Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T10:26:22.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Phyllis C. Blumenfeld ,
Toni M. Kempler  and
Joseph S. Krajcik
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Phyllis C. Blumenfeld
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Toni M. Kempler
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Joseph S. Krajcik
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

When learning environments are based on learning sciences principles (e.g. project, problem, and design approaches), they are more likely to be motivating for students. The principles – such as authenticity, inquiry, collaboration, and technology – engage learners so that they will think deeply about the content and construct an understanding that entails integration and application of the key ideas of the discipline. For a learning sciences approach to work, students must invest considerable mental effort and must persist in the search for solutions to problems. In many ways, newly designed environments based on learning sciences principles require students to be more motivated than do traditional environments (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Although there is evidence that students respond positively to these learning environments (Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino, 2001; Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000), it remains unclear whether students are willing to invest the time and energy necessary for gaining the desired level of understanding. Many classroom activities in which students enthusiastically participate do not necessarily get students cognitively engaged.

The concept of cognitive engagement couples ideas from motivation research with ideas regarding learning strategy use. It includes students' willingness to invest and exert effort in learning, while employing the necessary cognitive, metacognitive, and volitional strategies that promote understanding (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). The use of strategies can be superficial or deep. Superficial cognitive engagement involves the use of memory and elaboration strategies.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 475 - 488
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.Google Scholar
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students' involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships in children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In Fishman, B. & O'Connor-Divelbiss, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 221–227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kempler, T. M., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2004, April). Re-examining the influence of competition structures in group contexts: Implications for social and cognitive interactions in small groups. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mergendoller, J. R., Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (in press). Pervasive, anagement of project based learning: Teachers as guides and facilitators. In Evertson, C. M. & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students' motivation and strategies in project-based learning. Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373–404). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). CSILE: Trying to bring students into world 3. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15–31). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In Berliner, D. & Calfee, R. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×