‘
u u A
wh§unu...\m1
11. c...\r.\
k» v it.
I A ‘
,muu .z
t.
I .

v
s»

4..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

r...”

'l
'-

.II
'1
‘

if“!
{i

L

L
'3

‘p}rxxuxmwmm

.snfit. £33; 1355
.
all it.

t... 71.“

 

 

THESIS

:CC4
555i 0 3:77

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS’ KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, AND
PRACTICES REGARDING STUDENT MOTIVATION: AN
INTERVENTION STUDY

presented by

CHERYL A. RAU

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in School Psychology

 

 

64%

M0 Professor’ 5 Signature
i2/ I010}

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

UBRARY

MiCthan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

Nofiifizlzozm

 

AUQII '2 20356

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS’ KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, AND PRACTICES
REGARDING STUDENT MOTIVATION: AN INTERVENTION STUDY

By

Cheryl A. Rau

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2003

ABSTRACT
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS’ KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, AND PRACTICES
REGARDING STUDENT MOTIVATION: AN INTERVENTION STUDY
By
Cheryl A. Rau

When students perform poorly on tests, fail to complete their work, and show
limited gains in achievement, it is important to examine the multiple factors that
contribute to their learning and performance. Oftentimes when school psychologists are
called upon to assess the nature of such concerns, it is believed that the difficulties
represent an academic or emotional impairment of some sort. While these explanations
are important to consider, student motivation must also be explored as a potential
contributor to student difficulties. A previous study by the author (2001) indicated that
school psychologists are not well-prepared to address motivation issues, as they have
limited conceptual knowledge, assessment strategies, and intervention recommendations.

This study assessed the effectiveness of a series of professional development
seminars designed to enhance the knowledge, beliefs, and skills of school psychologists
regarding student motivation. The first seminar focused upon conceptual frameworks,
introducing social-cognitive perspectives and achievement goal theory. The second
session addressed motivational tools and frameworks, with a particular focus on the
TARGET model, a research-based framework for examining the effects of classroom
factors on student motivation. The third session provided an opportunity to reflect upon

the participants' experiences in using the tools and frameworks. The overarching

research question explored in this study was, how does participation in the workshops
influence school psychologists' knowledge and beliefs regarding student motivation?

Participants included fifty school psychologists from four Michigan regional
educational agencies. This study employed a waiting-list, control group design with
matched group assignment (match based upon years of experience). All participants
completed pre- and posttest assessments of their motivation knowledge, their perceptions
of competence for addressing motivation issues, and their likelihood of recommending
various assessment and intervention strategies when responding to motivation cases.
Two (time) by 2 (group) repeated measures ANOVA were conducted to explore the
effects of the workshops in each of these areas over time.

Results indicated that the workshops had a profound influence on the knowledge
and beliefs of the school psychologists. Participants showed significant gains in their
motivation knowledge and rated themselves as more competent in their ability to
understand the nature of student motivation problems, assess such concerns, and develop
effective individual and classroom-level interventions. In addition, responses indicated
that participants were more likely to utilize the tools and frameworks introduced in the
seminars and to recommend the strategies that follow from such frameworks.

Taken at its most simplistic level, participation in the workshops provided a new
lens through which the participants could understand motivation issues. Grounded in a
research-based conceptual framework, such a lens provided an alternative means through
which to interpret the adaptive and/or maladaptive practices that take place in schools
everyday, thus offering a solid foundation from which to recommend changes that may

lead to more adaptive motivational responses by students to their learning experiences.

Copyright by
CHERYL A. RAU
2003

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation and this degree to my family, without whose constant love and
support this would not have been possible.

To Dad, one of my favorite aspects of pursuing this degree has been the opportunity to
develop the “professional” side of our relationship. It has been my greatest pleasure to
engage in our debates about the state of American education and to explore our
opportunities to impact it. May we always play our roles as wise, perhaps pessimistic,
veteran and idealistic, perhaps naive, novice. ©

To Mom, I wish every child were as lucky to have a mother who showed as much pride

in her children and who was as committed to understanding our ever-evolving worlds. I

promise to continue to provide “handouts” to explain my professional life to your friends
and colleagues. ©

To Amy Lynn, my first teacher! Your persistence in pursuing your own education has
served as an inspiration throughout my graduate career. And perhaps more importantly,
your kindness and compassion for others have taught me as much about what it takes to

be a successful psychologist as any book or course ever could!! ©

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To say that pursuing this degree and completing this dissertation have been a
“pleasure”would be a bit of an overstatement. However I must acknowledge the fact that
the people whom I have met and learned from along the way have made it more than
worthwhile!

First, I must acknowledge my committee members, Evelyn Oka (advisor), Carole
Ames (“unofficial” co-advisor), Jean Baker, and Jere Brophy. To Evelyn, I am quite
certain that this dissertation would never have been completed without your constant
support and prodding. Thank you for putting up with my insecurities and for always
challenging me to maintain the highest standards and ideals as a scholar and practitioner.
To Carole, my respect for you as a scholar is only surpassed by my affection for you as a
person. I look forward to continuing our research endeavors for years to come. To Jean,
you are the quintessential example of the scholar-practitioner. Thanks for your constant
reminders to keep this dissertation “manageable” and for providing such a wonderful
example of research that makes a difference to the lives of children. And to Jere, your
insightful questioning combined with your attention to the pragmatics of research were
invaluable in the development of this research study. Thanks for always pushing my
thinking while not abdicating your responsibilities to provide me some answers of your
own!!

While I learned a great deal from my professors at MSU, the constant debate and
challenge from my fellow graduate students was most influential in forging my identity

as a scholar. To the “good group” (Mark, Gina, Carolyn, Michael. Steph. and Shane)...

vi

may our commitments to changing the world and our passionate discussions about how to
do it continue throughout our lifetimes! To the “School Psychos” (especially Steph,
Sonia, and my fellow research team members, Nora, Jenn, Tim, and CJ). .. it has been my
great honor to be a part of a graduate program filled with people whose intellectual
curiosity is only surpassed by their unending personal compassion. Thank you for
serving as my scholarly critics “with a heart”!!

And finally, my dissertation would certainly not have been possible without the
amazing professionals who either participated in the workshops or facilitated their
implementation. To the support staff and professionals at each Intermediate School
District... your support in organizing the professional development workshops was
immeasurable. From applying for SB-CEUs to planning menus to copying materials, all
the “little things” added up and allowed me to concentrate on providing the best
workshops possible for my participants.

And finally, to my participants... at the risk of sounding cliché, I hope that you
learned as much from me as I did from you!! The challenge of translating these research
ideas into practice was definitely shared by us both. Thank you for giving of your
precious time, and more importantly, for being so committed to developing as

professionals and providing best practice service to your students.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
METHODS .................................................................................................................. 28
RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 63
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 92
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 116
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 118
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................... 119
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................... 120
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................ 127
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................ 132
APPENDIX G ........................................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX H ........................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIX J ............................................................................................................. 141
APPENDIX K ........................................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX L ............................................................................................................ 146
APPENDIX M ........................................................................................................... 148
APPENDIX N ........................................................................................................... 150
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 151

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Participant Information and Workshop Dates .................................................. 30
Table 2. Descriptive Information on Professional Training and Experience ................ 32

Table 3. Descriptive Information on Current Professional Assignments
and Activities ................................................................................................................... 34

Table 4. Summary of Instructional Strategies Utilized During Professional
Development Workshops ................................................................................................ 40

Table 5. Research outcomes, research measures, and administration timeline .............. 54

Table 6. Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Group

Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 64
Table 7. Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Degree

Level ................................................................................................................................ 65
Table 8. Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Gender .................... 66

Table 9. Means (and standard deviations) for Pre- and Posttest Assessment
of Treatment Outcomes for Treatment and Control Groups ........................................... 67

Table 10. Means (and standard deviations) for Pre-, Post-, and Delayed
Posttest Perceptions of Competence for Treatment Group Only .................................... 78

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Graph of treatment and control group means for motivational
knowledge at pre- and posttest ........................................................................................ 70

Figure 2. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of
competence in understanding and responding to motivation issues (overall)
at pre— and posttest ........................................................................................................... 72

Figure 3. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of
competence in conceptualizing motivation issues at pre- and posttest ........................... 72

Figure 4. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of
competence in assessing motivation issues at pre- and posttest ...................................... 73

Figure 5. Graph of treatment and control group means on perception of
competence in developing and evaluating the effects of intervention for
student motivation issues at pre- and posttest. ................................................................ 74

Figure 6. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of
competence in explaining motivational data and persuading teachers’ to
implement interventions at pre- and posttest ................................................................... 75

Figure 7. Graph of pre-, post-, and delayed-post means for treatment group
participants’ perception of competence (overall) ............................................................ 79

Figure 8. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of
student characteristics at pre- and posttest ...................................................................... 80

Figure 9. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of
contextual characteristics at pre- and posttest ................................................................. 81

Figure 10. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of
TARGET dimensions at pre- and posttest ....................................................................... 82

Figure 11. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of
conducting observations to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest ..................... 84

Figure 12. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of
conducting interviews to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest ........................ 84

Figure 13. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of
administering surveys to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest ......................... 85

Figure 14. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of
recommending intervention strategies emphasizing effort, improvement,
and choice at pre- and posttest ........................................................................................ 86

Figure 15. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of
recommending intervention strategies emphasizing rewards, competition,
and recognition at pre- and posttest ................................................................................. 87

Figure 16. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of

recommending intervention strategies emphasizing punishment at pre-
and posttest ...................................................................................................................... 88

xi

INTRODUCTION

Students who perform poorly on tests, fail to complete their work, and show
limited gains in achievement attract the attention and concern of teachers. These
difficulties are typically viewed as potential deficits in academic skills and/or in social-
emotional functioning. If these difficulties are believed to be severe enough, the students
may be referred for evaluation to determine if their school problems warrant
accommodations or special education services. While a learning or emotional problem
may or may not be present, it is also important to consider the multiple additional factors
that contribute to students’ learning and performance in order to more thoroughly
understand the academic experiences of struggling students. One such alternative

explanation is that students’ motivation to learn needs to be fostered.

Why motivation?

While the potential factors contributing to student learning are many (Keith, 1988;
Walberg, 1986) and the interactions among such factors are complex, motivation is
consistently noted as a vital contributor. DiPema and Elliott (2002) identified motivation
as one of four “academic enablers” that influences student performance in school-related
tasks and experiences; others include interpersonal skills. engagement, and study skills.
They define academic enablers as the “attitudes and behaviors that allow a student to
participant in, and ultimately benefit from, academic instruction in the classroom” (p.
294). Such enablers guide how students approach academic tasks and have a profound

influence on student learning and school performance.

DiPema, Volpe, and Elliott (2002) discuss a model of student academic
functioning that suggests that classroom instruction influences the expression of
academic enablers, which in turn affects the development of academic skills that lead to
an overall experience of academic competence (p. 301). In general, these models indicate
that prior achievement and interpersonal skills affect student motivation, which in turn
influence study skills and engagement in learning activities. These latter two variables,
along with prior academic achievement, have been shown to have a direct effect on
current academic achievement. Thus, according to these models, motivation is
. understood to have an indirect, mediating influence on student learning and performance.

Other models argue for a more direct influence of student motivation. Walberg’s
Theory of Educational Productivity (1984) and Keith’s generic model of school learning
(1988) each include motivation amongst a list of personal and contextual factors that
directly and indirectly influence learning outcomes for students. Keith (2002) argues that
motivation (as well as other factors) is “manipulable,” suggesting that interventions can
be developed to enhance students’ engagement in learning experiences. “If motivation is
manipulable and has an important effect on learning across ages and groups, then
interventions, techniques, or programs to improve motivation will, if successful, increase

learning” (p. 400).

Motivation among low achieving students
From a practitioner’s point of view it is particularly important to consider the
motivation of low achieving students. Skinner and Wellbom (1997) offer a perspective

on motivation as a means of c0ping with academic stressors. They note that all children

IQ

will sometimes fail or experience great difficulty in their attempts to understand academic
material. However it is these students’ interpretation of and response to such experiences
that most profoundly influences their opportunities to learn. This is especially true of
those students who experience more substantial, enduring difficulties in school. Without
effective coping strategies, lower achieving students can become overwhelmingly
frustrated with schoolwork and elect to give up rather than persist in the face of such
difficulties. They may begin to view themselves as incapable of learning and anticipate
or expect future difficulties with their schoolwork, which will eventually influence how
they approach new material as well as how they respond to experiences of difficulty or
success.

