Similarities and Differences
In constructing my comments re: the Rueda & Dembo article, my first thought was "brain vs. emotion" in the comparison of the two theories. Obviously this is too simplistic, so I will elaborate.
Student motivation within the framework of cognition development appears to be based on individual "brain" stimulation. It could be easier for a teacher to encourage motivation in the student that is recognized as capable. Through scaffolding and other teacher/student techniques, the one-on-one molding of a student and development of motivation is most probably successful. As theorized in information processing, the student who has great background knowledge will build on this and continue to garner more success. And this academic success will be easily measurable. This passing on of mastery goals is fulfilling for both teacher and student.
Within the sociocultural framework, motivation is based on an overall development of an entire atmosphere of enthusiasm for learning. Students realize that they are part of a larger group and can operate within the group. Both frameworks stress mastery goals, and both argue against extrinsic rewards, ability grouping and public competition, but with the sociocultural approach the task of the teacher is to motivate an entire classroom of learners. This involves getting the students "psyched" to learn for learning’s sake, and perhaps begins with an emotional response to the teacher and the material presented. Ideally, internalization is the goal.
The shortcoming that I perceive in the sociocultural approach, and many other educational concepts, is that the theory is totally applicable and successful under what I call "optimum conditions". A sociocultural approach to motivation to learn is a great concept if the teachers are superior, or trained well, and the schools have great educational tools, and the students can continue learning in their home environment. But what happens in "real life" in an inner city school, where the SES is on the low end, the school itself is lacking in educational materials, and the general sociocultural atmosphere of learning is depressing. If the social situation is "in the dumper", the job to apply this approach in this type of classroom is daunting to say the least. The good educator, though excited about the task, quite often is exhausted in continually attempting to foster this educational high.
Having said this, perhaps there is no place to go but up with the proper application of the sociocultural approach. It is just possible that a clever, committed and dedicated teacher and staff could build on the existing social situation and achieve great things. This would just be a very difficult undertaking. Perhaps teachers, like ER nurses, should be "platooned" in and out of these difficult learning situations that become so physically and emotionally draining.
In general, I perceive that actual educational experience in the classroom of the best teachers to be a "both –and" situation. I conceive of the classroom of the committed teacher to be using the sociocultural framework to present concepts to the class at large with the goal of exciting all the students to motivation to learn. As the article points out, this motivation may not translate to quantifiable and testable outcomes in terms of fabulous grades, but rather in qualitative results that may be observed, or just produce a general liking for learning. Certainly, internalization of mastery goals, as well as other social goals, such as prosocial behavior, is the object of education in general. This may actually be a result of both types of motivational frameworks.
In completing a small qualitative study this semester, I think I may have just such an example to share. I am interested in determining how students learn values and morals, specifically within the Catholic school setting. I have done some gathering of data on the quantitative side: peer nominations, grades in religion, and Diocesan test scores. But I wanted to investigate how the students themselves perceived their learning situations through a self-report questionnaire, and individual interviews. A cross-section of students agreed to participate in the study – students with great grades and some with mediocre grades. (As a school administrator, I am able to access this information.) The interviews were most revealing.
At least in this particular school setting, there is a fair amount of "both-and" going on in the motivation department. A number of the students with great grades expressed their love of and appreciation for the moral atmosphere and religious learning taking place at this school. As well, the students who do not have great grades were also equally ecstatic regarding the value of their religion classes and the overall atmosphere of the school. Both were able to name teachers who were great role models, and also name other students who also served as role models. This certainly passes as internalization of the goals of Catholic education, achieved through the general social interaction within their classrooms, regardless of the academic success. Some of the students appear to be individually motivated and strive for superior grades, while others internalized the same general values, though not being able to show academic success as their own.
As well, in my experience teaching social studies some years ago, motivation within the sociocultural framework was (unknowingly) the goal of my lessons. Turning historical facts into fun was my goal. In some measure, it was the interaction of the students and their own enthusiasm for a particular area or method of learning that became the "hook" for fellow students who perhaps would otherwise have ignored efforts at motivation. While certainly not all students achieved stellar grades, it is my contention that many students enjoyed learning their social studies because fellow students were enthusiastic about it.
It is perhaps in this application that both of these educational theories on motivation can be complementary. As expressed before, my main concern is how does the student teacher come into contact with all these theories and thus be able to make the best attempt at their first experience in the classroom.