There has been substantial debate among researchers as to whether it is appropriate to utilize a cognitive theoretical framework to examine motivation versus a sociocultural model. The traditional school of thinking asserted that actions are influenced through self-efficacy, self- worth, self-attribution, and locus of control. Specifically, cognitive views of motivation focus on internal or cognitive mediational processes influencing behavior. The sociocultural framework departs from the traditional cognitive theory and proposes that cognition is not solely within the individual without reference to the social and cultural contexts that the individual experiences. While the cognitive model is designed to stand alone the sociocultural model emphasizes the interconnectedness of social and cognitive processes. Specifically, this theory views motivation as being shaped by our everyday experiences that include our learning environment, our peers, ethnic values and norms.
I believe for the purposes of examining motivation, that no one theory is more significant than the other. Through utilization of the cognitive perspective on motivation it may assist with clarification on task value, perceived competence, and confidence in task completion. In the classroom, cognitive interventions could be designed to impact students self-perceptions and beliefs. For example, the cognitively based TARGET model provides some suggestions that include allowing students to make more classroom based decisions, self-determined learning pace, use of recognition, and making learning relevant to everyday activities. By implementing the sociocultural framework it offers more flexibility in explaining motivation and perhaps gives the opportunity for more external influences or responsivity to assisting performance. In the classroom, if a student is doing poorly it may not be singularly from lack of ability. Perhaps instead, the student has adopted social norms that do not value educational achievement. Through recognition of such issues, interventions can me implemented to reshape such perceptions. Mediation for this problem may include parental intervention or peer modeling. By utilizing both theories simultaneously it would aid in filling in any potential gaps between theories.
As previously stated, the sociocultural framework does embellish the cognitive theory through the addition of the interconnectedness between both frameworks. In sociocultural theory, the cognitive shift is removed from solely the person and is placed more in an environmental context. As humans, we all learn through symbolic representation. It seems then, that we would also use this type of learning when it comes to motivation. We emulate what we see and what others around us are also doing. Moreover, I believe it is important to note that the sociocultural framework removes all responsibility for motivation of the individual and acknowledges the influence of various factors and contexts that may be equally significant.
Through the understanding of both of these models it can dramatically increase the effectiveness of motivating students in the classroom. I personally found this article to be very thought provoking. I have definitely had what I consider to be non-motivated students in my classroom and have gave much thought as to why they lack motivation and what I can do as an instructor do alleviate this behavior. I guess I always assumed that motivation was more cognitively based and have always held the student responsible for any non-motivational behavior. After reading this article, I now realize that internal student motivation may be only a small piece of the puzzle. Lack of motivation may be due to task difficulty, the classroom environment, the students, the parents, and the social norms of their culture.