While such coping responses can be considered a within-child characteristic (i.e.,
the child either responds effectively or does not), researchers and practitioners must also
consider the classroom structures which influence student responses to such situations.
Classrooms can be structured in ways that encourage students to interpret and respond
adaptively to academic struggles. For example, when students perform poorly on tests or
assignments, they can be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their work rather
than simply moving on to new material or the next assignment. When the former
approach is taken, students are encouraged to view mistakes and misunderstandings as a
natural part of the learning process. Instead of serving as a final, summative evaluation
of what is learned (or not), evaluation becomes a part of the feedback process that
indicates to students where they need to focus their attention and effort. Essentially, they
have an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and develop an increased understanding

of previously misunderstood material. Perhaps more importantly, they develop a more

adaptive perspective on learning, recognizing that while difficulties may be encountered,

their effort and persistence are what lead them to greater learning.

Social-Cognitive Perspectives on Student Motivation

This coping framework aligns well with the broader theoretical orientation
utilized in this study, the social-cognitive perspective. Such perspectives emphasize the
role that social-contextual factors play in determining how students cognitively interpret
and respond to learning experiences. Students’ perceptions of classroom and school
environments are seen as central determinants of achievement-related beliefs, affect, and
behaviors (Ames, 1992a; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Roeser, Eccles, & Strobe], 1998).
Describing children as active meaning makers within social contexts, Roeser et a1. (1998)
note that “the meanings children derive from their experiences in school are instrumental
in shaping their beliefs about themselves as learners, about the content being learned, and
about the goals of the learning process itself” (p. 168). Such meanings influence the
effort directed toward learning (Ames, 1992a) and are influenced by their perceptions of
the organizational, instructional, and interpersonal features of classroom and school
environments.

Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002) note that “one of the most important assumptions
of social cognitive models of motivation is that motivation is a dynamic, multifaceted
phenomenon that contrasts with the quantitative view taken by traditional models of
motivation” (p. 313). This perspective builds upon the incomplete, quantitative
perspective that argues that students are either motivated or not (or have a little or a lot of

motivation), instead focusing on the importance of understanding how and why (as

opposed to strictly the how much) students are motivated for school learning. Similarly,
rather than viewing motivation as a personal disposition or trait that is only modestly
changeable, social-cognitive perspectives view motivation as something that is situated
and contextualized. This has important implications for classroom structure and
instructional practices in that students’ motivation is believed to be responsive to changes
in characteristics of the learning environment. This perspective provides educators with a
semblance of control in this motivational process, as they have the opportunity to
structure learning situations in a way that encourages students to adopt a more adaptive
perspective on learning and the educational process.

Today, perhaps the most prominent theory of motivation is achievement goal
theory. An achievement goal refers to the goals or purposes of achievement behavior
(Ames, 1992a), and is defined by “an integrated pattern of beliefs, attributions, and affect
that produces the intentions of behavior, and that is represented by different ways of
approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement-type activities" (p. 261).
Achievement goals “provide an organizing framework through which a variety of
cognitive and affective responses to achievement situations can be interpreted” (Urdan,
Kneisel, & Mason, 1999). Two contrasting achievement goal orientations have been
emphasized in the research literature. A student adopting mastery (Ames & Archer,
1988) or learning (Dweck, 1986) goals is focused on developing new skills and
understandings and achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced standards. In
contrast, students adopting performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986) are
focused on gaining or maintaining favorable judgments of their ability or avoiding

negative judgments of their ability. In fact, recent developments in achievement goal

theory have distinguished between these different orientations. Students focused on
gaining or maintaining favorable judgments of their ability are said to have a
performance-approach goal orientation. Those with a performance-avoidance goal
orientation are described as focused upon avoiding negative judgments of their ability or
avoiding the demonstration of incompetence.

Research has shown that there are significant consequences to adopting each of
these goal orientations. A mastery goal orientation has been consistently linked with
positive outcomes for students across multiple developmental levels. In general, students
adopting a mastery goal orientation are focused on the influence of effort, as opposed to
ability, in determining success or a sense of mastery. Therefore they are more inclined to
persist in the face of difficulty (Elliott & Dweck, 1988) and are more likely to take risks
and to pursue challenging tasks in their schoolwork (Ames & Archer, 1988), as increased
effort will likely lead to favorable outcomes. Furthermore, with a focus on mastering
new ideas and skills, the quality of engagement in learning is enhanced, as students
employ more effective learning strategies in order to gain a deeper understanding of the
material (Ames & Archer, 1988; Nolen, 1988).

In contrast with mastery goal oriented students’ focus on learning and
improvement, students employing either performance goal orientation are focused on
their own and others’ perceptions of their ability. Higher levels of ability are
demonstrated by either performing better than others or by achieving success with
minimal effort. Students adopting a performance goal orientation are more likely to
interpret poor performances as indicative of low ability. Early research on performance

goals revealed that they were associated with a host of negative outcomes, including poor

grades, the use of ineffective learning strategies (Nolen, 1988), an avoidance of
challenging tasks (Dweck, 1986) and a lack of persistence in the face of difficulty (Ames,
1992a)

More recently, however, research has suggested that there may be some positive
benefits correlated with performance-approach goals. (Research continues to indicate
that performance-avoidance goals are associated universally with negative outcomes.)
The vast majority of this research has been done with college-age students, with
preliminary results indicating that performance-approach goals are more strongly
predictive of course grades (one measure of learning) than are mastery goals
(Harackewicz, Barron, & Elliott, 1998). However minimal research has been conducted
with school-age youth. Citing research employing a multiple goal perspective.
Linnenbrink & Pintrich (2002) suggests that the most adaptive approach may be to be
high in both mastery and performance-approach goals. One study with junior high
students (Pintrich, 2000) showed that students who rated themselves as high in both goals
“were not more anxious, do not experience more negative affect, and are equally
motivated as those low in performance-approach goals and high in mastery goals”
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002, p. 321-322). Based on this result. they suggest that
performance-approach goals may not have the expected negative affect as long as they
are accompanied by mastery goals.

Given the limited research with school age children. Midgley, Kaplan, &
Middleton (2001) caution against the universal acceptance that performance goals have
positive benefits. They note that there is “some evidence that performance—approach

goals are more facilitative for boys than for girls, for older students than for younger

students, in competitive learning environments, and if mastery goals are also espoused”
(p. 82). However these interpretations are tentative at best, and further research is
warranted before definitive statements can be made. Instead, they suggest that given the
potential “cost” of performance-approach and -avoidance goals (in terms of long-term
learning and interest), schools should devote their efforts toward developing ways to
enhance mastery goals.

One of the most notable and attractive features of the achievement goal theoretical
perspective is that both individual and environmental factors are believed to be necessary
components of motivation (Urdan et al., 1999). Achievement goal theory research has
found that classroom and school learning environments significantly influence the type of
goal orientation adopted by students and therefore the way that students approach and
respond to school tasks (e. g., Ames, 1992b; Maehr & Anderrnan, 1993; Turner et al.,
2002; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998). Urdan et al. (1999) note that.

situations or contexts can provide information or cues regarding the

purposes of achievement. To the extent that individuals in these contexts

attend to these messages regarding the purposes of achievement, these

messages provide a structure in which individuals form their decisions

about the goals they will pursue (p. 125).

The cues or messages represent the goal structure of the classroom or achievement
context, influencing the personal goal orientation adopted by the student.

Research has consistently linked the perception of a mastery or task goal structure
with positive student behaviors and cognitions. A mastery goal structure refers to the
emphasis on learning and improvement as the primary reason for engaging in academic

behavior. Perception of a mastery goal structure has been found to correlate with a host

of positive outcomes, including higher self-efficacy. increased enjoyment of class, greater

use of cognitive learning strategies, an enhanced sense of belonging in school, and higher
achievement (Ames & Archer, 1988; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Conversely,
perception of a performance goal structure in the classroom has been linked to a host of
negative outcomes. A performance goal structure refers to the emphasis on
demonstrating ability and outperforming others as the primary purpose for engaging in
academic behavior. It has been found to be correlated with a more frequent use of self-
handicapping strategies, such as procrastination, fooling around, and taking on too many
responsibilities (Urdan et al., 1998), which are understood to represent a desire on the
student’s part to have alternative explanations, other than student ability, to explain
failure or poorer than expected performance. In addition, a perceived performance goal
structure has been linked with a greater reluctance to seek help when it is needed (Ryan,
Gheen, & Midgley, 1998), a perspective that is particularly problematic for students who
are experiencing difficulties in school.

More recently, Turner and colleagues (2002) used surveys, classroom
observations, and classroom discourse analysis to explore the relationship between
students’ perceptions of the classroom goal structure and students’ reported use of self-
handicapping and avoidance strategies. They found that teacher behaviors and discourse
have a substantial influence on the expression of self-handicappin g strategies and
avoidance behaviors in the classroom. Their research indicates that positive motivational
benefits ensue when teachers convey a sense that mistakes are a natural part of the
learning process and encourage a sense that question-asking and help-seeking are valued
learning techniques as opposed to representing inadequacy and/or shame for not

understanding the material. These positive benefits held even in classrooms which were

also rated as high in performance goal structure. Contrary to previous results as well as
the authors’ own hypotheses, Midgley & Urdan (1995) found that students’ perceptions
of a performance goal structure were not linked to higher reports of self-handicapping
and avoidance behaviors. Turner et a1. note that this finding aligns with Ames and
Archer’s (1988) previous assertion that the fostering a mastery goal structure is a more
effective approach than reducing a performance goal structure.

The question then becomes, how do educators design learning contexts that
represent mastery goal structures? The TARGET framework (Ames, 1992b) presents one
potential model for analyzing classroom structures and their influence on student
motivation. The TARGET framework explores six structures/factors that can be
managed in ways that elicit a focus on the individual learning and improvement found
with mastery goals. These classroom factors include Tasks, Authority, Recognition,
Grouping, Evaluation, and Time. The Task dimension explores how tasks can be
developed and structured so as to provide an optimal level of challenge and to emphasize
activities that students find interesting and intrinsically engaging. The Authority
dimension suggests that teachers share authority with students by providing them choice
and input on learning activities. The Recognition dimension recommends that teachers
recognize all students who make progress and show improvement, not just the highest
achievers. The Grouping dimension suggests that teachers group students in ways that
promote cooperative learning and minimize interpersonal competition and social
comparison. The Evaluation dimension recommends that teachers focus on
individualized assessment of progress rather than comparisons of individuals or groups.

And finally, the Time dimension suggests that teachers use time in creative ways that ease

10

the constraints of rigid scheduling and allow for more use of valuable learning activities
that are hard to fit into shorter class periods. The additional “R” of the TARRGET
framework stands for Resources and refers to decisions that are made on the use of

money, materials, equipment and the provision of opportunities for students and staff.

Student Motivation and School Psychologists

While academic motivation has long been addressed within the fields of teacher
education and educational psychology, school psychology has only recently begun to
examine the influence of motivation on students’ learning and performance in school. In
introducing their edited mini-series in School Psychology Review, DiPema and Elliott
(2002) note that

although previous miniseries and numerous individual articles have

appeared in School Psychology Review exploring empirical and practical

issues regarding academic skills, a focused discussion of academic

enablers (or nonacademic skills that contribute to academic success) has

yet to occur within the field of school psychology (p. 293).

To date, few studies have examined the motivational beliefs and practices of
school psychologists. In the school psychology literature, motivation problems are
conceptualized in diverse ways and from diverse perspectives. While some explore the
cognitive aspects of why students engage in (or disengage from) learning activities as
they do, much of school psychology literature takes a behavioral reinforcement
perspective, emphasizing classroom management techniques to encourage work
production and on-task behavior (e. g., Moore, Waguespack, Wickstrom, & Witt, 1994).

Blanco and Bogacki (1988) summarized academic and behavioral interventions

recommended by school psychologists and other professional psychologists working with

11

students who are underachieving as a result of motivation problems. Their suggestions
varied considerably and included some cognitively-oriented strategies, such as
recognizing increased effort, involving students in developing and monitoring academic
goals, and creating individual standards for evaluation as opposed to norm-referenced
standards. However, the primary strategies endorsed were more behavioral in
orientation, with a particular focus on performance-contingent reward systems as a means
of encouraging students to produce more (and better) work.

