Locus of control is a personal perception about the underlying main causes of life events. The occurrences are believed to be caused by internal or external factors. Externals believe that the behavior is led by fate, luck and other external factors whereas internals believe that behavior is guided by personal efforts and decisions. From the research about locus of control by Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001, older people and people in high-level of administration tend to have more of internal locus control. When designing instruction or training for these groups of people, we should create an autonomy environment in the instruction where learners have enough personal control. However, I will note here that the instructor should first analyze their learners’ competence and self-efficacy so that the instructional and motivational strategies do not mismatch learners’ personal experiences.
I think locus of control and self-efficacy are related in some ways. People with low sense of efficacy may think their success derives from fate. In the classroom, the self-perception has an impact on students’ motivation to learn. If the students think that they cannot do, they will not want to try. This point reminds me of failure-oriented people. Motivation to learn will be worse if the students avoid failure and also have low self-efficacy. Family background is an influence on the learners’ personal point of view on themselves. Past experience of students might be filled with mistakes and errors. Individual difference is getting complicated.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the instructor can at least do something to help uplift students’ self-efficacy or self-perception on competence. Modeling, corrective feedback, skill matching activity can be elements in the lesson. If the students see that other friends can do, they will be motivated to try. If the students see that other friends cannot do and the teacher gives corrective feedback with chance, they will not fear of failure but try harder. The activities in the class can be differentiated to match students’ abilities. Somehow the activities must not be too easy to overcome and must be challenging in a way. According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy requires experiencing through perseverant effort. How the teachers act towards students and classroom supportive environment will increase self-efficacy in students. The learning environment should structure self-comparison and not put emphasis on social comparison.
The so-called mastery aids conducted by the psychologists are applicable in classrooms in some ways. We can design the instruction to help learners gradually develop a sense of coping efficacy like the psychologists do with people with deficient coping performance. The idea of subtasks, working with an expert (competent peer or teacher), and short time exercise are activities in the classroom that imitate psychological therapy.
Coming to people’s self-efficacy during transit to adulthood, I consider high-school activities in the school can be organized for students. Not only classroom activities but also extra-curricular activities do splash experiences to our students. Students can form their sense of self-efficacy strongly if they pass a lot of activities that demand problem-solving skills and social skills. Clubs, sports day, social events and many other school activities are the path to the real world when they enter adulthood. I always support students to join extra activities outside the classroom.
From these Module 4 readings, we found another motivation model. It is MOM the Motivating Opportunities Model developed by Patricia L. Hardre. The author combines main motivational theories and principles and develops them into 7 features for designers to refer to when creating instructions. The model is focused on the design of the instruction rather than the learner point of view. I feel thankful for such a ready-made set of knowledge for the profession of instructional designers and human performance technologists. The 7 features of the model are represented in mnemonic SUCCESS. S stands for situational, U for utilization, C for competence, C for contents, E for emotional, S for social and S for systemic. Every component is accompanied by design questions and motivational implications. The instructors can use this model as a checklist when designing motivational elements in their instructions.
References:
James Neill, What is Locus of Control?, 2006.
Albert Bandura. Self-Efficacy. Stanford University http://des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html July 2012
Patricia L. Hardre. The Motivating Opportunities Model for Performance SUCCESS: Design, Development, and Instructional Implications. Performance Improvement Quarterly; 2009; 22, 1: ProQuest Central. Pg.5
Hi Ornisa,
ReplyDeleteYour analyzes of the article is wonderful. I agree with you in terms of the role of locus of control and its strategy in describing the differences between the types of motivation. Locus of control does not describe deeply teacher's roles in the classroom to motivate learners and strengthen their intrinsic motivation. By using locus of control, learners could use different strategies to present their assignments; I believe this will reflect their attitudes toward instruction and encourage them to be more creative, competence, and productive.
Yes, we acquired new knowledge about new motivation model in these articles. Motivation Oppurtunity Model is another model could be used in instructional design to achieve the desired outcomes. ARCS model focuses on the learner's point of view, on the other hand; MOM depends relies on instructional design. These two points are crucial in the instructional design process; the question is: How can we incorporate these two models together in instructional design?
Ornisa,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. You made mention that, “Coming to people’s self-efficacy during transit to adulthood, I consider high-school activities in the school can be organized for students. Not only classroom activities but also extra-curricular activities do splash experiences to our students.” I couldn’t agree with you more. I found it exciting that we are reading about self-efficacy while the Olympics are happening in London. I find that the Olympics illustrate different examples of all the factors that we have been reading about: internal and external locus of control, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as self-efficacy. In fact every medal has a story behind it of an olympian who had to confront these factors and redefine their lives in order to succeed. These would make valuable class mini-lessons when teaching or illustrating the subject. Very few people get to be Olympians however. Yet most of us have the same opportunity to thrive and develop these skills and mental constructs in High school and Jr. High through competitive sport and the arts. Perhaps if we begin to look at these extra-curriculars in terms of what they provide in student mental growth rather than as extra things that students can do when not studying we may find that these activities are as valuable as the instruction time in class itself.
ha! As I read these blog posts I have am watching the Olympics and was thinking the same sort of thing! I thought back to when I was younger and participated in running. Everyone in my neighborhood was into running and we avidly watched star athletes. While some of us did well, over the years it did become clear that, as least for me, the idea of the Olympics wasn't in my future. But I also was quite clear that it came down not just to ability (I ran marathons as a teenage, and while time-wise I was in the top-10 nationally) I really just didn't have the desire to train at the level required of higher level athletes. But I would say that being an athlete, I learned a lot about my own abilities and limits by participating in what was pretty much an individual sport, but also being part of a team (I did run x-country and the 2-mi on the track in HS). In hindsight, participating in a sport made a huge difference in my perception of self.
Delete