Reflection Questions:

Cognitive theorists have researched the influences of such factors as Goal Setting and Goal Orientation,
Self-Efficacy Beliefs (and how they are influenced), and Attributions for one's performance, on an
individual's motivation to achieve. Describe a learning situation (where you were/are either the
"learner" or the "instructor"), and discuss how ONE of these three factors specifically plays or played an
influence in motivating (or not motivating) the learner. Aside from cognitive factors, is there any room
still for the use of external motivators (i.e., reward and punishments) in learning settings, or is this an
"outdated" concept? Briefly discuss your view on this issue.

This week really hit home for me because if I not motivated by something I automatically shut it down or
off. I really related to the reading of workshop worries. During my time as an undergrad, I had the hardest
time getting through Econ (Micro, Macro, statistic); This area was my nemesis and I just wanted to get
through them. All I wanted to do was to get through the class so I could pass. I would learn just enough to
pass the test to forget. I was setting a goal of pass the class, but it was truly all performance goal and I
was not trying to set learning goals. To me, I was not going to use statistic in my future and why in the
world did I need to learn this information and take a test about. After realizing my attitude toward the
class and assessing what about this class I didnt like I realized that I had to change my attitude. I began to
really buckling down and reading the material cover to cover and doing research with examples to help
me. I realized that the reason that I couldnt understand or disliked the class was I didnt understand the
significance of the material I was learning. In learning settings, I am not sure that thinking rewards and
punishments in learning setting is out of date. I believe rewards in any aspect helps with a students
motivation.
After reading about both Ausubel's theory and what is known as "schema" theory (discussed later in the
chapter), what specific similarities and/or differences do you see in terms of their main arguments about
how learning is explained? Explain these in your own words, with examples. Is there one theory that
makes more sense or seems more applicable to you? Why?
The specific similarities are both theories speak about how students file and store information into their
minds. These concepts also determine how students relate old information or learnings to new
information. The main difference between the two is schema there are many steps in between to get to
how the students store and relate information, whereas, Ausubel is direct and forward about how
information is stored and related to events or concepts that a student has learned. For example, if we were
going to give an example of how schema works with a student. Take fruit for example, if a child sees a
green apples and later sees a pear, then the student will register and associate that with an apple. Although
they are not similar in shape they both have a steam and unless the child has been exposed or taught about
different types of fruit, the association will not change until someone explains this to them. After this

explanation, the child will modify her schema. I dont see one concept being different than the other
concept. I believe that they are similar in thought and idea and relate very closely but with varying
differences.