Doctoral Study Man Der Son

8/14/2019 Doctoral Study Man Der Son

1/131

Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Michael Anderson

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,and that any and all revisions required bythe review committee have been made.

Review CommitteeDr. James Mitchell, Committee Chairperson, Education FacultyDr. Donald Wattam, Committee Member, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Denise DeZolt, Ph.D.

Walden University2008


2/131

ABSTRACT

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary SchoolStudents

by

Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008M.A., City University, 1996

B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of EducationWalden University

Walden UniversityMay 2008


3/131

ABSTRACT

More pressure than ever is placed on standardized test scores. Writing scores are

generally the lowest among content areas tested. This correlational mixed-methods study

explored the relationship between prompt choices, student engagement, and standardized

writing test scores of intermediate-level students from a suburban elementary school. The

study examined whether students (a) are more motivated when provided with choices, (b)

perform at a higher level when more engaged or provided with choices, and 9c) what role

gender plays in both writing scores and engagement variables associated with writing.

The researcher used concurrent triangulation strategy for data collection on student

perceptions of engagement when provided varied levels of options during writing tests.

The study integrated data from student surveys, interviews, and writing test scores

conducted over a three-month period. Only 24 of the 73-student population met the

criteria for participation in the study. Due to the small sample size, and based on

recommendations from the doctoral study committee members, the researcher used

randomized test-retest measures. The measure of effect was determined using the Pearson

correlation while ANOVA provided for the analysis of means and engagement levels.

The study indicated relationships between writing prompts, student achievement, and

perceived levels of engagement, which added new information for social change by

illuminating characteristics important to student engagement for the promotion of lifelong

learning across both genders. Improved test scores positively impact the community,

school, and student. Increased student engagement reinforces the development of life

long learning. Studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable

writing experiences contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency.


4/131

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary SchoolStudents

by

Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008M.A., City University, 1996

B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of EducationWalden University

Walden University

MAY 2008


5/131

DEDICATION

This is dedicated to Sandra Anderson. She encouraged the pursuit of this venture,

helped edit along the way, and she is the only person who can understand what it took to

complete this study


6/131

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................vLIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...................................1Introduction..........................1Problem Statement...........................2Nature of the Study..........................3Research Questions..............................................................................................................3Purpose Statement........................4Social Change......................................................................................................................5Assumptions.........................................................................................................................5Limitations...........................................................................................................................5Delimitations........................................................................................6Validity................................................................................................................................6Summary and Transition......................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................9Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments..................9

Introduction........................9Standardized Writing Tests ...........................................................................................9Gender......................12

Theories of Motivation..............15Introduction..........................15Behavioral Views of Motivation..........................16Social Learning Theory .......................19Cognitive Views of Motivation . ............................................................21Humanistic Views of Motivation ....................25The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation..................................................32Other Peoples Expectations ...................................................................................34Introduction of Roles...................35Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment....................36Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity.....................36

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................39Introduction: Quantitative and Qualitative Design ...............39

Setting..........................................................................................................................40

Sample..........................................................................................................................41Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................43

Research Question One................................................................................................43Question One Hypotheses............................................................................................43Research Question Two...............................................................................................44Question Two Hypotheses...........................................................................................44Research Question Three.............................................................................................45Question Three Hypotheses.........................................................................................45


7/131

iii

Data Collection............................................................................................................45Data Analysis...............................................................................................................47

Qualitative Design.............................................................................................................47Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................49Purpose.........................................................................................................................49Method.........................................................................................................................50Data Collection............................................................................................................50Data Analysis...............................................................................................................51

Summary............................................................................................................................51

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA......................................52Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................52

Research Question One................................................................................................54Research Question Two...............................................................................................56Research Question Three.............................................................................................59Summary......................................................................................................................61

Qualitative design..............................................................................................................62Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................62Qualitative Data Analysis............................................................................................64Summary......................................................................................................................66

Triangulation......................................................................................................................68

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............70Introduction........................................................................................................................70Conclusions........................................................................................................................71

No-Choice Writing Prompts........................................................................................72Multiple-Choice Writing Prompts...............................................................................72Open-Choice Writing Prompts....................................................................................72

Recommendations..............................................................................................................73Summary............................................................................................................................75

REFERENCES......78

APPENDIX A: LETTER...................................................................................................83

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PERMISSION.........................................................................84

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PERMISSION...................................................................86

APPENDIX D: SURVEY..................................................................................................88

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.....................................................................90

APPENDIX F: ORAL CONSENT....................................................................................92


8/131

iv

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW ASSENT...........................................................................93

APPENDIX H: SURVEY ASSENT..................................................................................95

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT....................................................................97

CURRICULUM VITAE..................................................................................................120


9/131

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. ANOVA Results Between Writing Prompts and Engagement Levels................59

Table 2. ANOVA Results Between Prompt Choices and Gender-Based EngagementLevels ................................................................................................................................61

Table 3. Comparison of Commonality Between Two Established Qualitative AnalysisApproaches .......................................................................................................................65

Table 4. Categorical Interviewee Responses.....................................................................67


10/131

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement during writing

prompts of different levels of choice.................................................................................57

Figure 2. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement when matched with

gender during writing prompts of different levels of choice.............................................60


11/131

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

This is a day and age where a students test scores influence the perception of an

educators professional competence. If a teacher has a group who score well on the

writing, reading, and mathematical portions of a state test, the teacher receives

commendation for having done a good job with the students assigned to them. If a group

of students fails to meet the established standard, the teacher or school responsible for the

students receives repercussions from the community, administrators, or the state board of

education because the students have not performed in an acceptable manner. High-stakes,

standardized test scores are even having a direct impact on property values. Hevesi

(2004) stated, There is no question that property values are directly correlated with

schools' test scores (p.1). According to Dougherty, Harrelson, Maloney, Murphy, Smith,

Snow, and Zannoni, D. (2007),

Our findings indicate that elementary school test scores are significantly andpositively correlated with single-family home prices, controlling for housecharacteristics and neighborhood effects. For homes located in geographicallysimilar neighborhoods and very close to school attendance boundaries, a 12percentage point increase (or one standard deviation) in the number of fourth-graders meeting the state achievement test goal is associated with a 2.81% (or$5,065 increase) in the price of an average home. (p. 2)

Often test standards escalate each year, based on the previous years group scores. This

practice does not take the specific needs of the current group into consideration, nor does

it factor in any unusual circumstances, such as the implementation of a new curriculum or

changes in the staffing at a school. Regardless, accountability for student performance on

standardized tests ultimately falls on the teacher and the school.


12/131

2

With the increased pressure to produce a class of students who can perform well

on the states standardized test, states, districts, and local schools have spent many hours

reviewing how the students have done in the past, what has worked, and what has not.