Similar findings were revealed by a small scale interview study conducted by this
researcher (Rau, 2001). While the responses of the three school psychologists
interviewed for this study recognized that cognitive and contextual factors influence
student motivation, their intervention recommendations did not address such concerns.
Instead they relied primarily on behavioral techniques, especially reward systems, with
the express focus on increased work productivity. While cognitive factors, such as
personal interest and students’ beliefs in their ability to do their work, and contextual
factors, such as classroom instruction, were noted when discussing the nature of the
motivation problems and the factors influencing it, they were abandoned when it came to
developing interventions to address the motivation concerns. This has important
consequences for the learning experiences of both current and future students. If school
psychologists continue to develop and endorse strategies that locate the motivation
problem within the child as opposed to exploring the influence of the context, educators
will have little incentive to alter the contextual characteristics that are likely contributing

to current as well as future students’ problems.

12

So why is it important for school psychologists to have a thorough and complex
understanding of student motivation and the factors influencing it? School psychologists
are in an excellent position to support teachers in multiple proactive and reactive levels.
First, they can serve as resources in school and classroom reform efforts, providing
teachers with the necessary connection to research-based practices in motivation as well
as the on-site support in restructuring classroom and school policies and implementing
new strategies. Second, they can serve as motivational consultants to teachers regarding
particular student problems that compliments the traditional focus on academic and
cognitive concerns. They can offer comprehensive, objective assessment and
intervention support designed to enhance the engagement and learning of struggling
students. In addition, they can provide much needed insight on severe academic
problems, teasing out the distinctions as well as the connections between potential
educational disabilities and motivation problems. Finally, their involvement in early
identification and intervention serves as a preventive role for more long-term, pervasive,

and potentially intractable educational and mental health problems.

Resource for classroom and school reform

In their book Preventing school problems — Promoting school success (2000).
Minke and Bear identify multiple ways in which school psychologists can prevent school
problems by focusing on the promotion of factors and strategies that contribute to school
success. As they note, prevention and promotion are simply two sides of the same coin.
In doing one, you are almost automatically doing the other. In their chapter on promoting

achievement motivation, Morrone and Schutz (2000) discuss the use of the achievement

goal theory and the TARGET framework discussed above as a means of promoting
classroom and school environments that encourage students to become effectively and
adaptively engaged in the schooling process and ideally prevent the expression of
motivation problems.

The overarching goal of the TARGET framework is to promote mastery goals on
a classroom and school-wide basis. At a classroom level, this model provides a means of
analyzing classroom structures and their influence on student motivation. Such analysis
leads to specific suggestions of areas upon which to focus classroom change efforts.
Similarly, it presents a framework for analyzing school-wide policies and procedures that
can influence classroom efforts to encourage a mastery goal orientation. Maehr and
Midgley (1991) note that, “teachers alone cannot carry the burden of significant school
change; one must also engage school leaders in school change if the deepest structure of
teaching and learning is to change” (p. 405-406). School psychologists can potentially
serve as such leaders, providing support to individual classroom teachers as well as
administrators, as they attempt to encourage a unified vision for motivating instructional
practice. Again, this practice is designed not only to look at individual factors
influencing student motivation, but also to consider the contextual factors encouraging
adaptive or maladaptive approaches to schooling.

This motivational perspective fits nicely within the broader framework of school
psychologists’ expanded roles as defined in the Blueprint for Training and Practice — II,
Ysseldyke et al., 1997). In this document, Ysseldyke and his colleagues note that school
psychologists are in an exceptional position to provide the kind of support described

above. He calls for school psychologists to be actively involved in supporting effective

14

instruction and the development and cognitive and academic skills. Further, he highlights
their potential role in promoting positive school climates, supporting efforts to organize
schools in a way that promote learning and prevent problems. In order to carry out these
roles, “school psychologists should be adept at assessing the components of the
instructional environment that facilitate or impede learning/behavioral change for
students, and they should know how environmental factors and student characteristics

interact to affect academic and behavioral outcomes” (p. 13).

Early, targeted intervention

A more common way for school psychologists to address student motivation
issues is through their involvement in early identification and interventions for students
experiencing academic difficulties in school. While the traditional model of school
psychology practice has school psychologists providing formal, standardized assessment
and serving as one of the principal gatekeepers of special education services, the field is
moving in the direction of providing more preventive and proactive services that address
student problems at their earliest stages. To the extent that early motivation problems
contribute to student behaviors that may further exacerbate any student difficulties, it is
important that educators act early on to change maladaptive learning behaviors.

One way for school psychologists to address such concerns is through child study
or prereferral intervention teams (Ross, 1995). The primary goal of such teams is to
understand the nature and extent of student difficulties when they are first noted by those

adults closest to the student (i.e., the teachers and parents). Such concerns can then be

15

explored informally, with an emphasis on developing interventions to address the
concerns in the regular education context.

All [student support teams] are support systems for solving problems

within the regular classroom. They are intended to provide immediate

assistance to students and teachers, to enhance the ability of teachers to

effectively serve difficult-to-teach students within regular classrooms and

to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education (p. 227).

Such efforts to develop early, targeted interventions are the primary benefit of
utilizing student support teams. They are designed to make a direct connection between
early conceptualizations of the problem, assessment methods, and intervention strategies.
Keith (2002) notes that,

academic enabler/school learning models, although complex, are also

practical. They can lead to an understanding of the variables that should

be assessed in preparation for developing a learning intervention, the

relative likely influence of different interventions, and the likelihood that

different interventions will work separately or in concert (p. 394).

Only when school professionals have a commitment to understanding why students are
struggling in school can they facilitate the development of interventions that can address
such factors. As Stipek (2002) notes, “if we can explain why individuals behave the way
they do in achievement settings, we might be able to change their behavior” (p. 8).

The recent push toward functional assessment connects directly with this
perspective on understanding and responding to motivation concerns. Batsche & Knoff
(1995) distinguish between administrative assessment, that which is designed to
determine eligibility, placement, and diagnosis for special education services, and
functional assessment, that which is designed to develop and evaluate interventions.

While the former represents the traditional role of school psychologists, this study is

designed to explore the latter with regards to student motivation. Achievement goal

l6

theory provides a framework through which school psychologists can explore why
students are responding to learning situations in ways that make them appear unmotivated
or maladaptively motivated. It encourages them to explore the function that the behavior
or responses serve and provides research-based practices that address the factors in the
individual as well as the factors in the context.

Emphasizing the need for school psychologists to be adept at data-based decision-
making, Ysseldyke et a1. note that “school psychologists always have been responsible
for collecting considerable data on individual students and educational programs;
increasingly, they are responsible for gathering data on school systems and classroom
environments as well” (p. 13). Gone are the days that school psychologists can focus
exclusively on the diagnosis of educational and psychological impairments. They must
now have at their disposal effective means of understanding the learning environments in
which students find themselves. “They need to provide leadership in identification of
those instructional environments (school and home), as well as cognitive, emotional,
social, and behavioral factors that have a significant impact on school achievement and
personal competence, and be able to use this information for the promotion of student
competence or the prevention of student difficulties/disabilities” (p. 13). Taking into
account this additional information allows school psychologists to not only better
understand the factor contributing to students’ difficulties, but also to better develop
intervention and prevention plans that are designed to truly enhance the learning
experiences of these students.

This move towards a more contextual approach to understanding the nature of

problems and the factors influencing them has potential consequences for school

17

psychologists. As noted before, traditional school psychology practice has school
psychologists conducting administrative assessment, in which efforts are devoted to
determining whether or not a student meets the criteria for an educational disability.
School psychologists, teachers, and administrators alike have become comfortable with
this role, and some have been slow to embrace the functional assessment role for school
psychologists. Ysseldyke et al. (1997) note that,

the move to an ecological framework to help explain student performance

requires school psychologists to understand and use this framework

effectively. It also requires school psychologists to renegotiate informal

contracts with teachers who for years were told that problems are located

in students rather than in a mismatch between the characteristics of the

learner and those of the instructional environment or the broader

home/school context (p. 11).
In order for school psychologists to become adept at utilizing this framework, they will
not only have to understand themselves how contextual factors influence the expression
of student motivation, but also be able to persuade teachers and administrators alike that

this approach offers greater promise in addressing the motivational problems suspected in

their students.

Accurate identification — motivation problem versus educational disability

School psychologists must have a thorough understanding of student motivation
and the factors influencing it in order to accurately identify the nature of student
academic difficulties. School psychologists are often called upon when students are
experiencing academic difficulties. And while students may experience academic
difficulties despite their ability, these problems may not represent an academic disability.

Instead, it may be that students are not effectively and adaptively capitalizing on learning

18

opportunities in the classroom. Similarly, learning opportunities may not be being
presented in the most effective and adaptive manner and may be alienating students from
the learning process. If school psychologists are better able to identify motivation
problems (especially at their earlier stages), they can work towards address such
concerns, ideally preventing academic and motivational difficulties from developing into
more severe problems.

Further, by providing school psychologists with the skills and strategies for
addressing and responding to student motivation concerns, they can more effectively
distinguish between such problems and those that may require more intensive and
remedial efforts such as that afforded via special education. If school psychologists have
the requisite skills and perspectives to recognize and respond to such problems that are
likely motivational in nature, unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming evaluations for
special education may be avoided.

In addition, it must also be understood that for many students, it may not be an
either-or situation. Even if an academic disability is identified, it cannot be assumed that
changes in academic instruction, placement, and expectations will be sufficient for
encouraging students to be more adaptively motivated. While the research is limited, the
evidence indicates that students with educational disabilities, such as learning disabilities,
are more likely to also exhibit motivation problems than their non-disabled peers.
Chapman (1988) found that learning disabled students “had lower self-perceptions of
ability, showed signs of learned helplessness. and reported lower achievement
expectations” (p. 357). Similarly, Grolnick and Ryan (1990) compared learning disabled

students with three other groups of students: matched-IQ non-disabled peers. a randomly

l9

selected non—learning disabled group of students, and low achievers. They found that
learning disabled students have lower perceived competence and academic self-
regulation than their non-LD peers. To the contrary, no difference was found between
the LD students and low achievers. Compared to all groups, the learning disabled
students exhibited the most external locus of control for academic outcomes.

Why might this be so? One possibility is that students are often not identified as
eligible for special education services until after they have been experiencing problems
for a substantial period of time. School psychologists interviewed in the previously-
described interview study (Rau, 2001) expressed the effects of this long-term struggle,
noting that,

they don't come to the team until, um, they're clearly failing at

something... if you have a student who has been struggling in learning

reading since kindergarten and we team 'em in third grade, that's a student

who’s had a lot of failures in reading. So that student is now actively

often trying to avoid reading (p. 43).

Therefore, by the time students are provided services to address their academic disability,

the problems may be so severe that the student has also developed maladaptive

approaches to not only learning, but also motivation.

Prevention of long-term, severe consequences

Finally, educators (including school psychologists) must address motivation
issues early on as they have the potential to affect broader, long-term academic and
mental health functioning and outcomes. Roeser et al. (1998) note that early academic
problems, such as poor motivation and declining academic performance, are correlated

with behavioral and emotional difficulties that emerge in later adolescence, such as

20

school dropout, drug use and abuse, and delinquency. In this sense motivation problems
may represent the early stages and/or precursors to more serious academic and behavioral
concerns. Roeser et al. further argue that school professionals need to better understand
the school and classroom level practices that affect students’ learning opportunities and
motivation to learn. This necessarily includes how support personnel, particularly school
psychologists, understand and interpret school difficulties and are able to support

classroom teachers in responding to such concerns.

School psychologists and student motivation - Needs assessment

The previously described research study conducted by this author (Rau, 2001)
explored school psychologists' beliefs and practices regarding student motivation issues.
While limited by the number of participants, this study revealed important factors that
were limiting these school psychologists' opportunities and abilities to address motivation
concerns that were raised in their practice. First, the participants’ responses indicated
that they had a restricted knowledge base from which to draw when such concerns were
brought to their attention. They conceptualized motivation as a “drive” or “desire” to
learn or perform, and listed behavioral strategies (with particular emphasis on rewards) as
their primary recommendation to address the problem. The primary goal of such
interventions was to increase the work production of the student. Little, if any, attention
was given to either the cognitive aspects of student motivation or the contextual factors
that may have influenced it, both of which are emphasized in achievement goal theory.

