How does motivation develop and why does it change?  These questions are both theoretically and practically important.  At the turn of the century Dewey declared that psychology was, by dint of its study of human beings, fundamentally social.  He proposed a “dual aspect” theory, in which the “social” and the “cognitive” are studied as integral parts of a single phenomenon.  Since then, social cognitive motivation research has developed its “cognitive” focus while neglecting or subsuming its “social” and situational aspects.  Current motivation research examines social aspects of experience primarily through the cognitions of respondents, using mostly survey methodology.  This approach is ill-suited to explaining development and change because it ignores their sources while implying that respondents have conscious access to beliefs and that beliefs are fairly stable.  The question “why” should be answered with the study of people in relationships (Gergen, 1985)

How does motivation develop and why does it change?  These questions are both theoretically and practically important.  At the turn of the century Dewey declared that psychology was, by dint of its study of human beings, fundamentally social.  He proposed a “dual aspect” theory, in which the “social” and the “cognitive” are studied as integral parts of a single phenomenon.  Since then, social cognitive motivation research has developed its “cognitive” focus while neglecting or subsuming its “social” and situational aspects.  Current motivation research examines social aspects of experience primarily through the cognitions of respondents, using mostly survey methodology.  This approach is ill-suited to explaining development and change because it ignores their sources while implying that respondents have conscious access to beliefs and that beliefs are fairly stable.  The question “why” should be answered with the study of people in relationships (Gergen, 1985)

How does motivation develop and why does it change?  These questions are both theoretically and practically important.  At the turn of the century Dewey declared that psychology was, by dint of its study of human beings, fundamentally social.  He proposed a “dual aspect” theory, in which the “social” and the “cognitive” are studied as integral parts of a single phenomenon.  Since then, social cognitive motivation research has developed its “cognitive” focus while neglecting or subsuming its “social” and situational aspects.  Current motivation research examines social aspects of experience primarily through the cognitions of respondents, using mostly survey methodology.  This approach is ill-suited to explaining development and change because it ignores their sources while implying that respondents have conscious access to beliefs and that beliefs are fairly stable.  The question “why” should be answered with the study of people in relationships (Gergen, 1985)

How does motivation develop and why does it change?  These questions are both theoretically and practically important.  At the turn of the century Dewey declared that psychology was, by dint of its study of human beings, fundamentally social.  He proposed a “dual aspect” theory, in which the “social” and the “cognitive” are studied as integral parts of a single phenomenon.  Since then, social cognitive motivation research has developed its “cognitive” focus while neglecting or subsuming its “social” and situational aspects.  Current motivation research examines social aspects of experience primarily through the cognitions of respondents, using mostly survey methodology.  This approach is ill-suited to explaining development and change because it ignores their sources while implying that respondents have conscious access to beliefs and that beliefs are fairly stable.  The question “why” should be answered with the study of people in relationships (Gergen, 1985)

Current discussions and empirical evidence on developmental, learning-related interactions between cognitive and metacognitive competence, motivation, emotion and social interaction has ever more put the social interaction in a spotlight in understanding the power of instruction and in designing new pedagogical cultures. In order to understand individuals’ complex long-term and socially embedded development, behavior and behavioral outcomes, researchers are challenged to reassess and refine the current methodologies. Conventional methodological approaches addressing “static”, unidirectional or linear relationships between isolated variables cannot provide sufficient basis for understanding the complexity and bidirectional, non-linear dynamics and cumulative processes of behavior-in-context. In particular, when the ultimate goal is to reconstruct learning environments to fit all learners, and to help modify social, learning-related interactions among participants, methodologies that help us to gain a more holistic understanding on motivation in learning is a necessity.

Current discussions and empirical evidence on developmental, learning-related interactions between cognitive and metacognitive competence, motivation, emotion and social interaction has ever more put the social interaction in a spotlight in understanding the power of instruction and in designing new pedagogical cultures. Individuals learn and develop over a long periods of time in social and cultural contexts, sharing fundamental experiences and learning outcomes, but they also have unique roles, perspectives, and interpretations in these situations that cannot be reduced to socially shared cultural experiences (e.g., Volet et al., 2006). In order to understand individuals’ complex long-term development, behavior, interpretations and behavioral outcomes, as well as the manifold interactions, researchers are challenged to reassess and refine the current methodologies. Although single-method, conventional methods (like inventories) provide us valuable knowledge on constructs (interest, goals, values, and orientations), which have strong relevance to students’ educational outcomes, they have serious limitations. Conventional methodological approaches addressing “static”, unidirectional or linear relationships between isolated variables cannot provide sufficient basis for understanding the complexity and bidirectional, non-linear dynamics of behavior-in-context and cumulative processes contributing to the increasing match or mismatch between learners and their environments. In particular, when the ultimate goal is to reconstruct learning environments to fit all learners, and to help modify social, learning-related interactions among participants, methodologies that help us to gain a more holistic understanding on motivation in learning is a necessity.