Marzano (2003) stated that there is a clear connection between a students engagement

and her or his level of achievement; and that if a student is engaged in his or her learning,

that student will have a greater likelihood of content mastery (p. 144). Stiggins (2001)

stated, We cannot separate affect and achievement from one another in the classroom

(p. 328). Hawley and Rollie (2001) agree that the engaged student has a better chance of

being successful; and propose that a teacher can help facilitate a high degree of

motivation by utilizing a students knowledge base (previous knowledge based on

learning or experiences), things that the student perceives as interesting, and choices

made by the student (p. 17). Chapter two of this document examines standardized testing

and theories of motivation in detail.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in elementary schools across the United States related to

intermediate-level students consistently scoring lower on standardized writing tests than

in other academic areas (National Center, 2002). According to Connell and Guzelmann

(2004), the average intermediate level student is two years behind the standard in the

academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

(OSPI) for Washington state published results for 2005-2006 stating that 57.7% of

fourth-grade students met the writing proficiency standard, compared to 62.1% who met

the math standard, and 82.4% who met the reading standard.


13/131

3

Nature of the Study

This mixed-methods study used a concurrent triangulation strategy to collect

data on student perceptions of engaged writing, when the students were provided with

varying levels of options during writing prompts, and compared these data to the

standardized test scores of the same students. The study integrated data from student

surveys, interviews, and writing test scores conducted concurrently over a three-month

period. The use of the Pearson correlation coefficient established whether there is a

relationship between level of choice and level of student engagement. One-way analysis

of variance (ANOVA) provided for the analysis of group means and attitude levels

between male and female students when the participants received varying levels of

prompt options or choices on writing assignments. ANOVA also provided for the

analysis between writing-test scores when compared to levels of student engagement. The

data collected from the interviews was coded, synthesized, and triangulated with the data

collected via the surveys and writing assessments.

Research questions

1. Is there a relationship between a students perceived level of engagement and

standardized writing-test scores for intermediate-level students in suburban elementary

schools (quantitative)?

2. Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing

assignments when provided with choice of content (quantitative)?


14/131

4

3. Is there a difference in the students perceived level of engagement between

intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied

degrees of choice pertaining to content (quantitative)?

4. What variables do students associate with favorable and nonfavorable writing

experiences (qualitative)?

5. How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences

compare between boys and girls (qualitative)?

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this mixed-methods correlational study was to explore the

relationship among choice, motivation/engagement, student perceptions, and standardized

writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school.

A mixed-methods approach allowed for the collection of qualitative data that supported

the statistical data while adding new perspectives to the area of study. One mixed-

methods approach is the concurrent triangulation strategy. A concurrent triangulation

strategy provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data collected

during this study. Additionally, this methodology was superior due to the limited range of

time the study ran. These strengths led to the selection of a mixed-methods approach.

According to Creswell (2003), concurrent triangulation strategy can result in well-

validated and substantiated findings. In addition, the concurrent data collection results in

a shorter data collection time period as compared to one of the sequential approaches (p.

217).


15/131

5

Social Change

This study influenced social change through improved student writing test scores

and defined factors for raising student motivation for male and female students. Improved

test scores positively impact the community, school, and student. Increased student

engagement on school related activities reinforce the development of life long learning of

the student. Additionally, studying what both genders associated with favorable and

nonfavorable writing experiences, contributed to closing the gap on gender-based

academic proficiency.

Assumptions

The researcher made certain assumptions about the data collection and

authenticity of the results of the study. First was the assumption that students would

answer survey and interview questions honestly. There was concern due to a prior

working relationship with the participants of the study. The researcher was a classroom

teacher in the grade-level and school where the study took place. The specific concern

was that the prior relationship carried potential bias, leading to students answering survey

questions based on the perception of wanting to please the researcher or their classroom

teacher.

Limitations

Limiting factors of this study included the size of the population and sample

group, in addition to the length of the study. With such a small group and with data

collected over a three-month period, clear trends could have been difficult to identify.

Sampling based on convenience decreases the generalizability of findings (Creswell,


16/131

6

2003). Another limitation of this study arrived by the creation of the surveys. Because the

surveys have no history of prior usage, the validity has yet to be established. Moreover,

there were potential limitations based on unforeseeable events outside the researchers

control. These events might have included, but were not limited to, the participants home

life (sleep habits, dietary factors, conflicts within the home, etc.), and unrelated life

events.

Delimitations

Initially, this study gathered data on student perspectives about choice,

engagement, and writing assignments at the intermediate level of a suburban elementary

school. As the study progressed, the scope was expanded to include statistical data

obtained via standardized writing tests completed by a smaller sample group.

Validity

One quality control method was peer debriefing. Peer debriefing can, according to

Creswell (2003), enhance the accuracy of the account (p. 196). Throughout the study,

the researcher reviewed the ongoing process with a team of preselected peers. This

method began with a prestudy conference in an effort to control the quality of the study

through a question-and-answer session with peers who were also in the field of education,

but who had no vested interest in this study. These meetings occurred periodically to

check for consistency in both methods and results. The first peer debriefing was an

opportunity to present the components of the proposed study. At this stage, the group

reviewed the data collection materials, including surveys, writing prompts, and interview

questions. A second collaborative meeting occurred after completion of the surveys to

review the groups perception of the effectiveness and validity of the survey results. The


17/131

7

interviews required two more discussions. The first concerned a review of interview

protocol, content, and participant eligibility. The second involved a post-interview

review. The next peer debriefing occurred after the transcribing and codification of the

interviews. Its purpose was to insure accuracy of the reporting. The final peer gathering

took place after the data analysis was complete, as a last check for any irregularities or

threats to the validity of the study.

Concurrent triangulation

The use of concurrent triangulation strategy also provided a method of verifying

and supporting the validity of the data. Concurrent triangulation strategy took place

throughout the data analysis stage. Concurrent triangulation strategy can result in well-

validated and substantiated findings, and is preferred when a study has a limited range of

time (Creswell, 2003).

Member checking

Member checking provided an additional quality-control method. Member checks

involved the researcher checking findings, interpretations, and conclusions with the

participants of the study. Member checks transpired with the participants after the

transcription and coding of the interviews. According to Creswell (1998), the member

check method is a means to check the credibility of a researchers findings and

interpretations (p. 202). Hatch (2002) lists both triangulation and member-checking as

methods for verifying or extending data collected during a qualitative study (p. 92). In

addition, triangulation in conjunction with member checking is the recommended

approach to establishing the validity of a study (Creswell, 1998, p. 216).


18/131

8

Summary and Transition

There has been pressure for students to perform well on standardized writing

tests. The pressure is at the national, state, local community, and individual student

levels. There has also been a disparity among the writing test scores of males and female

students. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among choice,

engagement, student perceptions, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-

level elementary school students. The second chapter of this document contains further

references to relevant scholarly professional literature. Chapter three identifies, defines,

and defends methodology and research design used for this study. The researcher reports

the studys findings in chapter four and based on the data in chapter four, conclusions are

drawn and research-based recommendations are presented in chapter five.