Not only did the participants identify few strategies to address motivation

problems, they also indicated that they lacked specific tools and organizing frameworks

to assess student motivation. One psychologist, in particular, regretfully noted that he did
not "really have a formal way to assess motivation" (Rau, 2001, p. 26). While they
capitalized on some data sources (primarily student-focused behavioral observations) to
find evidence of motivation problems, they did not seem to have either a guiding
framework through which to understand student motivation or specific methods to
investigate such concerns. The professional development seminars included in this
research study are designed to provide such a guiding framework as well as specific tools
that can be utilized to understand student motivation and the classroom-level factors

influencing it.

Motivation Intervention

Much of the recent research in the area of student motivation is focused upon the
examination of teacher beliefs and practices and how they influence student motivation
(e.g., Ames, 1992a; Blumenfeld, 1992; Meece, 1991; Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin,
& Midgley, 2001; Turner et al., 2002). Such research has explored teachers’ instructional
and management practices and how they affect students' motivation to learn and engage
in their schoolwork. This study is designed to build upon that research by exploring the
effects of a research-based intervention. Based on solid theoretical development and
empirical research findings, this study attempts to explore not what is effective
motivation practice, but how effective are the series of professional development
seminars in encouraging school psychologists to adopt best practices in responding to

student motivation issues.

One apparent contribution of the above research on teacher practices is the
revelation that many teachers are practicing and classrooms are structured in ways that
are not in line with current motivation theory and research (Patrick et al., 2001; Turner et
al., 2002). Assuming that this lack of alignment is, at least in part, a result of insufficient
knowledge regarding effective practices, there are several ways that this situation could
be remedied. For instance, teachers could enroll in graduate course work or participate in
professional development workshops to enhance their understanding of best practices
with regards to motivation. Alternatively, researchers could engage in intervention
research designed to introduce practicing teachers to new ways of thinking about,
responding to, and encouraging adaptive student motivation in their classrooms. This
study takes a slightly different route by addressing the knowledge and skills of support
professionals (in this case, school psychologists) who have an opportunity to collaborate
with teachers on student motivation problems. Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981) suggest
that this is a productive means of responding as they found that, "teachers’ confidence in
their ability to effect change often assumed help from other adults (either the parents or

school support services)" (p. 305).

Assessing student motivation

The subjective nature of student motivation presents challenges to educators
attempting to assess the construct and determine its influence on student performance.
DiPema and Elliott developed an assessment tool that can be used by practitioners to
explore the academic functioning of students. Using both teacher and student survey

measures, the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (2000) was designed to assess

23

“the skills, attitudes, and behaviors of a learner that contribute to academic success in the
classroom” (p. 1). These include academic skills in the area of reading/language arts,
mathematics, and critical thinking as well as the academic enablers identified previously
(motivation, interpersonal skills, engagement, and study skills). While the ACES tool
offers a systematic means of assessing factors that influence students’ academic
functioning, there are a few important limitations to this tool and its utility for school
psychology practice.

First, it focuses exclusively on gum skills and behaviors, while ignoring the
influence of the learning context on their expression. “What are seen as students’
motivation problems are often problems with the context” (Stipek, 2002, p. 17).
Christenson and Anderson (2002) note that, “academic enablers, which are within-student
variables, are essential for understanding student achievement; however, missing from
this picture is the influence of context on the development and application of students’
academic enabler skills” (p. 378). Without an examination and understanding of both
individual and contextual factors and the reciprocal influence on one another, motivation
problems may continue despite considerable efforts to change individual student
characteristics.

Of course, this problem is not unique to this particular assessment tool, but
instead connects with a larger concern that has been raised by the leaders in the field of
school psychology. Ysseldyke & Elliott (1999) and Roberts (1995) note the importance
of using assessment tools and procedures that analyze the functional relationship of
academic problems to the critical variables in the classroom. While their focus has been

centered on instructional practices that influence student learning. a similar argument can

24

be made for the investigating the influence of the classroom structures and instructional
practices that affect student motivation.

In addition to the absence of contextual influences in their model, DiPema and
Elliott’s scales are also limited in their conceptions of student motivation. While they
claim to be interested in exploring the attitudes and behaviors that contribute to student
learning, the ACES measure focuses almost exclusively on student behaviors. While this
has advantages from a measurement and assessment perspective, this narrow perspective
offers only a superficial glimpse into the motivation of students. The motivation subscale
of the ACES assesses initiative and persistence regarding academic subjects, including
items which address student responsibility for their learning, preference for challenging
tasks, and goal-directed behavior. Its exclusive focus on student behaviors explores what
students do to enhance their learning, however it does not explore why students approach
academic tasks as they do. As noted previously. the function of these behaviors is
equally important to consider as students may engage in the same behaviors for different
reasons. Furthermore, these reasons have a profound influence on how students approach
tasks, the intensity of their efforts, their response to experiences of difficulty and/or

failure and a host of other factors.

Research Questions
This study explores the effects of a series of professional development workshops
on the knowledge, beliefs and practices of school psychologists with regards to student

motivation issues. Specific research questions and hypotheses include the following:

I\)
LII

1.

How does participation in a series of professional development seminars

affect knowledge of motivation constructs and their application?

° Treatment group participants will significantly improve their
knowledge of motivation concepts
How does participation in a series of professional development seminars
affect perceptions of competence in understanding and responding to

motivation issues?

' Treatment group participants will significantly improve the
perceptions of competence in conceptualizing, assessing, developing
interventions, and communicating this information to teachers in a
persuasive manner.

How does participation in a series of professional development seminars

affect motivational assessment practices?

° Treatment group participants will rate themselves as more likely to
utilize assessment techniques designed to understand the motivational
beliefs and behaviors of students as well as the motivational
characteristics of classroom learning environment. including those
recommended by the TARGET framework.

How does participation in a series of professional development seminars

affect motivational intervention practices?

' Treatment group participants will rate themselves as more likely to
recommend (to teachers) strategies emphasizing effort, improvement,

and choice.

Treatment group participants will rate themselves as less likely to recommend (to

teachers) strategies emphasizing competition, public recognition. and punishment.

27

METHODS

Research design

This study utilized a quasi-experimental design (Kazdin, 1999) to explore the
effects of a series of professional deve10pment workshops on the beliefs and practices of
school psychologists with regards to student motivation problems. The quasi-
experimental design included comparison between participants in a treatment group and a
waiting-list control group on a variety of outcomes. Any differences between the two
groups are assumed to be attributable to the participation in the intervention. One
primary benefit of this design over a simple no-treatment control group design, is that it
increased the overall likelihood of participation. All participants were ensured of the
opportunity to complete the series of workshops. Presumably both groups of participants
were equally interested in the content of the workshops, thus controlling, to some extent,
this contributing factor. In addition, potential participants were more likely to be willing
to participate in the potentially time-consuming assessment process than individuals who

would not receive any direct benefit.

Participants

All school psychologists employed within four Michigan regional educational
agencies (otherwise referred to as “districts”) were offered the opportunity to participate
in a series of professional development workshops described below. These districts were
selected based on several pragmatic criteria. First, they were selected based on location.

All districts were located within approximately one hour of the researcher. thus allowing

a reasonable travel time to conduct the workshops and to complete post-assessment data
collection. Second, each district had at least one individual in a leadership or supervisory
position who was familiar professionally to the researcher. These individuals either
assisted with the date and time selection and location scheduling or connected the
researcher with someone who could fulfill this role. Finally, each district had a sufficient
number of potential participants so as to warrant conducting two separate series of
workshops. The minimum number utilized for this selection criteria was 8. It should be
noted that a representative from one additional district was contacted. However after two
weeks of discussion and exploration, it was decided that there was insufficient interest
from potential participants due to concerns that the workshops would be conducted too
late in the school year when professional schedules (in this district) were less flexible.
The district representative indicated an interest in conducting the seminars during the fall
of the following school year.

For two of the four districts, a workshop fl yer and a letter explaining the research
study (see Appendix A) were sent to all potential participants at the professional
addresses provided by the support staff at the district offices. A reminder post-card (see
Appendix B) was sent to all potential participants in the second district who had not yet
enrolled in the workshops, as the initial response rate was lower than expected. To sign
up for the workshops, participants were asked to either call or e-mail the researcher at the
contact information provided in the flyer or postcard. For the remaining two districts, a
senior school psychologist or special education supervisor was contacted via phone and
the workshop flyer and research letter were sent electronically. Copies of the flyer and

research letter were then distributed by the original contact person to all other school

29

psychologists employed by each district. A list of interested participants was then
reported to this researcher. The following information was collected from all participants
at the time of enrollment: name, school district, number of years of experience, and
degree level.

Of the invited participants across the four regional educational agencies, thirty-
seven percent enrolled in the workshops (see Table 1). It should be noted that the
response rate varied considerably across the districts, with as low as nineteen percent in
the second district and as high as eighty-six percent in the fourth district. The low
response rate for the second district may, in part, be explained by the fact that the first
workshop of the first series of seminars was mistakenly scheduled when several schools

in that district were on vacation. This oversight was found too late to make any changes.

Table 1. Participant information and workshop dates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District District District District Total
#1 #2 #3 #4

Potential
Participants N—42 N—72 N—9 N—14 137
Total N=l7 N=14 N=7 N=12 50
Participants (40.4%) (19.4%) (77.8%) (85.7%) (36.5%)
Treatment =7 N=7 N=5 N=7 26
Workshop #1 2/3/03 2/17/03 4/25/03 5/2/03
Dates #2 2/20/03 3/10/03 5/9/03 5/23/03

#3 3/3/03 3/25/03 5/ 16/03 5/30103
Control N=10 N=7 N=2 N=5 24
Workshop #1 3/19/03 4/1/03 10/ 17/03 Scheduled
Dates #2 4/28/03 4/ 14/03 1 1/1/03 f “04

#3 5/19/03 5/5/03 1 1/21/03 0’

 

30

 

Initially, all potential participants were informed that they would be randomly
assigned to either the treatment group or the waiting-list control group. Random
assignment had to be abandoned at the outset given personal and professional constraints
noted by several potential participants. These included such constraints as future
professional meetings in conflict with workshop dates, scheduled school vacations in
conflict with selected workshop dates, and impending personal leaves of absence due to
pregnancy. In place of random assignment, groups were arranged so as to balance the
average number of years of experience in each group while also taking into account the
personal and professional constraints of the potential participants. Essentially those
participants with personal and professional constraints were assigned to the requested
series. Those with the flexibility to attend either series were placed so as to balance the
number of years of experience in each group.

Chi-squared analysis or independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine
if the two groups were similar in terms of the gender, degree level, and years of
experience of the participants (see Table 2). The majority of the participants were
female, including a total of thirty-six females (72%) and fourteen males (28%). Twenty-
two females and four males were assigned to the treatment group, while the control group
included fourteen females and ten males. Chi-squared analysis indicated the there was a
significant difference in the number of females and males in each group (x2 = 4.276. p <
.039). In contrast, chi-squared analysis indicated that there was not a significant
difference in the number of masters, specialist, and doctoral level psychologists in the
two groups (x2 = 2.018, p < .364). One masters-level, twenty-two specialist level, and

three doctoral level participants were assigned to the treatment group, while the control

31

group included three masters level, twenty specialist level, and one doctoral level
participants. And finally, results from an independent samples t-test indicated that the
treatment (mean = 12.31, SD. = 9.05) and control (mean = 13.08, SD. = 10.21) groups
were approximately equivalent in terms of the average number of years of experience of

their participants (t = .331, p < .742).

Table 2. Descriptive information on professional training and experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Control Total
G d Female 22 (84.6%) 14 (58.3%) 36 (7292-) x3 = 4276*
e" er Male 4(15.4%) 10 (41.7%) 14 (28%) p< .039
M-AfM-S- 1 (3.8%) 3 (12.5%) 4 (8.0%) 2 _ 9 018
Degree Ed.S.lS.Psy.S. 22 (84.6%) 20 (83.3%) 42 (84%) X 2 364
ph_D_ 3 (11.5%) 1 (4.2%) 4 (8.0%) P '
Years of Mean 12.308 13.229 12.750 t: .331
Experience (3.1),) (9.0455) (10.5294) (9.6955) p < .742

 

Those assigned to the treatment group participated in the series of seminars in
between pre- and post-assessment data collection. An additional series of professional
development seminars were offered to the waiting-list control group participants upon
completion of the data collection for this study. Two of the four groups completed the
control group seminars in the spring, while the other two districts were offered the
workshops the following fall. See Table 1 for the total number of participants from each
regional educational agency as well as specific workshop dates for each group.