Multi-method approach in the study of real-life, dynamic and socially embedded motivation, emotion and learning

In this presentation, we discuss the need for multi-method research approaches, which include instruments and methods to tap the complexity of real-life, dynamic and socially embedded human motivation, emotion and learning. Multi-method research is needed to design more powerful learning environments, flexible and sensitive enough to produce complex skills and advanced adaptive resources in any student with a unique set of cognitive competencies, values, motivations, and affective tendencies. It serves integrative and context-driven theoretical views putting learning and learning problems into a wider context of adaptation and functional relationships between person and learning environment.

Through rigorous multi-method approach, we can begin to understand the learner as a whole- person-in-context, i.e., as a person with learning processes and outcomes strongly dependent not only on cognitive and metacognitive skills but also on socio-emotional goals, motivations and coping tendencies interacting with the affordances and constraints of the learning environments.  We discuss three qualitative focuses of this approach:  (1) learners’ in multiple relations (e.g., teachers, parents, peers, types of tasks, subject-matter domains) and contexts of activity (e.g., learning, problem-solving, individual, collaborative), (2) change of learner’s behavior across different contexts and behavioral changes as related to contextual factors, and (3) multimodal intrapersonal dynamic relationships, e.g., between motivational, affective and behavioral processes.

Case illustration on the use and value of multi-method approach

The use and value of multi-method approach is demonstrated with a case of a female student named Heli, who had great difficulties in text comprehension accompanied with restlessness and the lack of concentration (Salonen, 2006). She was followed up from third to sixth grade. We will briefly give examples of the numerous multi-method assessments carried out through the follow-up period, and ”triangulation” of these methods in interpreting her motivational and emotional dispositions. These methods consisted of

(1) conventional “static” measurements of and motivational and emotional dispositions (e.g., scales for sense of control and self-concept of attainment, Nicholls, 1978) intended to reveal motivational and socio-emotional dispositions and long–term developmental changes;

(2) dynamic on-line assessments of motivational and emotional changes during extended series of task performances leading to recurrent experiences of failure (or success); these are highly similar to typical school practice and test task sequences and supposed to reveal differential motivational regulation patterns in vulnerable and resilient children (e.g., applications of Lewinian level of aspiration test; Hoppe, 1931);

(3) dynamic on-line assessments of behavioral stability / variation across varying performance contexts (remedial teaching, parent guidance, test-taking), aiming to find out recurrent affect- or motivation-related micro-genetic transaction patterns in different student - adult - task settings leading to “regressive” disorganization or “progressive” organization of cognitive performance and to determine, how generalized or restricted such dynamic patterns are across different tasks and interaction contexts. Our on-line assessment procedure can be seen as a modern application of the pioneering work of Luria (1932) and Lewin and his colleagues (e.g., Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, 1941) addressing affect- and motivation-related changes in the dynamic organization vs. disorganization of cognitive activity.

New digital technologies offer new solutions to laborious methodologies

Finally, we briefly discuss the promise of approaching methodologies and digital technologies, which may importantly widen our possibilities for in-depth analyses of real-life motivation and emotion and offer faster and more economic solutions to otherwise laborious dynamic multi-method research attempting to reconstruct and model the real-life situations. The methods we discuss include dynamic behavioral systems analysis (e.g., Granic & Hollenstein, 2003) and inter-behavioral time pattern analysis (Magnusson, 2000), particularly promising for the analysis of complex, recurrent inter-behavioral patterns. For instance, it is possible to find critical, repetitive, unfavorable behavioral motivational and emotional co-ordinations between the participants, and from this basis to prevent the same dynamics, like teachers’ “automatic” response tendencies to actualize repeatedly (Salonen et. al., 2003). Further, we refer to the combined use of, e.g. eye tracking and observation systems, offers possibilities to synchronize data collection of the eye movements reflecting cognitive activity, and the video recording of the face (with voice), even in a social context when working with a peer. These two different, synchronized sources gives a unique chance to get on-line information of students’ reactions (e.g., affective and cognitive) and to relate them exactly and dynamically to the cognitive task and strategic behavior.