19/131

9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments

Introduction

Chapter one established the importance of standardized test scores beyond the

basic implications of the No Child Left Behind legislation. How well students perform on

standardized tests may impact a large number of people and businesses. An entire

community may experience a reaction to the published scores. Many researchers have

stated that the level of student motivation or engagement on school related assignments

and activities directly relate to the students performance on school related assessments.

Chapter two of this document outlines current research in the areas of standardized

writing test scores and theories on motivation. The researcher gathered literature

pertaining to research findings in the areas of standardized writing tests, issues involved

with standardized writing assessments, and student motivation through exhaustive

database searches.

Standardized Writing Tests

The arguments for and against standardized testing have been voiced for years.

One stance is that standardized testing provides a way to hold students and teachers

accountable for student learning and improvement. The other side of the argument is

concerned with potential negative impacting on students and educational systems. In the

mid 1970s, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) called for

discontinuing standardized testing in elementary schools. Their position paper led to a

nationwide debate over potential adverse effects of standardized testing. During that


20/131

10

period educators began looking for alternatives to standardized testing that were

adaptable to student needs and open to student creativity and choice (Perrone, 1991). In

1983, the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in

Education published the report, A Nation at Risk , which expressed concern about the

educational performance of public schools in America. The release of this document led

to a refocusing of attention on implementing and maintaining standardized tests (Perrone,

1991). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 created legal mandate to measure

student achievement via standardized testing at the state level. The NCLB Act sets

deadlines for states to develop and implement student testing, revamp accountability

systems, and insure that every teacher is highly qualified in the subject area the teacher

teaches. NCLB also requires annual demonstration of progress in raising the percentage

of students meeting proficiency standards in reading and math (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002). Both sides of the argument for and against standardized writing tests

proclaim their primary focus is improving student learning and wellbeing in the academic

arena.

Newkirk (2002) made a strong point for those who believe that society is doing

more harm than good in its attempt to make students focus their reading, writing,

mathematic, and content areas skills in an attempt to meet state standards, instead of

learning for the joy of knowledge. Newkirk asserted that being a lifelong learner requires

more than following writing prompts and grading work according to rubrics. In addition,

the topics students are writing about tend to be restricted to our current system of

expectations. An example of an exemplary practice that Newkirk takes from Educational


21/131

11

Leadership magazine (2000, p. 39) is a lesson done with kindergarteners that involved

scoring according to a rubric. In the lesson, the teacher directed students to draw a picture

of what they see outside the classroom window. Afterwards she identifies the things she

sees outside and then drew a picture that represents those things. Next, the students

helped the teacher assign a numbered score of 1-4 to the student samples. The numbered

score represented the scale of same things the student samples contained that the

teacher also drew. Newkirk (2002) said that he finds it difficult to imagine a more

developmentally inappropriate task. At an age where the childrens art is wonderfully

idiosyncratic, this instruction pushes them into a conventionalized, schematic, pattern (p.

188).

Hillocks (2002) drew a similar conclusion as Newkirk (2002), however Hillocks

(2002) research was limited to a focus on standardized writing tests. After a study that

involved K-12 writing assessments in five states Hillock (2002) concludes, Not only do

most standardized tests fail to improve writing, they actually have harmful implications

(p.5). It was Hillocks observation that when presented with high-stakes standardized

writing tests, teachers and/or schools tend to teach to the test. According to Hillock

(2002), teaching to the test encourages the learning of vacuous thinking, thinking

without substance (p.6).

Harwayne (2001) took a different approach when it comes to standardized writing

tests. While acknowledging the impact scores from standardized tests have, Harwayne

(2001) encourages an outlook that incorporates both choice and non-choice options in

writing instruction.


22/131

12

Today, with so many high-stakes pressures surrounding them, teachers need tomaintain their sense of ownership and creativity and not become swallowed up byoutsiders agendas. Yes, we must prepare our children to do the kind of writingthat helps them pass the required standardized tests, but we must maintain controlof the amount of time we devote to such preparations, never allowing testpreparations to become the mainstay of out teaching lives. We cannot allow themovement toward standardization of teaching to eliminate energizingpossibilities. Then too, when standardized testing requires specific genres, wemust hold to the theory that when life gives you lemons you make lemonade. (p.286)

Bowers (1989) suggested the use of performance-based assessment, such as

portfolios or a cumulative collection of work samples, as an alternative to standardized

testing. Bowers (1989) stated that alternatives to standardized writing tests should be

sought because, When tests are constructed in this [standardized] manner, active skills,

such as creative writing, speaking, acting, drawing, constructing, repairing, and thinking

creatively are automatically relegated to a second-class status (p.1). Due to the nature of

this study, the researcher will collect writing test data from both standardized and

nonstandardized writing assessments.

Gender

According to both Woolfolk (1987) and Forsyth et al. (1993), there are no overall

differences between the scores of elementary aged girls and boys on standardized tests

designed to measure general intelligence. However, during the test design stage,

developers insure gender-neutrality. This might mean eliminating an item that seems to

favor one gender over the other, or it might mean adding items that favor the other gender

in an attempt to balance the assessment. On the other hand, though there is not a

significant difference in IQ, there does tend to be a gap in the types of questions on which

girls and boys excel. In particular, girls test better when the item relates to verbal ability


23/131

13

and boys tend to favor the items that have to do with visual and special tasks (Maccoby &

Jacklin, 1974). It is possible that there are biologically based gender differences in

specific mental abilities (Woolfolk, 1987). Connell and Guzelmann (2004) state that

research has shown a significant difference in the way boys and girls use the different

hemispheres of their brains:

In short, many girls have an advantage by being able to use their left-hemispherestrengths in the early grades by speaking, reading, and writing. The right-hemisphere strengths of girls enable them to feel empathy and to betterunderstand and reflect the feelings of their teachers and peers. On the other hand,boys tend to have an advantage in their left-hemisphere by being able to recallfacts and rules and categories. Their right-brain strengths encompass visual-spatial and visual-motor skills, which enable boys to excel in topics likegeography, science, and math. (p. 2)

This indicates there is a biological factor that influences how boys and girls score

on standardized tests. There are those, however, who believe this gap is more closely

related to societys influence on gender identities and sex-role stereotypes than it is to

actual biological ability (Huston, 1983). These influences include cultural stereotypes and

influences that children experience while growing up. Though it is clear that a childs

primary caregiver(s) and peers play a direct role in how that child perceives his or her

gender-based expectations there have been studies that suggest the gender gap is due, at

least in part, to gender roles portrayed in movies, video game, music, books, and on

television. Virtually every study of the content of television programs in particular has

found disparity between the genders and that roles and behavior are stereotyped (Huston,

1983). Even toy commercials reinforce gender differences and expectations. High levels

of inanimate action, frequent changes to new scenes, rapid cuts, sound effects, and loud


24/131

14

lively music typify boys ads. Moderate levels of action, few scene changes, fades,

dissolves, and soft tinkle music typify girls ads (Huston, 1983, p.1).