The professional development workshops were offered to all interested parties in
each of the chosen districts, regardless of whether or not they chose to participate in the
research study. All workshop participants initially agreed to participate in the data

collection for the research, including the pre-, post-, and delayed-post assessment

 

(treatment group only), however one control group participant for the third district did not
return the consent form or research measures.

For the most part, the participants in this research study all have relatively
traditional school psychological roles. As shown in Table 3, they spend a great majority
of their time on formal assessment activities related to evaluation and diagnosis for
special education services. This ranged from as high as 80 percent to as low as 20
percent, with an average of 50.7 percent. Comparatively, they spend, on average, a
relatively low percentage of their time on consultation (mean = 12.4) and intervention
(mean = 5.1) activities. These role definitions can, in part, be explained by the relatively
high number of students the school psychologists are expected to serve. Excluding from
the calculation one outlier, a participant who serves the majority (N = 20) of the parochial
schools in her large urban district, the participants, on average, were responsible to 4.1
schools (elementary, middle and high) and center-based programs, serving 1904 students.
Furthermore, these participants worked in high caseload districts, with an average school
psychologists-to-student ratio of 121614. This number far exceeds the National
Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) recommendation of one school

psychologist for every one thousand students.

33

Table 3

Descriptive information on current professional assignment and activities

 

Mean (SD)

 

Number of assigned schools and center-
based programs

4.10 (2.156)

 

Number of students in assigned schools

1904.46 (1231.76)

 

District Level School Psychologist-

 

Student Ratio 1 . 1614
Adminstration 6.48 (6.70)
Staffings 18.37 (9.68)
Percentage of Time Formal Asmt. 50.67 (13.21)
in Various Professional Informal Asmt. 4°86 (6-46)
Actvities Consultation 12.41 (7.03)
Intervention 5.08 (5.38)
Supervision 1.05 (2.63)
Other 1.21 (6.56)

 

Approximate percentage of cases
involving motivation issues

42.85 (23.35)

 

Factor motivation issues into major
educational decisions

3.72 (0.882)

 

 

Teacher seek support re: motivation issues

 

2.80 (.7284)

 

Procedures

Intervention

 

The intervention included a series of three professional development workshops
designed to enhance the skills and competencies of the school psychologists with regards
to student motivation difficulties. The workshops took place over the course of a three-to

six-week period, with a minimum of one week between each session. Pretest data were

34

collected prior to the start of the first session for the treatment group. Posttest data was
collected within one week after the conclusion of the third session for the treatment
group. Finally, delayed posttest data were collected from the treatment group participants
only approximately three to six weeks after completion of the third session. Additional
details on data collection procedures are described in the Overview of Research Measures
section of this chapter.

The professional development worksh0ps were offered for State Board
Continuing Education Units (SB-CEUs). The application for SB-CEUs was completed
by the researcher and submitted to the State of Michigan by the administrative staff of the
first Intermediate School District involved in the study. Participants were required to
attend all three sessions (totaling 10.0 hours of instructional time) in order to receive the
(1.0) SB-CEUs. There was no cost for participation in the series of workshops, however
those desiring the SB-CEUs paid a $5 administrative fee to the Intermediate School
District to get the certificate of participation. In addition to the opportunity to earn SB-
CEUs, all research participants were entered into a drawing for one of six copies of the
motivation text, Motivating Students to Lean: (1998), by Dr. Jere Brophy, as an incentive
for participating in the workshops. The workshops were presented in conference rooms
at the main campuses of the regional educational agency offices, so as to offer maximum
convenience to the participants. Administration officials at each district assisted in
finding adequate meeting space, determining workshop times, and providing
refreshments to the participants.

The workshops strategically moved from familiar theoretical perspectives (e.g.,

behavioral) on motivation to an introduction of new conceptual/theoretical perspectives

to an exploration of assessment tools and interventions strategies grounded in these
theoretical foundations. In addition, the participants were provided an opportunity to
explore the use of these perspectives and tools in their practice, posing questions and

discussing challenges with consulting on student motivation issues.

Workshop: First session.

The primary goal of the first session was to provide a research-based theoretical
lens through which to understand student motivation. As Stipek (2002) notes,
“motivation theories are important to discuss because everyone has them. And
consciously or unconsciously, people rely on their theories of what causes behavior when
they try to change their own or another’s behavior.” This session began with a discussion
of current perceptions and practices of the participants regarding the student motivation
issues they find in their own schools. This was followed by a structured discussion of
why student motivation is important to consider when attempting to understand students’
learning experiences and why school psychologists are particularly well-suited to take on
this role. The effects of student motivation on academic achievement, learning beliefs,
learning behaviors, and responses to experiences of success and failure were presented.

The remainder of the first session was devoted to an exploration of theoretical and
conceptual perspectives on student motivation. A general introduction to both behavioral
and social-cognitive perspectives of student motivation was presented, with substantial
attention given to achievement goal theory. Participants were provided examples of the
beliefs systems and behaviors of students adopting different achievement goal

orientations, and the research on the benefits and consequences of adopting these goal

36

orientations was presented. Moving beyond personal goal orientations, the session ended
with an introduction of the concept of classroom goal structures and a discussion of how
classrooms can be structured in ways that encourage or elicit various goal orientations in
students. Participants were divided into two groups and asked to create the most
“extreme” mastery or performance oriented classroom. They were asked to consider the
policies and procedures as well as the physical appearance of the classrooms. After
describing their classrooms to the larger group, all participants were assigned one of four
student roles (Star, Struggling, Inconsistent, and H0peless; see Appendix C for
descriptions). This was followed by a discussion of how these types of students might
respond to the various conditions of the extreme classrooms. This discussion was
designed to serve as a lead-in for the following session when intervention frameworks
were introduced. Throughout the course of the sessions, participants were encouraged to
ask questions and offer input as they desired. In addition, handouts were provided that
can be used for future reference and can be distributed to teachers and parents as deemed
appropriate (See Appendix D). Furthermore, notes from the classroom goal structure
activity were sent to all participants via e-mail, and participants were encouraged to
consider these ideas as they worked with individual students and observed in various

classrooms prior to the next workshop.

Workshop: Second session
The second session focused on assessment tools and intervention frameworks that
the participants could utilize in their own practice when responding to student motivation

concerns. This session began with a brief review of the theoretical and conceptual

perspectives introduced in the first session. Participants discussed the extent to which
they had been able to apply the ideas learned in the previous session to better understand
the motivational issues experienced by students with whom they worked and the
motivational climates of the classrooms within which they observed. These ideas were
then explored further through the introduction of the TARGET intervention framework,
the Observing Patterns of Adaptive Learning (OPAL) observation protocol (Patrick et al.
1997), and the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) (both the student and
teacher versions) (Midgley et al., 2000). More information on these tools and
frameworks is provided below. This session utilized primarily lecture format, however as
with the first session, participants were strongly encouraged to ask questions and offer
input as they desired. All participants were provided numerous handouts, including
descriptions of the TARGET model (see Appendix E), selections from the OPAL and
PALS manuals, and PALS surveys as well as description and scoring sheets (see
http://www.umich.edu/~pals for copies of these surveys and complete manuals). Prior to
the next session, participants were asked to consider the utility of achievement goal
theory, the TARGET model, the OPAL observation protocol, and the PALS surveys in

conceptualizing and responding to one or more current cases in their practice.

Workshop: Third session

The third and final session provided participants with an opportunity to discuss
their experiences in using the assessment tools and intervention frameworks listed above.
Similar to the previous workshop, this session began with a brief review of the theoretical

and conceptual perspectives introduced in the first session. Then, data from those

38

participants who had the chance to utilize the PALS surveys were used to illustrate the
survey databases created by the researcher. A detailed example case (see Appendix F).
including PALS information from a case student and his classmates as well as
OPAIJTARGET observational data from his classroom, was discussed in small groups,
followed up by a large group discussion of how to communicate this data to teachers in a
consultation relationship. General consultation principles were discussed as well as how
to convey the specific motivational data provided by these tools. In addition.
approximately one-third of this session was devoted to the exploration of ways of
extending the above tools and frameworks beyond the individual student case and/or
classroom to the entire school. The TARRGET model was introduced and specific
examples of policies and practices of each of the dimensions were discussed (see
Appendix G). Finally, in small groups participants were asked to develop their own
personal “plans of action”, exploring how they could apply the knowledge and tools
learned in the series of workshops to their own practice. They were asked to explore who
they would involve at the initial stages (e.g., individual teachers, entire staff,
administrators) and how they might present the information and employ the tools (e. g.,

staff meeting, full classroom administration, individual cases).

Instructional Design Principles and Procedures
Each workshop session was developed and conducted with several instructional
design principles in mind. Table 4 illustrates how the order and way in which the content

was presented reflects these various design principles.

39

 

 

:03
>05 :0_:3 E 0:00:00 0:.
E 80:02: 0:: 0.20:0:
0:. E 023:5..8 3.:0050
E :0_m:0E0 3:. 30: :0
0.0350008: .mEsEEEE
wE:0:00 03 5538.0
Ew0: .:0_m:0E0
:mOmmx; :000

E505 £203,202; 0:02 .

.:a:0:0w E:

50:35.: E0020 00:0::E

:2: 0.00002: 0:: 006:0:

00.27.0050 :0 003000000:

0:552:20: :0:0m

30:03:08.8

E05 0:: 000003:

E0Emm0mwa :0::>:0E
E0050 $3020 0m_< .

0203062.: HmOmxfi—r
£5 ::3 0:: m. E :0_:3
0: E000 0:: 0:: 00:05:
E00000 00.90 1 E00
.0203
0:. :03? E 2.005020
0:: E 00:00:52: 32:08:00
3 :0_m:0E0 EE 3:: .
.:0_E>:0E E0020.
200:1. :0_m:0E0 5:. 30: .
:0 83:00:30:
02:36:30 :0:0m .:0_m:0E0
LEON—(Ct :0:0 E::>>

E005 Ecw E0E0>0E0=
:EB m:w__: .05 00:02:
E00150 ._0 00.9530 20:8
1 8:302: Eow E09500: .
~.w::m0ww:m mEsEeza 0E
E:>> 203$ :0:=>:0:_
30:: 30: wE00 E3010.
0:: 22.3 1 00:03.:— Eotzu .
a..£m_w0_0:0»me_ 30:0.» .33 .
0:00:29: E0030 :3 .

3.00022: E9200 2
50::00 m0_w0E.:m 0::
5:00:00 30: 00 30:
000002: E 0030.00:

32:35.0 0.0.7.0..

:EEZEE 0:: 30. 3

00:28:08 0:...
0000.305 :00: 0E>00<

 

:0::0>:0E_ 00$,
-_00:0m :0: 0003255
Hmommxat 00:08.:— .
0000.0 000_>0E-:0E::0£
0:0 E09220: $200.5 .
N 0% :4 m:0_mm0m 3030M .

0:030:55 00_3-_00:0m
0. :0_m:0.xm 0:: 3030:

«$033 30.0
0:a 3000:: 5003030

Joan—O 00:02::— .
E03255

{Sam/E. 00:00.5:— .
r: 5.3% 3030: .

3:032:05 0:: 200.:

0.00:? E00 E0E0>0_:0< .
03:00:80:

0>E:w0U-_E00m .

33.000000 _s._0_>::0m .

:0:...>:0_>_ ._0._
0.00:0: _::.000:0U\_:0:0:00:r_.

C..:.:..0_

2 E090 3:090:50

:00 00:00:62;

.E:>> 2.06000 0:.

:0: 0.0m 0:. 2 3:26
00260.30
wEEfi: 0:50am wE0=_0E
£06000 5.. :L030Ent
wENanE E0005

 

mt :Emm0m

 

Na 00.000m

 

3 :0Em0m

 

003.35% 3:030:50:—

 

 

 

wmofifca E0E:0_0>0D 005500.35 wEEQ 005:5 8.32:5 0500025:— E z.=..EE:m .0 0.05.

