.) and reflection.