Research has indicated that most elementary-school curriculum emphasizes the

left-brained skills of reading, writing, and speaking, which tends to develop at a slower

rate with boys than with girls, and that often boys are expected to be successful on

standards that favor girls (Connell and Guzelmann, 2004). Boys are expected to sit still,

speak articulately, write legibly, work in groups, color between the lines, and be neat and

organized (p. 2). According to Pollack (1999), society has placed a code of expectations

upon boys concerning how they act, how they display their emotions, and how they learn.

This code, reinforced by peers, parents, and teachers, requires that boys do not show their

true feelings, and act cool. The way most of our school culture is established leads to

problems for boys who feel pressured to follow this code. It makes it very difficult for

them to seek help if they need it, especially if it is in a content area and they are having

trouble comprehending the subject matter. Instead of asking their teacher for help, they

become frustrated, distracted, restless, and eventually end up getting reprimanded

(Pollack, 1999). Over time, and with repeated instances, boys who follow this unwritten

code begin to believe that they cannot be successful, and that school is not a fun and

enriching place. Many of these boys become depressed and develop a low self-esteem

before they even have a chance to realize their strong points. This could lead to a

continued pattern of failure (Pollack, 1999).

Another problem that occurs involves inequities of teacher attention. According to

Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (1998), teachers generally view

girls as having good behavior and a desire to please their teacher, which can lead to less


25/131

15

one-on-one teacher-student contact time. On the other hand, boys received more attention

than girls did on average, because teachers considered boys more likely to have discipline

problems or poor work habits (p. 46-47). Newkirk (2002) said that this additional

attention from the teacher is counter-productive for boys. He makes the claim that it

reinforces negative behavior and that the results is a rewarding of the troublemaker or

clown by providing them with an audience (p.33). Based on this information it looks as

if educators are expecting quite a bit of conformity from the boys in the classroom, while

not necessarily meeting their gender specific needs. Moreover, in some cases the system

may even be perpetuating a cycle of poor performance, behavior, and a lack of drive for

school related success.

Theories of Motivation

Introduction

Many factors influence whether students in a classroom will or will not be

motivated to learn. It is clear that no single theory or interpretation of motivation explains

all characteristics of student motivation or engagement. Different theories, however,

present understanding as to why some students, in a given learning situation, are more

likely to want to learn than other students are in the same environment. Similarly, each

theory presented in this section may add to an overall understanding of motivating

students in the classroom.

The typical definition of motivation is something that initiates, invigorates, or

directs an individuals behavior towards action (Weber, 1984). Because this definition is

so general, researchers have focused on three basic questions. First, what is it that causes


26/131

16

a person to initiate action? Second, what causes a person to progress toward a specific

goal? Third, what causes a person to continue their attempts to achieve a given goal?

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to explaining the questions

as to how or why people are motivated. The first general category argues that motivation

comes from extrinsic forces (those outside a person); typically meaning external

consequences, incentives, or rewards. The second school of thought proposes that the

source of motivation for a person is intrinsic, or comes from within. These two broad

schools of thought, pertaining to motivation, fall into one of three classifications that are

more specific: behavioral, cognitive, and humanistic views of motivation (Woolfolk,

1987).

Behavioral Views of Motivation

According to the behavioral view, learning is an observable change in behavior

that is relatively permanent (Forsyth, Hansen, Schickedanz & Schickedanz, 1993). These

changes are generally believed to take place through four different learning processes:

contiguity (learning through simple associations), classical conditioning (automatic

responses to stimuli), operant conditioning (controlling the consequences of behavior),

and observational learning (learning through observing others). These four learning

processes involve varying degrees of stimuli, from simple associations and observations

to positive and negative reinforcements, in an attempt to produce a desired action,

reaction, or behavioral outcome. The behaviorists theory, based on the concept that

people have basic physiological needs that motivate us, asserts that learning occurs best

with the use of extrinsic rewards and/or consequences. Two main branches stem from the

category of behaviorism; classical and operant conditioning (Forsyth, et al., 1993).


27/131

17

Classical conditioning. Classical Conditioning is a type of learning made famous

by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). Through a series of experiments

with canines, Pavlov showed that under certain circumstances these animals could learn

to provide a desired response to external stimuli. The gist of the experiment is this:

Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response. Then he began

ringing a bell just before presenting the food to the dogs. After repeating this process

numerous times, the dogs began to salivate when the bell sounded, even if the food was

not present. In this regard, the subjects learned to associate the sound of the bell with the

presentation of the food and this manifested the same physiological responses as if the

food had in fact been present (Forsyth, et al., 1993). The result of this form of

conditioning is that responses associated with certain stimuli can be used to direct

behavior. According to Corpus and Wilson (2001), applications of classical conditioning

can involve making activities fun, so that students associate learning experiences with

positive responses. However, in contrast to the positive potential, the authors point out

that if the student becomes conditioned to associate negative experiences with school

related activities, it can lead to the developing of fears or phobias for that student. If a

student perceives that a given activity or environment is producing undesirable stimuli

they will be inclined to evoke a negative response. An example of this phenomenon may

be a student who develops chronic stomachaches during test taking. Regardless of his or

her ability or skill level in a given area, the student may perceive the discomfort based

upon previous negative experiences associated with testing or increased levels of stress.

Operant conditioning. Skinner (1953) believed that the principles of classical

conditioning could only account for a certain amount of learned behaviors. For example,


28/131

18

classical conditioning may describe how existing behaviors is paired with new stimuli,

but not how new behaviors are learned. It was Skinners observation that many behaviors

are not simply responses to stimuli; but in fact were deliberate actions. What this means

is that while Pavlov and classical conditioning is concerned with stimuli that occurred

before the behavior, Skinner researched the possibility that sometimes the stimuli that

occurs after the behavior is the influencing factor. Operant conditioning involves control

of the consequences of, as opposed to controlling the stimuli leading up to, the behavior.

During his studies, Skinner observed that consequences brought on by a specific behavior

could be pleasant (positive reinforcement) or negative (negative reinforcement). The

application of these reinforcements provided incentive to either increase a desired

behavior, or decrease an undesired behavior. This process of reinforcing behaviors based

on desired outcomes is shaping (Forsyth et al., 1993).

Many behavioral learning theorists developed methods of behavior modification

under the theory that students are motivated to complete tasks based on the promise of a

reward (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). Some examples of different rewards include grades,

tokens, and special privileges. In the classroom setting, the teacher may use this system

of motivation to condition students to exhibit specific behaviors by reinforcing those

desired behaviors with rewards. This might involve a certificate of achievement, free

choice time after the completion of a designated assignment, or even the acquiring of

points used toward the receiving of a larger reward, like a pizza party or lunch with the

teacher.