40

 

003000.30 w:_:::0_ 0:::00:m
\E0E00 30: :0: 0>0:: 00m .
0:00:00: 000:
0: .mEaEEts: :0: b:::::0::0
::3 0030 20:202.. 30:80:

83:00.30 wEE:0_ 2000::
0:0E00 30: :0: 0>0:: 00m .
30:30:: 03:
0: EEK—6:00: :0: 5:53.530
::3 0030 .0580? 303:0:

:002:000 ::0:
E0E0>0::0: :0...0 ::3
023003: E0330: 0::
”080050 E0E0>0_:0_..
:0 :0::0w0: 0:0 .
32:00.30
n:EE_..0_ 0_.::00:.;.\::0Ec0
30: :0: 020:... 00m .
0:00:00: 03:
0: 2:36:03: :0: b_:_::0::0
::3 003m .0580? 303:0:

2:02—39 :50: 00333.2:—

 

wx0>::m mug:
..000:0:: 4<:O £53052:

000:5. 325: £25
500E000 Row :03
::3 0000:0000: 20:20:00
0:: 00:80:00 E0E0>0_:0:
:0 :0::000: 3030:
00:20am Bow E08320 .

..:—sow E0E0>0E0< .

:0 0000:0800
\m:0_::_:00 3030: 3:00:

:002:000 ::0w :03

::3 0000:0030 0:03.50:

0:: 0080050 E0E0>0E00
:0 :0::000: 3030:
00:30:00 Bow E08320 .

0.:0w E0E0>0E0< .

:0 0:00:00000
0:020:00 3030:

3.2.239. 0oz:

0:07.000 00030:: E
00:02 3:00:00 3030:

 

 

a. .5080

 

Nu 00:000m

 

Z: 00:000m

 

00:95.25 3:000:30:—

 

 

sisé v 29:.

41

 

flout»
535325 8:52. o.
528:8 2.6 36ch 0
tons; wEomco 0
535225
._8 flag 0
:ozcoZBE
2 22:38.96 mac—Eu— o
main—b
-5662. tomaaéaa o
5% 2:325:—
Eomua b02883 8 3o;
ho 56386 35885 .

vouflocow
83.232. 3.5255 .

38
35 E 30:an wEwSEo
2 30:82 ..0 3053382
35:28 8:86
£22886 EOM<H

no.8 «c 55386 5.23 .
@8828»

EmEoEaa btaEtm .

80:an

Eoemmso wEwEEu

2 85332 3:88 mo
55:86 meon 52585
3.805%

“Errata 3525.5

$2.328

£5 wENES ho >55

2: E 3w ENE 852C
3:65:00
5 ESE—vomg
Esp—Boa 8:85

 

56.586 HMOMM<H

:80 ac mcossmotcaE

0:80:05 28

02683 53, 023088

80:85 98 88:3 023
.328 h.o 8.95:8 338m .

€032.23 EOMM<H
E xficomms 080 QEEaxm .

.09 25530wa soao he
3028332826 025E .
@333
SE a. 6885 450

56586 Hmomfir
some .6 mcogaotcmE
0288.35 95 9.80:0
53> 3368.8 3288a
25 86:8 E08830

mEoEmmflo

330:0 coca—Ectoa

98 teams. :oEobxo:
238 353053

.mmsohw :25 E - 53:3.
2:825 :50 88.320
cozflcoto Bow
E25528 none 55

$8:an E 9:. x02

 

 

mmotam 35m 98 .8805 ..o 83:55 0235 . 3369.3 $8323 23 $02 82: 2U .22:
A<mO .Emomflh be 3033— 385 flay—«Q 32::on ..0 moEmem maoocoo ban?
a .36QO g Eamuém 3 55% «23:25 3:86:53—

 

 

 

 

 

3253 v 035..

42

 

83 _:=E>_:E
:: :o 858%
2: 2 Exam“: 5:5 o
3:88 _::E>_:E
5.3 553328 E o
wEBaE ::Sm :< o
:EEEEE
2: Emma: 35 .23 Bow: .
EOEEEEEu< 0
::3m :3": o
80:03:. 5.23::— o
50:05:: >2: :3, on? .
8:08:
$2293: .0058 E2: 9E
:0:—mo. 3:00:09 2: 2:9“ .23
“Ema—0:93: 30: :o 5.828%
::o:w 20:3 :5: :28m ::Em
”:o:o< ..0 :2:

:Emmom

mEBo=£ 8 8:: wEE .
>033 W12: 05 23:88
9 E053 5:» 35:2

0:: «E: ::0—yam 0:: 820m .
mEoo:mm:_o 9.2: .5
0:: :o 038:: 232332;:
on. aux—:5: 9 .888:

12:0 :5: x8328:
Hmom/C. 2: omD .
2:032:03

x83 35 52:?

E mEoo:mm:_o E 3::5

2: 23w 2080550:
3:: :o 83:55 :0: v.84 .

888320 ..:—:25:

E :Bmoth :o 3:253

$323: 5.3 323E

83E 3:059:08

2: ::SBEE: 2 his:

$23635: 2: 353:0

:35 Ho: :0 852.3

::a 3:383 05 E

82693. QUE 523:0 .

”foaoEoz

€26: :o :2: a
:o EoE:o_o>o: wEuioEv
8:08: 8E £82 on. 5:

 

 

2 Siam

 

a: :Emmom

 

Z: :Emmom

 

8389.5 35595.5:—

 

 

ctzoov v 29¢

43

Provide organizing framework and clear learning objectives.

First, each session began with a broad overview of the material to be covered
during that workshop. In addition, the first session included a broad overview the topics
and skills to be covered during the series. This was designed to establish expectations for
the session and to foreshadow expectations for future sessions. In addition specific
learning objectives were outlined and participants were provided an opportunity to ask

questions about what they could expect to learn in each session.

Activate prior knowledge regarding student motivation.

Given that all participants indicated that motivation issues play a role in a
substantial proportion of the cases in which they are involved, it was important to
acknowledge and activate participants’ prior knowledge and perceptions of the nature of
motivation issues, how these issues were currently assessed, and what types of strategies
were currently being recommend to address such concerns. In addition, given that the
participants had chosen to enroll in the series of seminars, they likely had at least some
tentative ideas as to why it was important for school psychologists to have well-
developed skills to address motivation issues. Based on each of these assumptions. the
beginning of each session was devoted to a structured discussion of why the concepts and
strategies were relevant to pursue. Participants’ ideas were discussed and then connected
with the researcher’s previously-determined perspectives on the issue at hand. For
instance, during the first session, the researcher/workshop facilitator lead a structured
discussion of why it is important to address motivation issues in the first place. and why

school psychologists are particularly well suited and situated to provide support on such

44

issues. During the second session, this discussion centered on the utility of data-based
decision making in general, addressing such issues as the link between assessment and
intervention and the need to explore both personal and contextual factors in order to fully
understand and respond to motivation concerns. During the third session. the discussion
was focused upon the limitations of working at the classroom level without
acknowledging the broader systemic issues that may afford or constrain teachers”
opportunities to make changes to their classroom structures that will lead to more
adaptive motivational patterns in their students. While discussions varied somewhat
depending on the input of the participants, each group explored several common points

that had previously been developed by the researcher.

Review concepts presented in earlier sessions.

Prior to the introduction of new material and strategies at each session, previously
known or presented material was reviewed. This essentially served two purposes. First,
it provided an additional opportunity for the concepts and their application to be
processed. Second, it served as an opportunity for participants to pose any questions that
had developed since the previous meeting. In the first session, this included a review of
behavioral theory and its application to motivational issues in schools. Behavioral
reinforcement concepts were presented, including the conceptual foundations behind their
use and research-based recommendations for how and when such techniques should be
employed. For the second and third sessions, this component was devoted to a review of
social-cognitive perspectives on motivation and achievement goal theory. Similar to the

format for the initial introduction at the first session, terms were defined and explored in

45

relation to the potential belief systems and behaviors of students. In addition, research on
the learning and behavioral outcomes associated with each achievement goal orientation
were presented.

As part of this review process during the second and third session, participants
were asked about the extent to which they had been able to apply the concepts and
assessment and intervention strategies to the motivational issues they see in their own
practice. For instance, participants were asked to discuss how the personal achievement
goals and classroom goal structures introduced in the first session were manifested in the
students with whom and classrooms in which they had worked since the previous session.
Participants cited examples of students who were putting forth little effort and offering
multiple excuses and how this could be interpreted as evidence of a performance-
avoidance orientation. They talked about how they now recognition the plethora of
public recognition systems posted in the school and individual classrooms and how those
systems might have a negative impact on students who were not performing at the top of

their class.

Introduce new content... theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Building upon prior knowledge and previously introduced concepts, each session
included an introduction of new content. Lecture was the primary means by which this
information was conveyed to the participants. Several key points need to be made about
how this material was presented. First, each introduction started out with an overarching
connection to the broader theoretical concepts being explored. For instance, during the

second session when the Evaluation structure of the TARGET model was introduced, it

46

was explained that the overarching goal was to structure evaluation procedures so that
they provide feedback to students about what they have learned, what they have not yet
learned, and how students can correct any misconceptions or insufficient understandings.
In this way the evaluative feedback elicits a mastery goal in that it encourages students to

focus on their own individual improvement and progress toward instructional goals.

Applying new concepts.

The theoretical connection was followed up by specific examples of how the
concept could be translated into practice. Continuing with the Evaluation dimension of
the TARGET framework, specific exemplar practices include providing opportunities to
improve by allowing students to retake tests or revise and resubmit papers, projects, and
other assignments. These policies and practices provide a great example of how teachers
can convey to student the broad overarching principle that the most important priority in
the classroom is that students learn the materials. (See the TARGET handout in
Appendix E for additional examples.)

The most thorough application of the concepts learned in the first two workshops
is the example case that was explored in small groups in the third session (see Appendix
F). This case was introduced with general information about the student and his
classroom. The 5th grade student was described as struggling primarily in the literacy
domains. While he was a well-liked, popular, athletic young man, his teacher expressed
concerns that he was not producing much in-class work nor much homework and she
interpretation his actions as evidence that he was beginning to give up due to frustration

with his struggles. His teacher was described as well-liked by the students. There were

47

few behavior management problems in her classroom, and she was described as having
solid instructional skills. OPAL observational data and PALS survey responses were
provided to all participants and they were asked to work together with their colleagues to
interpret the data and make recommendations for changes to the classroom practices.
Finally, they were asked to justify how those changes would likely affect the achievement

goal orientation of the student.

Discussing potential impediments and constraints to implementation.

In addition to presenting new information, each session included ample
opportunities for the participants to ask questions regarding how these ideas apply to their
own professional experience. Participants raised concerns about how willing teachers
might be to make changes to their classrooms based on feedback from the school
psychologist. During the second and third sessions, general consultation principles were
discussed. These included the following: 1) identifying and acknowledging the effective
as well as ineffective practices that are occurring in the classroom, 2) identifying an
appropriate “starting point” in which changes will have the greatest influence and that
teachers will find acceptable, 3) working in small increments rather than trying to endorse
an overhaul of classroom practices, and 4) documenting the effects of the changes

through anecdotal records and/or formal assessment.

Translating learning into action... homework and plans ofaction.

Finally, each session ended with a homework plan or an activity that provided

participants an opportunity to put the ideas into practice. “Homework” for the first

48

workshop called for participants to explore the extent to which personal achievement
goals and classroom goal structures introduced in the first session were manifested in the
students with whom and classrooms in which they had worked prior to the second
session. These observations and interpretations were then discussed near the start of the
second session. “Homework” for the second workshop called for participants to use the
TARGET framework and OPAL protocol to analyze the motivational climate of one or
more classroom. Further, they were asked to select at least one student and one teacher
with whom to complete the PALS survey. This data was brought to the third session,
where one participants’ data was used to illustrate the PALS database and the whole
group worked together to interpret the data. The final activity of the third workshop
provided participants an opportunity to plan how they will apply the concepts learned
into their school psychology practice. They were asked to consider who they will
approach (e.g., individual teachers, full staff, administrators, parents) and how they will
present the concepts learned in the workshops along with their classroom application

(e. g., with regards to a specific student case, in consultation with an individual teacher
regarding his/her classroom practices, or at a school-wide staff meeting). Participants
were encouraged to consider their own orientation and typical school psychological
practice in order to determine how they might be most effective in conveying this

information to their fellow professionals.

49

Observing Patterns of Adaptive Learning: A Protocol for Classroom

Observations (OPAL) (Patrick et al., 1997).

The Observation Patterns of Adaptive Leaming observation protocol was
designed to guide and assist in documenting observations of characteristics of school
classrooms. The OPAL is grounded within an achievement goal orientation view of
motivation, with additional attention given to current research on classroom instruction
and teacher behaviors. It is structured to draw the observer’s attention to particular
classroom features that current research and theory development have indicated would
likely influence the quality and nature of student motivation.

Building on the TARGET framework, the first six of the nine observational
categories are the TARGET dimensions (described above). Additional dimensions
include the Social dimension, operationalized as the student-student and teacher-student
interactions, especially those that represent endorsement of social responsibility (for the
individual or group) and conflict resolution: the Help-seeking dimension, operationalized
as any behaviors or statements designed to seek help from the teacher. other students, or
available resources; and finally, the Messages dimension, which generally include
comments from the teacher indicating his/her beliefs and assumptions about school,
expectations for work, and student behavior, but that are not linked to a specific academic
activity (OPAL Manual, p. 3). The manual includes a detailed description of each
category, including a thorough explanation of how the categories are operationalized and
specific examples of each category and recommended classroom features that address
each dimension. Similar to the PALS surveys described below, this observation protocol

was designed for and had been used exclusively for research purposes up to this point.

For the purposes of the professional development workshops, only the original six
TARGET dimensions and the Help-Seeking dimension were presented to the

participants.

Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000).

The Patterns of Adaptive Leaming Scales is a set of surveys developed with an
achievement goal theory perspective of motivation in mind. These surveys are designed
to examine the relation between the learning environment and students' motivation,
affect, and behavior. The student scales assess personal achievement goal orientations,
perceptions of teacher's achievement goals, perceptions of the goal structures in the
classroom, achievement-related beliefs, attitudes, and strategies, and perceptions of
parents and home life. For the purposes of the professional development seminars, only
the first four areas were presented to the participants. Teacher scales assess their
perceptions of the goal structure in the school, their goal-related approaches to
instruction, and personal teaching efficacy. For the purposes of the professional
development seminars, the latter area (personal teaching efficacy) was excluded from the
workshops. The surveys use a five-point Likert-type scale. Items on the student scales
are anchored at 1: "Not at all true." 3 = "Somewhat true." and 5 = "Very true." Items on
the teacher scales are anchored at l = "Strongly disagree." 3 = "Somewhat agree," and 5
= "Strongly agree."

Psychometric properties: Up to this point in time, the surveys had been used
exclusively for research purposes. Over the last decade the PALS survey has been used

in numerous research studies conducted in nine school districts across three Midwestern

states. (See PALS Manual for a listing of the specific studies.) It has been administered
to students and teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The
socioeconomic status of the participating districts has ranged from low- to middle
income. In addition, it has been administered to students enrolled in and teachers
working in coeducational public schools. The proportion of male and female student
respondents has been approximately equal. The various research samples have been
ethnically diverse, with up to fifty-five percent minority participation (primarily African-
American) in the student samples and up to thirty percent minority participation
(primarily African-American) in the teacher samples. Reliability data listed in the PALS
Manual indicates that each of the subscales has acceptable internal consistency (all
greater than or equal to 0.69). Subscale reliabilities range from 0.70 to 0.89 for the

student subscales and from 0.69 to 0.81 for the teacher subscales.

Overview of Research Measures

Prior to the start of the intervention, all participants were asked to respond to a
series of surveys and questionnaires that explored the school psychologists’ knowledge
and beliefs with regards to student motivation. Table 5 provides. a list of the research
outcomes, the measures utilized to assess them, and a data collection timeline for each
measure. The Motivation Knowledge Quiz was administered to collect an objective
measure of the participants’ knowledge of the motivation concepts introduced in the
workshops. The Perceptions of Competence survey provided insight into the
participants’ subjective ratings of their skills in understanding and responding to student

motivation concerns. The Assessment of Motivation survey explored the participants’

'J’I
IQ

likelihood of utilizing various assessment techniques to explore student and contextual
characteristics when attempting to understand student motivation. In addition, it
provided data on the extent to which participants attended to the influence of the six
TARGET dimensions on student motivation when observing in classrooms. And finally,
the Motivation Strategies survey assessed the likelihood of recommending particular
types of strategies to enhance student motivation, including strategies focused on

effort/improvement/choice, competition/public recognition, and punishment.

Table 5. Research outcomes, research measures, and administration timeline

 

 

 

 

Research # of Administration Timeline
Research Outcome Measure items Pretest Posttest Delayed
. posttest
Motivation
ContentKnowledge of Knowledge 13 X X
Motivation .
_QulZ
Perceptions of Competence 21
Subscales: Perce tions of
- Conceptualization Competence (3) X X X
- Assessment suf'v e (8)
- Intervention y (4)
— Communication/Persuasion (6)

 

. Assessment 0
Assessment Strategies -— f

 

 

 

 

 

Student characteristics Motivation 5 X X
survey
Assessment Strategies — “ 5 X X
Contextual characteristics
Assessment Strategies - “ 6 X X
TARGET dimensions
. Motivation
Intervention Strategies — .
Effort/Improvement/Choice Stgategzes 10 X X
urvey
Intervention Strategies — ., 10 X X
Public Recognition/Competition
Intervention Strategies - .. 5 X X

Punishment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All treatment group participants completed these pre—surveys and questionnaires
during the first forty-five minutes of the first session. The pre-assessment
survey/questionnaire packets for the control group participants were either mailed in time
to arrive the day of the first treatment group session (districts #1 and #2), or they were
left that afternoon on the participants’ desks at work (districts #3 and #4). Participants in

the latter two districts were called that day and informed that the packet of surveys had

54

 

been left at their work location. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was included with
the packet in order for these control group participants to return their measures free of
charge. Reminder phone calls were made to all control group participants approximately
three to five days after the surveys were distributed so as to ensure that the pre-measures
were completed in a timely manner.

With the exception of the participant information form, all surveys and
questionnaires were repeated upon completion of the first series of professional
development seminars (after the treatment group had completed the seminars but prior to
the control group’s participation in the workshops). All treatment group participants
were given their packet of surveys at the end of the final workshop in their series. The
post-assessment survey packets for the control group participants were either mailed in
time to arrive the day of the last treatment group session (districts #1 and #2), or they
were left that afternoon on the participants’ desks at work (districts #3 and #4).
Participants in the latter two districts were called that day and informed that the packet of
surveys had been left at their work location. All post-assessment packets included
instructions asking that the packets be completed in one sitting and returned within a
week. In addition, each packet included a self-addressed. stamped envelope for return of
the post-measures free of charge. Reminder phone calls were completed approximately
three to five days after the surveys were distributed so as to ensure that the post-measures
were completed in a timely manner. A brief description of each measure is included

below.

Participant Information Form.

All participants were asked to fill out a brief questionnaire (see Appendix H)
describing their professional training and role as a school psychologist and the extent to
which they address motivation issues in their practices. The professional training
questions included the following: degree level, years of experience as a school
psychologist, and additional experiences with children, youth, and families. In addition,
the participants were asked to provide information regarding their number of years
working at in their current district. Professional role questions were designed to solicit
descriptive information on the participants’ current professional assignments including
the number of schools they serve, at which levels, and approximately how many students
are enrolled in such schools. Finally, the participants were asked to estimate the
percentage of time they spend in various professional activities, including administrative
responsibilities, meetings, formal and informal assessment, consultation, intervention,
supervision, and any other activities not included on the list.

In addition, all participants were asked to provide some general information about
the extent to which they believe motivation issues are present in the cases in which they
are involved. First, they were asked to estimate the percentage of cases in which they are
involved for which motivation is an important contributing factor to the student’s
academic difficulties. Second, they were asked to rate the extent to which they consider
student motivation when making major educational decisions (e.g.. referral for
assessment, eligibility for special education). And finally. they were asked to make a
judgment regarding the extent to which the teachers with whom they work seek their

support for motivation issues.

Motivation Knowledge Quiz.

As a means of assessing the content knowledge gained as a result of participating
in the professional development seminars, all study participants (treatment and control)
completed a thirteen-question assessment of their motivation knowledge (see Appendix
I). This assessment was created by the researcher and was designed to be closely linked
to the instructional goals of the professional development workshops, with a heavy
emphasis on the application of achievement goal theory to student motivation problems.

The format included both multiple-choice and true false questions.

Perceptions of Competence.

As a result of participating in the series of seminars, it was expected that
treatment group participants would develop an enhanced sense of competency in
conceptualizing and responding to motivation problems. Therefore, all participants
completed a 21-item questionnaire (see Appendix J) assessing their perceptions of
competence in four related areas. This measure was developed by the author for the
purposes of this research study. The first area, conceptualization of motivation issues,
explored the extent to which the participants believe they are capable of understanding
the nature of motivation problems and the factors influencing them (N = 3 items). The
second area, assessment of motivation, explored the participants’ ratings of their
competence in assessing individual students’ motivation as well as the motivational
climate of the classroom. It further explored the participants’ sense of competence in

utilizing particular assessment tools, such as interviews. observations, and surveys, to

57

assess student motivation problems (N = 8 items). The third area, motivational
interventions, explored how competent the participants rated themselves in developing.
monitoring, and evaluating the effectiveness of both individual-level and classroom-level
interventions (N = 4 items). And finally, the fourth area, communication and
persuasion, examined the participants’ judgments of their competence in communicating
with teachers regarding student motivation issues. This subscale explored the extent to
which they felt competent in persuading teachers to implement individual and classroom-
level changes as well as how competent they feel in communicating an overall message
to their teachers regarding establishing an adaptive motivational climate in their
classrooms (N = 6 items). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-style format, with the
following anchors: l = Not at all competent, 3 = Somewhat competent, and 5 = Very
competent.

As expected, the full scale (including all items) had the strongest internal
reliability (pretest or = .9477; posttest or = .9692). Alpha reliabilities for the subscales
were as follows: conceptualization (pretest OL = .7423; posttest on = .8580); assessment
(pretest OL = .8896; posttest or = .9237); intervention (pretest (1 = .9007; posttest or =
.9136); and communication and persuasion (pretest or = .8635; posttest CL = .9086).

All participants (including both treatment and control group) completed the
Perceptions of Competence survey prior to and immediately upon completion of the
series of professional development seminars. In addition, treatment group participants
completed the survey a third time, approximately three to six weeks after conclusion of
the workshops. This final administration served as the delayed posttest, assessing the

continuing influence of the series of seminars. All treatment and control group

participants completed both the pre- and posttest, and 25 of the 26 treatment group
participants completed the delayed posttest. Twelve of the 25 treatment group
participants completed their delayed posttest survey prior to an in-depth interview
designed to explore the effects of the workshops on the psychologists’ practice. The
interviews were conducted by a research associate, a fellow graduate student at Michigan
State University, in order to minimize response bias and to encourage candid responses.
(The data from these semi-structured interviews were not included in this study because
they could not be completed within the dissertation timeframe.) For the remaining 13
control group participants, the delayed posttest survey was mailed to them along with a

self-addressed stamped envelope.

Surveys for Analog Motivation Cases.

Participants were asked to read three different motivation profiles and respond to
a set of surveys after each one. The individual student profiles and subsequent surveys
were counterbalanced so as to eliminate any bias due to their order of presentation. The
three profiles (see Appendix K) all describe a 5‘h grade, male student who has academic
difficulties in school. Generally, he is not performing well on class assignments and
assessments. The profiles were designed to capture the range of potential motivational
cases that would typically present themselves to school psychologists. These cases
essentially differ in the pervasiveness of the poor academic performance (with some
experiencing global academic difficulties while others are performing poorly in just a few
subjects) as well as the perceived ability of the student. Profile 1 describes a student who

is performing poorly in one specific area. He is believed to be capable, but is not putting

59

forth much effort and is thus not performing up to expectations. Profile 2 depicts a
student who is struggling generally in school. His performance in all coursework is
substantially below that of his classmates. It is not known whether or not he is capable of
doing his work as he rarely puts forth much effort in school. The third profile portrays a
student who is believed to be capable overall, yet he puts forth minimal effort in his
schoolwork except when he is interested in the material. The results from each of these
measures were pooled across subjects, leading to total scores in each subscale.