Some researchers are saying that the problem with operant conditioning is when a

person is conditioned to respond to external stimuli in one area, that same person may not


29/131

19

respond as desired in other areas, unless similar rewards are offered (Corpus & Wilson,

2001; Johnson, 1999; Woolfolk, 1987). For example, though this does not apply to every

situation, if a student is consistently reinforced with money, praise, or privileges for

doing well in sports, but receives little or no recognition for their academic work, the

student will likely put more effort into his or her pursuit of playing sports than that

student will apply towards schoolwork. Every individual circumstance may involve

multiple factors that play a role in effecting the students motivation. Motivation based on

external rewards, that have little or nothing to do with the learning process itself, are

considered extrinsic in nature.

This is not to imply that the behavioral view of motivation only focuses on

reinforcement and consequences. The work of Bandura (1977, 1986) and social learning

theorists broadened the traditional view of behavioral motivation to include some

flexibility for cognitive factors. Some examples of these include such cognitive

influences as avoidance, self-efficacy, and personal expectations (Corpus & Wilson,

2001; Hawley, 2002; Woolfolk, 1997). This change in views led to the development of

the social learning theory.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura (1977, 1986) called attention to the importance of observation, imitation,

and the expectation of reinforcement, which a person receives when that person sees

someone else receiving rewards for a particular behavior. While studying the way people

self manage, Bandura developed the theory of social learning and self-efficacy (Corpus &

Wilson, 2001). This theory suggested that there are several basic sources of motivation.

Additionally, one factor in determining the motivational level of an individual toward a


30/131

20

given task is bias on the part of the subject as to whether or not they can be successful at

completing said task. Hawley (2002) supports this theory by stating, The students

beliefs about their ability to achieve some goal or execute some task-related activity are

at least as influential in learning outcomes as their actual abilities (p. 17).

Another source of motivation, according to Bandura (1993), is personal goal-

setting. The goals that people set become their standards for assessing personal abilities.

This relates to self-efficacy, which plays a role in determining the goals that a person will

attempt to reach. As a person progresses toward achieving a goal, he or she may envision

the positive outcomes of completion, or the negative outcomes of failure. Whether or not

the individual achieves their envisioned goal causes them to adjust their perception of

their abilities in a given area. This leads to a circular system where by a persons

perceptions of their abilities affect their goal-setting, and in turn, a persons outcome with

their attempts to achieve their goals affect their perception of their abilities, and the cycle

repeats. Woolfolk (1987) adds an important point to this by stating that, Goals that are

specific, moderately difficult, and likely to be reached in the near future tend to enhance

motivation and persistence (p. 314).

Finally, social learning theory states that a person might be motivated to achieve

based upon admiration and respect for someone held in high regard. In addition, a person

who observes other people (older siblings, classmates, or friends) obtaining benefits or

rewards for behaving in a certain way may be motivated to imitate those actions to

receive a similar reinforcement. Likewise, a person may feel a sense of discouragement

or disdain by observing the success of others, if the person is unable to be successful.

Ames (1992) pointed out that both vicarious reinforcement and direct reinforcement can


31/131

21

raise or lower an individuals sense of self-efficacy in regards to a specific task or area,

which in turn leads to a higher or lower degree of motivation.

Cognitive Views of Motivation

Cognitive views emphasize that the way people think about themselves and their

environment influences their behavior. Stipek (1988) suggested that the behavioral

choices a person makes fall into one of four categories: a persons beliefs concerning the

nature of cognitive ability, the need to create an ordered and reasonable knowledge base,

a persons expectations for success at a given task, and the factors that a person believes

will account for success, or failure. One of the central beliefs in the cognitive view of

motivation is that people do not only behave in response to external and physical stimuli,

but that individuals also behave based on personal perception of the stimuli. For example,

the individual's thought process is a factor in determining the level of motivation and the

goals that a person sets. This is in contrast to the behavioral point of view because it

proposes that there are intrinsic (internal) factors in a persons motivation. Some

examples of these intrinsic forces are curiosity, the satisfaction of learning for learnings

sake, and a persons sense of accomplishment. This leads to a theory of behavior based

on intrinsic motivation, in order to search out understanding, causes, and balance in the

perceived environment of the individual, even if the course of action results in the

forgoing of physical needs or desires, such as hunger or sex.

Some cognitive theorists propose that people have a basic need to understand their

environment. This leads to the intrinsic drive to be competent when coping with said

environment (Woolfolk, 1987). The inherent desire for proficiency in an environment

relates to Piagets (1969) theory of equilibration, which stated that people are motivated


32/131

22

by a desire for balance between new knowledge and established perceptions. Piaget

proposed that a person might reach this balance either by a process of assimilation,

relating a new experience to an existing scheme, or by accommodation, modifying an

existing scheme to adjust for the new experience (Forsyth et al., 2005). Along similar

lines, Festiner (1957) developed his theory of cognitive dissonance, which stated that if a

person has a conflict between two schemes, beliefs, or actions, the individual will be

motivated to resolve the clash or inconsistency. What this implies is that if there is an

appropriate amount of disequilibrium a person will be motivated to change something

due to their need for maintaining balance within his or her environment.

Another cognitive model, or approach, is expectancy theory (Huitt, 2001). This

theory uses the following formula: Motivation equals expectancy multiplied by

instrumentality multiplied by value. Expectancy is a persons perceived probability of

success; instrumentality is when the person has perceived connection between success

and reward; and value (or valance) is the worth the individual places on obtaining a goal.

Because these factors multiply with each other to arrive at common product, this theory

proposes that a low integer in one area will result in a lower level of motivation.

Consequently, all three factors must be present for motivation to occur. In other words, if

a person believes that he or she cannot be successful in a course of action, or if the person

does not perceive a connection between action and success, or if the person does not

perceive a value resulting from successful completion of the activity, then the persons

motivation to engage in the given task is diminished. Likewise, according to this theory,

in order to have a high level of motivation on a given task, all three values must be

present for the individual. The individual therefore must perceive the possibility of


33/131

23

success, the connection between their actions and the potential successful outcome, and a

value to the assignment to have a high level of motivation. A teacher can accomplish this

by helping students choose goals that are of value to the student, clearly stated, and have

a reasonable chance of being successfully completed. In addition to this, students should

experience being successful on a regular basis in order for them to maintain the

perception that they can be successful learners.

A different cognitive theory that deals with motivation is that of attribution theory

(Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Attribution theory describes how a persons excuses,

justifications, and explanations influence motivation. This theory proposes that everyone

tries to explain causes for success or failure using certain attributions. These attributions

are internal or external, and either under the persons control, or not under personal

control. For example, innate ability is an internal cause that is uncontrollable. Effort is an

internal cause that an individual can control, whereas the difficulty of a given task has an

external locus of control and is an uncontrollable cause of success or failure for the

individual. According to Woolfolk (1987), people will usually try to justify their failures

or their success to themselves. This may mean that a person attributes the cause of their

failure to either internal or external factors; and people who attribute their failures to a

lack of effort usually focus on building strategies for future success. Ames (1985) drew

the same conclusion and adds to it that, This is a positive, adaptive response, one likely

to lead to achievement, pride, and a greater sense of control (p. 268). The potential for

problems arise, however, when people attribute failure to internal and uncontrollable

causes. This can lead to the person believing that he or she is incapable of being

successful in a given area or on a specific task. If this course of action continues, the


34/131

24

person can even develop a learned helplessness. This is the sense that nothing the

individual does will matter, and is destined to fail in achieving personal goals (Ames,

1985). When applying the attribution theory of motivation to the classroom Huitt (2001)

stated:

In a teaching/learning environment, it is important to assist the learner to developa self-attribution explanation of effort (internal, control). If the person has anattribution of ability (internal, no control) as soon as the individual has trouble inthe learning process, he or she will decrease appropriate learning behavior. If theperson has an external attribution, then nothing the person can do will help thatindividual in a learning situation. In this case, there is nothing to be done by theindividual when learning problems occur. (p. 4)

Because the notion of individual perception is at the heart of attribution theory, it is

important to help people believe that they can be successful. When people believe that

they can successfully complete a given task, even if they do not have the ability to do so,

people will act on that belief. On the other hand, if a person believes that he or she cannot

be successful, the person will have little or no motivation to try at an attempt toward goal

completion. According to Woolfolk (1987) there is no substitute for continuing success,

and that in order to keep making attempts towards the successful completion of difficult

goals, a person must be successful a good portion of the time. In addition to the reward of

succeeding, an individual needs to be able to attribute some of that success to his or her

own efforts (p. 317). One strategy that helps some people with their motivational needs

on certain tasks involves emphasizing a persons progress to date on a specific task or in

a particular area. For example, even if a student has not achieved his or her end goal of

memorizing multiplication tables to a certain point, a teacher may have the student reflect

upon the facts the student has memorized. Doing this, while stressing the connections


35/131

25

between past efforts and past accomplishments, presents that student with examples of

previous successes in order to help the student set goals for new challenges. During this

process, the student has the opportunity to reflect upon successes, even if the main goals

have not yet been met (Woolfolk, 1987).

Humanistic Views of Motivation

Humanism is a broad category of philosophies that avow the worth of people,

based on the capacity to determine right and wrong by appeal to reason (Weber, 1984).

The humanistic views of motivation stress personal freedom, self-determination, and

choice. As with the cognitive views of motivation, the humanistic models emphasis

intrinsic motivation. Many humanistic theorists stress the role of needs as being central to

a persons motivation. According to Kolesnik (1978) a need is defined as any type of

deficiency in the human organism or the absence of anything the person requires, or

thinks he requires, for his overall well-being (p. 149). From this perspective, people are

always moving towards goals that they perceive as being helpful in meeting their needs.

The individualistic nature of these needs provides the opportunity for the constructivist

approach in the classroom. Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge,

skills, needs, and desires that the individual learner bring to the learning environment.

Constructivism is the theory that the construction of new learning is a combination of

new information, prior knowledge, and the readiness of the individual. According to the

constructivist approach, the individual student chooses what new learning to accept and

how the new ideas will fit into their established view of the world (Brooks & Brooks,

1993).


36/131

26

Maslow (1968) referred to need gratification as the most important factor in

determining a persons motivation. Maslow stated, The single, holistic principle that

binds together the multiplicity of human motives is the tendency for a new and higher

need to emerge as the lower need fulfills itself by being sufficiently gratified (p. 55).

Maslow added to his conclusion by developing a hierarchy of needs that consists of five

levels. In this list, the needs at the bottom are more crucial for a persons survival and an

individual will meet them first. A person will only move onto higher-level needs after

meeting the lower-level needs. If a person is not meeting the most basic needs for

survival, there will not be motivation to address needs that are less crucial. According to

this theory, the individual is in a continuing state of flux in an attempt to find a balance or

equilibrium. If at any point a lower need ceases to be satisfied, a person will abandon the

higher needs and adjust efforts towards satisfying the lower one. The first four needs in

ascending order are physiological, safety, love, and belonging. Maslow referred to these

needs as deficiency needs, because a person is only motivated to satisfy them when the

needs are unmet to some degree. Self-actualization (self-fulfillment) is the fifth need in

this theory. By contrast, Maslow (1968) considered self-actualization a growth need,

because people are constantly trying to satisfy it. In addition to the five basic needs,

Maslow (1968) contends that there are cognitive (the need to learn and understand) and

aesthetic (the need for order or accord) needs which play a critical role in satisfying the

needs of the hierarchy. He emphasizes this point by stressing that such environmental

conditions as the freedom to learn, fairness, consistency, and order are crucial because

their deficiency makes satisfying the five basic needs more difficult (Maslow, 1968).


37/131

27

Maslows hierarchy of needs theory has significant implications for motivation in

the educational setting. According to Maslows theory, if a student comes to school sick,

hungry, or hurt that the student is less likely to be motivated towards learning, than if the

student comes to school having had those needs met. Maslows theory also stresses that if

the student finds the classroom to be a fearful and unpredictable place the student is more

likely to be more concerned with safely and security than with education. In addition,

Maslows (1968) hierarchy can offer insight into the choices a student makes. Their drive

to satisfy low-level needs may come into conflict with their teachers expectations.

Woolfolk (1987) said that one way to cope with this is to consider the factors that

influence motivation at different times in the learning process itself (p. 319).

Wlodkowski (1981) suggested that by asking questions prior to beginning any learning

activity a teacher can plan to meet the students needs. Questions, such as how can I

foster a positive attitude towards learning during this activity; or what special needs do

my students have at this time, can help facilitate a learning environment that meets

students needs and cuts down on conflicts related to expectations. Fetterman &

Rohrkemper (1986) suggested that teachers can create a psychologically safer class

environment where wrong answers and mistakes can become occasions for learning, for

probing the thinking behind the answers, instead of simply occasions for criticism (p. 2).

Achievement motivation theory. Atkinson (1964) was one of the first theorists to

concentrate on the study of why some people are motivated to achieve for the purpose of

achievement itself. Atkinson noted that people have two drives (motivating forces) in the

area of achievement, and that these two drives are always at odds with one another. These

opposing areas are, the endeavor to be successful and the fear (or avoidance) of failure.


38/131

28

Because these factors are always competing, a persons behavior or course of action can

differ from one situation to the next. For example, if an individuals need to achieve in a

particular activity is greater than the need to avoid failure, the resultant motivation will be

to take risks in an attempt to be successful at the activity. On the other hand, if the

individuals need to avoid failure is greater, the activity becomes threatening, which

results in behavior (motivation) to avoid the activity.

According to Atkinson (1964), people who have a high need for achievement

expect to be successful with a more consistent rate that those who are failure avoidant.

Most of these (high-need) people expect, or anticipate, a feeling of satisfaction in

achievement prior to having completed a task. When given a choice, these people with a

high-need for achievement, will pursue reasonably challenging tasks as those types of

tasks present a sense of balance between challenge and the expectation of success.

In contrast, the person who has a low-need for achievement will avoid those tasks

that are moderately challenging because fear of failure offsets the expectation of success.

Failure-avoidant people choose tasks that either offer a high likelihood of success, due to

a low level of challenge, or are difficult enough that there is very little probability for

success. For these people the goal itself is an intimidating factor.

According to Huitt (2001), achievement motivation theory involves three separate

types of goal-based theories. He referred to them as mastery, performance, and social

goals. Mastery goals are learning goals that apply to a persons motivation to improve

proficiency in a given area. Mastery goals can also describe an individuals drive to

master new knowledge or skills. Performance goals (also called ego-involvement goals)

apply to a persons motivation to achieve, or be successful at, standards-based activities.


39/131

29

This might manifest as a competitive nature or as a drive to do better than others might.

Social goals are those tasks where people are motivated to focus on relationships with

other people (p. 6).

People who are motivated by a mastery goal orientation are usually successful and

see themselves as capable. These people fall into the high-need for achievement category,

and typically take risks or choose relatively challenging goals (Woolfolk, 1987). Huitt

(2001) said, In the context of school learning, which involves operating in a relatively

structured environment, students with mastery goals outperform students with either

performance or social goals (p. 6). However, Huitt made the point that it is important

for people to have a balance of all three types of goals if they are to be highly successful

in life (p. 7).

In contrast, performance goals are ones where the purpose is to achieve or

demonstrate ones proficiency or ability on a task or in a given area. The person who is

motivated towards performance goals defines their success based upon comparing the

results of their achievement against that of their peers. In this regard, people will avoid

tasks that give them too great a challenge because they are motivated to appear more

competent than their comparison group. This can eventually lead to academic struggles

and failure avoidance (Ames, 1992).

Social goals represent a person's perceptions about the social factors for trying (or

not trying) to achieve a task. According to Ames (1992), people strive to be successful in

a given task in order to be a productive member of society; bring pride and honor to their

family unit, or gain the approval (respect) of peers or people the individual respects.

Thus, the focus of social goals can vary from person to person. In addition to this, the


40/131

30

result of an individuals effort or ability might not correlate with their degree of success

due to the external nature of the determining factors locus of control.

Control theory and locus of control. Most classroom management systems

indicate that the control over how and what students learn stems from the classroom

teacher (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). In these settings, the teacher attempts to control the

students and the learning process. Recent studies have shown, however, that student

motivation and achievement increases when students have choices or options as a way to

meet their educational needs (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Glasser, 1990; Corpus & Wilson,

2001).

Glasser (1986) contended that intrinsic stimuli cause a persons behavior. His

theory (choice theory) stated that the motivation behind a persons behavior is the wants

or needs of the individual at any given time. Glasser (1990) added to the theory by stating

that if we are to understand what motivation actually is, it is necessary first to

understand that control theory contends that all human beings are born with five basic

needs built into their genetic structure: survival, love, power, fun, and freedom (p. 43).

Glasser (1990) stressed that no matter what extrinsic motivators are used, some people

will exercise their need for power or control and may lack motivation if those people do

not agree with the value of the given goal. When a person perceives to be in control over

their learning, it increases their belief in their own ability to be successful. In this regard,

the focal point, or locus of control, is the motivating factor for a person. If the individual

perceives that the motivating force is intrinsic, the person might believe that they were

successful or failed due to his or her effort or ability. If a student perceives the force


41/131

31

behind the motivation as external, the person might believe that any success or failure

experienced was not due to his or her effort or ability, but to some outside force (Glasser,

1990).

The important factor here is the perceptions of the cause for success or failure.

Stiggins (2001) suggested that this aspect of motivation is a sufficiently important part

of academic success to justify considering separately (p. 328). According to this theory,

one way to assist a person with the level of motivation is to work with the individual in a

noncoercive manner. Glasser (1990) referred to this as being a lead-manager as opposed

to being a boss when attempting to direct a persons course of action. He proposes that

the lead-manager type of motivator assists by helping the individual see the connection

between efforts and level of success. In contrast to this is the boss-manager motivator

who relies on external stimuli in an attempt to motivate or coerce others into taking a

desired action.

Corpus and Wilson (2001), said that while many people still use external stimuli

in an attempt to motivate, the result is usually a short term positive effect with possible

long-term negative results (p. 3). However, the argument many current researchers are

making is that those people who perceive themselves as being in control of their own

outcomes, are more inclined to be successful (Glasser, 1990; Schlechty, 2002; Stiggins,

2001). According to this theory, when individuals are appropriately challenged, view a

goal as worthwhile, believe that they have a choice in the setting of the goal, and perceive

that their efforts will have a direct influence on the outcome, they will have increased

intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and confidence that they can be successful.


42/131

32

The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation

Cooperative grouping is a model where by people put effort towards

accomplishing shared goals. In this situation, what is beneficial for one person in the

group is beneficial for the whole, and vice versa. Cooperative arrangements lead people

to utilize effort and cooperation as the primary focus of motivation. In a cooperative

atmosphere, people are motivated out of a sense of obligation to the group with whom

they are working. This leads to a system of motivation characterized by positive

interdependence due to the outcome for the individual being the same as, and dependent

upon, the outcome for the other members of the group. According to Glasser (1990),

motivation and achievement tend to be highest for activities that require a team effort.

A problem that can arise when using cooperative grouping is that it can lead to

competitive motivation between groups. Johnson and Johnson (1995) drew the

conclusions that competitive goal arrangements can result in a situation of negative

interdependence. Situations where people are motivated to accomplish something at the

expense of someone else, characterize the problem. Typically, this occurs when people

view the failure of other people as the successful outcome to a task. These perceptions

may lead some people toward a failure avoidance approach when working in competitive

groups (Ames, 1985). One way to counteract the negative effects of cooperative

competition, according to Linnenbrink (2005), is to focus goals around relative

improvements between groups rather than relative performance (p. 16). A strategy to

accomplish this involves the utilization of tasks that have multiple solutions, which grant

competitive groups a sense of autonomy. In this regard, cooperative groups are not


43/131

33

benefiting from another groups failure, and the success or failure of their group is

independent of the accomplishments of other groups.

Another problematic situation that has potential to occur with cooperative

grouping is that of inequity amongst the group members that might occur in two distinct

areas. The first is the potential problem that involves equality of effort. The perception

that some group members are putting forth greater effort than other group members can

lead to resentments within the group and or a decrease in effort on the part of those who

felt they were working harder. The second problem is that, even though a group can be

successful as a whole, it does not mean that every member of the group benefits equally

(Woolfolk, 1987). This stems from the individualistic nature of the learners in any given

learning situation. There are precautions, however, that teachers can take in an effort to

counteract these potential issues. An attempt to remedy the first condition by pre-

assigning sub-tasks within the group has been a solution offered by some researchers

(Woolfolk, 1987). Another way to assist group members in this area is to monitor their

progress and levels of individual effort to make sure that each person is contributing

equally. Finally, if the individuals within the collaborative grouping have separate but

interconnected learning goals, a person can benefit based upon their own needs.

Slavin (1995) developed a system called Student Teams-Achievement Division

(STAD) that addresses both of these issues. STAD is a system based on predefined teams

with a mix of abilities, gender, and background experiences. Within this system, a

motivator calculates a score for each individual in the group, based on their ability and

expected level of participation towards the groups achievement goal. This is similar to a

tiered system where group members have differing levels of expectations (or goals) even


44/131

34

though the groups final goal is cooperative in nature. In this way, those members with

less ability can still be successful members of the team; and goes toward addressing the

inequities listed above, as well as the issue of individual benefit. As long as the approach

to cooperative grouping involves a system where the individual members still have a

perception of choice and appropriate goals that can be achieved, the value for the

individual has the potential to remain intrinsic.

Other Peoples Expectations

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted landmark research pertaining to the

study of causal relationships between teacher expectations and student achievement. For

this study, the researchers selected students at random and created nonfactual learning

profiles for the students that either said the student would do well or poorly on their

schoolwork. Teachers, not having had any prior experience with the individual students,

where then presented with this biased information. The breakthrough discovery was, that

if teachers believed students would make significant academic gains, then the students

had an increased potential for doing so. This led to the presentation of data that suggested

a nature of self-fulfilling actions, based upon the teachers predefined expectations. One

of the problems with a causal relationship of this nature is that it may, or may not, be

based upon a persons actual ability. According to Woolfolk (1987), this means, a

teachers incorrect beliefs about students abilities or behaviors in some way bring the

very behaviors the teacher expects (p. 331).

Brophy (1998) suggested that there are two types of expectation, which have an

effect upon a persons motivation. The first one is the self-fulfilling expectation

mentioned above, where the bias of expectation may be incorrect. The other is the


45/131

35

expectation drawn after sufficient assessment pertaining to the individual and the

situation has occurred. This second type has a greater chance of accurately assessing an

individuals abilities, and needs. One potential problem can occur when the person

forming the expectations has not maintained pace with the individuals actual progress.

For a teacher this could mean that a students goals are no longer appropriate. Brophy

(1998) stresses that this inconsistency in evaluation has the potential to lead back to

maintaining an inaccurate expectation, which can become self-fulfilling.

Introduction of Roles

Motivation is the inner drive, arousal, selection, intention, or direction that moves

a person towards action or causes them to act in a certain way. When using these criteria

to judge whether a student is motivated one needs to remember that as long as a student

sets goals and puts forth a measurable amount of effort towards achieving those goals,

that the student is, by definition, motivated. The problem arises when the mental image a

students teacher has of how that motivation should look, and in which direction the

action should be taking place, is different from the choices made by the student. This

means that in a given situation a student may not be motivated to behave the way the

teacher would prefer.

Because educators are encouraged to promote motivation that is intrinsic in

nature, the teacher in the above situation cannot directly control the students motivation.

What the teacher can do, with the help of the various motivational theories covered in this

paper, is to develop a purposeful plan with the intention of influencing the student.

Ultimately, the teacher must attempt to guide the students actions towards a desirable

result. This is similar to the way a rudder works on a sailboat. The wind provides the


46/131

36

force (the power to move toward action) and the rudder helps by steering the boat in the

desired direction. Some ways a teacher can accomplish this is by creating an atmosphere

that fosters curiosity, student choice, and cooperation, by helping students set their own

goals that they perceive as both attainable and valuable, and by providing clear

expectations related to the individual needs of the student. Both teachers (Ames, 1992)

and researchers (Corpus and Wilson, 2001) advocate that motivating students toward

appropriate goals is one of the most important and critical roles of a teacher.

Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment

Many decisions a teacher makes may have an effect on student motivation. For

example, the method a teacher uses for grading can motivate students to try harder or to

give up (Woolfolk, 1987). Choices the students make and groupings that allow students

to work collaboratively at various times throughout the day may have an effect. Even the

classroom materials, chosen with student interest and ability in mind, may help motivate

students to learn. Hawley (2002) said that, Students are driven or motivated by their

deep-seated interests (p. 17). This would imply that the environment the teacher creates

and the relationship the teacher has with the student, are crucial in determining which

factors characterize the force behind a students drive toward learning. Glasser (1990)

said, If we attempt to manage people without taking their needs into account, we will

ask them to do things without considering whether or not those things are need-satisfying

either now or later (p. 48).

Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity

Effective educators attempt to create a learning environment that relates to the

interests of the students (Hawley, 2002; Glasser, 1990; Woolfolk, 1987). Granted there


47/131

37

will be times when students need to master basic skills or complete tasks that hold no

intrinsic interest for them. Not every student will be motivated by the same activity or

influencing stimuli. On the other hand, Woolfolk (1987) pointed out that, If a teacher

knows what students interests are, these can be part of many teaching strategies (p.

324). One way to do this is to provide students with choices. Hawley (2002) made the

statement that teachers should acknowledge students goals and interests and cultivate

an academic climate that is supportive and encouraging of students individual interests

and goals to the extent that students goals further the desired instructional goals (p. 17).

In addition to this he stresses that Student choice and self-determination can also

enhance motivation (p. 17). A teacher can provide students with choices at the onset of

almost any given task or assignment simply by allowing them to have a voice in how the

students would choose to prove subject mastery. This might mean giving options for a

final project, or even choices pertaining to procedural steps during the activity.

Schlechty (2001) stated that, Individuals who have choice are empowered.

Empowerment increases the likelihood of commitment (p. 125). Schlechty (2002) adds a

new dimension to the perspective that motivation and engagement increase when an

individual receives choices, by asserting that student engagement is scalable. The

assessment rubric for this scale covers five descriptions of engagement. These categories

include Engaged, Strategically Compliant, Ritually Compliant, Retreatism, and Rebellion

(Schlechty, 2002, p.12). According to Schlechty, student learning stems from the efforts

of the student, while the level and type of engagement a task produces, determine a

students effort (p. 38). Schlechtys scale will be the standard for measuring the


48/131

38

engagement of the participants in this study. Section three of this document will detail the

scale at greater length.


49/131

39

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction: Quantitative and qualitative design

Intermediate-level students are consistently scoring lower on standardized writing

tests than in other academic areas (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002).

According to Connell and Guzelmann, (2004) the average intermediate level student is

two years behind the standard in the academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of

Superintendent of Public Instruction for Washington State published results for 2004-

2005. The results from statewide testing showed a mean 57.7% of fourth-grade students

meeting the writing proficiency standard. The 57.7% passing rate for the state writing

assessment was the lowest percentage of passing students compared to 60.8% that meet

the math standard and 79.5% that meet the reading standard that same year (OSPI, 2006).

This mixed-methods correlational study explored a potential relationship between

choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level

students attending a suburban elementary school. The study integrated quantitative

(surveys and writing test scores) with qualitative (interviews and observations) data. The

priority between the methods was equal. Integration of the two types of data occurred at

two stages in the research process. The f

Documents

Doctoral Study Man Der Son