For each profile the participants were asked to complete a l6-item survey, entitled
Assessment of Motivation (see Appendix L). This measure was created by the author for
the purposes of this study. Specific items were developed with goal theory perspective in
mind, emphasizing the role that individual and contextual factors play with student
motivation. In general, the measure required participants to rate how likely they were to
use various assessment techniques to understand the motivational aspects of the cases.
The techniques (the first 10 items) were equally divided between a focus on student
characteristics (pretest or = .5850; posttest or = .4884) and classroom/contextual
characteristics (pretest or = .7212; posttest or = .7828). In addition, participants were
asked to rate how likely they were to gather information about each of the six TARGET
dimensions pretest (CL = .9255; posttest or = .9335). Each item was rated on a 5-point
Likert-style format, with the following anchors: 1 = Not at all likely, 3 = Somewhat
likely, and 5 = Very likely.

The Motivation Strategies Survey, developed by Ames and Rau (2001) (see
Appendix M), was used to assess how likely the participants would be to recommend that

teachers employ various strategies to motivate the hypothetical students described in the

60

profiles above. Based on factor analysis completed with a large sample of pre-service
teachers in an introductory educational psychology course, it was determined that the 25
items in this survey cluster into three subscales. The first subscale had 10 items and
included strategies focused upon effort, improvement, and choice (pretest or = .7908;
posttest OL = .7603). The second subscale is made up of 10 items emphasizing public
recognition and competition as the primary means of motivating students (pretest or =
.8441; posttest CL = .9439). And finally, the third subscale includes 5 strategies focused
upon the use of punishment as a motivational technique (pretest or = .6479: posttest or =

.7865). Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale with the following anchors: 1 =

Not at all likely, 3 = Somewhat likely, and 5 = Very likely.

Program evaluation.

In addition to the surveys and questionnaires designed by the researcher, all
participants were asked to complete a questionnaire evaluating the effectiveness of the
series of workshops. This form was designed by the district that awarded the State Board
Continuing Education Units, and included survey questions and open—ended response
items. Survey items included an overall evaluation of the program and the participants
likelihood of being able to use the information presented to enhance theirjob
effectiveness. In addition, specific questions addressed the clarity of the program
objectives, the quality of the instructional skills. the relevancy and helpfulness of the
materials, and the extent to which the program captured and held the participants’
interests. Each survey item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale with the following

anchors: l = Poor and 5 = Excellent. Open-ended questions asked for feedback on what

61

could be done to improve the workshops and solicited input on recommendations for

future workshops. See Appendix N for a copy of this evaluation instrument.

62

RESULTS

The overarching research question that guided this study was how did
participation in the professional development seminars affect school psychologists’
beliefs and strategies for addressing motivation concerns? To answer this question.
results were analyzed for group differences between treatment and control group
participants. All survey data were analyzed using SPSS. Composite data were calculated
for each participant on the competence scale and subscales, the assessment subscales. and
the strategy subscales. For the latter two sets of subscales, results for each of the three
hypothetical motivation cases were combined into composite scores.

Analysis of results indicated that there were no significant differences between
treatment and control groups on any of the pre-test outcome measures (see Table 6). In
addition, because participants were not randomly assigned to treatment and control
group, pre-test results for both groups were combined and analyzed to determine if they
differed significantly in relation to years of experience as a school psychologist, degree
level. and gender. Regression analyses revealed that years of experience were not
significantly predictive of any outcomes. Similarly. one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) revealed no significant pre-test differences for degree level (see Table 7).
Finally, independent sample t-test revealed that there were no significant pretest
differences for gender (see Table 8). Given the non-significant results for each of these
variables, all results were analyzed with 2 (time) by 2 (treatment group) repeated
measures, analysis of variance (ANOVA). Table 9 shows the mean scores of the
treatment and control group participants on pre- and post-test assessments of their

knowledge. perceptions of competence. assessment practices. and intervention strategies.

Table 6

Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Group Assignment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Condition
Pre—test Treatment Control T-test
Motivation Knowledge —
M 5.35 5.35 t‘ ‘004
so 1.65 1.67 p< '997
Perceptions of Competence t: 461
M 2.68 2.77 '
so 0.69 0.66 p< '647
Assessment - Student characteristics t = 1.289
M 3.39 3.58 < 904
so 054 0.51 p "
Assessment — Contextual characteristics t: 1 525
M 2.95 3.25 '
so 0.76 0.59 p< '134
Assessment — TARGET dimensions t = 630
M 3.34 3.49 '
so 0.98 0.63 p< '532
Intervention Strategies - t = 1 632
Competition and Public Recognition M 3.59 3.81 < 109
so 0.52 0.39 p '
Intervention Strategies — Effort, t = 1 231
Improvement, and Choice M 1.81 1.97 < '224
so 0.49 0.47 p '
Intervention Strategies -— Punishment
" M 2.25 2.51 t: L645
so 0.56 0.57 p< '107

 

 

 

 

64

 

Table 7

Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Degree Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretest Degree Level
Doctoral Specialist Masters F-test
Motivation Knowledge _
M 6.75 5.22 5.25 F 215%?
so 2.21 1.62 0.50 p '
Perceptions of Competence F = 238
M 2.95 2.71 2.70 < .789
so 0.44 0.71 0.31 P '
Assessment — student characteristics F = 330
M 3.28 3.50 3.55 P ('721
SD 0.52 0.54 0.47 '
Assessment - contextual characteristics = 898
M 3.25 3.09 3.05 < .898
, so 0.69 0.70 0.79 P '
Assessment - TARGET dimensions F = 624
M 3.39 3.37 3.86 < '540
so 0.80 0.85 0.68 p '
Intervention Strategies -
Competition and Public Recognition F = .213
M 3.62 3.69 3.83 p < .809
SD 0.36 0.49 0.48
Intervention Strategies — Effort,
Improvement, and Choice F = 2.505
M 1.60 1.96 1.51 p < .092
SD 0.38 0.49 0.11
Interventron Strategies — Punrshment F = .642
M 2.07 2.40 2.43
so 0.96 0.54 0.54 p < '531

 

65

 

Table 8

Analysis of Group Differences on Pre-test Measures by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-test Gender
Female Male T-test
Motivation Knowledge
M 5.56 4.47 t: 1.501
SD 1.68 1.43 p< .140
Perceptions of Competence
M 2.68 2.86 t = .872
SD 0.70 0.59 p< .387
Assessment - Student
characteristics M 3.50 3.45 t = .284
SD 0.51 0.58 p< .778
Assessment — Contextual
characteristics M 3.12 3.03 t = .394
SD 0.69 0.72 p< .695
Assessment — TARGET
Dimensions M 3.45 3.30 t = .611
SD 0.86 0.77 p< .544
Intervention Strategies —
Competition and
Public Recognition M 3.37 3.59 t = .990
SD 0.46 0.52 p< .327
Intervention Strategies — Effort,
Improvement, and Choice M 1.87 1.95 t = .547
SD 0.49 0.47 p< .587
Intervention Strategies —
Punishment M 2.38 2.37 t = .065
SD 0.64 0.33 p< .948

 

66

 

Table 9

Means (and Standard Deviations) for Pre- and Posttest Assessment of Treatment

Outcomes for Treatment and Control Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Treatment Control
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
. . 5.346 9.308 5.348 5.652
Mom‘mo“ Know’edee (0.325) (0.327) (0.346) (0.348)
. 2.686 3.674 2.774 2.776
Perceptions of Competence (overall) (0.132) (0.1 11) (0.137) (0.116)
Perceptions of Competence — 3.038 4.051 3.097 3.028
Conceptualization (0.129) (0.112) (0.134) (0.117)
Perceptions of Competence — 2.813 3.827 2.813 2.854
Assessment (0.149) (0.115) (0.155) (0.119)
Perceptions of Competence —- 2.760 3.615 3.052 2.885
Intervention (0.172) (0.137) (0.179) (0.142)
Perceptions of Competence — 2.292 3.321 2.375 2.472
Communication and Persuasion (0.142) (0.128) (0.148) (0.134)
Assessment — 3.395 4.113 3.586 3.461
Student Characteristics (0.103) (0.083) (0.107) (0.086)
Assessment — 2.954 3.992 3.250 3.131
Contextual Characteristics (0.135) (0.102) (0.140) (0.106)
Assessment — Observations 3692 4'186 3899 3684 '

(0.131) (0.110) (0.136) (0.115)

Assessment __ Interviews 3.417 3.596 3.760 3.729
‘ (0.155) (0.142) (0.161) (0.148)
Assessment _ Surve 3 1.654 3.690 1.771 1.938

V (.660) (.985) (.894) (.884)

Assessment — 3.342 4.244 3.491 3.449
TARGET dimensions (0.164) (0.124) (0.170) (0.129)
Interventions —- 3.594 4.137 3.811 3.961
Effort, Improvement. & Choice (0.092) (0.092) (0.096) (0.095)
Interventions — 1.812 1.282 1.979 2.168
Competition & Public Recognition (0.094) (0.097) (0.098) (0.101)
Interventions — 2.254 2.049 2.517 2.628
Punishment (0.111) (0.120) (0.115) (0.125)

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on each
outcome measure separately as well as on the full model including all outcome measures.
This statistical test allowed for an exploration of the main effects of the within subjects
(time) and between subjects (group) variables, as well as the interaction between them.
Overall, the research hypotheses called for significant interaction terms on each outcome
variable. Essentially, significant interaction terms indicate that the treatment group made
gains in the hypothesized direction between pre- and post-assessment while the control

group remained virtually the same (or digressed).

Overall model

One control group participant did not complete either the pre- or posttest
knowledge quiz. As a result the multivariate analysis of the overall model, including all
outcome measures, is based upon data collected from the remaining 23 control group
participants along with the full contingent of treatment group participants (N=26). As
would be expected, the univariate analysis of the changes in participants’ knowledge is
based on the same participants. And finally, the univariate analyses of all other
individual outcomes are based on the full complement of participants, including 24
control group participants and 26 treatment group participants.

The overall model explores the collective effects of the professional development
seminars over time. The eight outcome variables included in this model were knowledge,
perceptions of competence (composite score), the three assessment foci (student, context.

and TARGET dimensions), and the three types of intervention recommendations

68

(effort/improvement/choice, competition/public recognition, and punishment). Results
from the repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant time by
treatment interaction (F (8, 40) = 13.783, p < .0001). Furthermore, analysis of the overall
model yielded a partial eta-squared of 0.734, indicating a large effect size according to
Cohen’s (1988) classification. Essentially, participation in the series of professional
development seminars significantly enhanced the knowledge, beliefs and practices of the
school psychologists who participated in the professional deve10pment seminars.

To explore the unique effects of the workshops on the treatment group
participants, individual univariate analysis were conducted for each outcome variable

listed above. These results are described below.

Knowledge of Motivation Concepts and their Application

Table 9 shows the total knowledge scores on the motivation quiz at pre- and
posttest. An ANOVA was conducted on the total knowledge scores with repeated
measures on time of testing. A significant time by treatment interaction (F (1, 47) =
81.615, p < .0001) revealed support for the knowledge hypothesis. Participation in the
series of professional development workshops resulted in a significant increase in the
treatment group participants’ knowledge of motivation constructs and their application.
with scores on the knowledge quiz nearly doubling from pre- to posttest (from 5.35 to
9.31). To the contrary. control group participants’ knowledge did not change
significantly over time (see Figure 1). In addition. the effect size (partial eta-squared =
.502) fell within the medium range according to Cohen’s (1988) recommended criteria.

indicating that the increase in knowledge was not only statistically significant, but also

69

substantial. While certainly an important finding, such a result should be expected given
that the treatment group participants had a unique learning opportunity to explore a brand
new area of knowledge, while the control group participants simply continued with their

regular professional activities.

Motivation Knowledge

 

1O

 

 

 

 

 

a) 81

C

as

O)

2

E 7-

fr?

2 Treatment v. Control

8 6- —

76 4______________._. ITreatment

.E —

L‘un 5 .Control
1 2
TIME

Figure 1. Graph of treatment and control group means for motivational knowledge at
pre- and posttest
Perceptions of Competence

Table 9 shows the means and standard deviations for the treatment and control
participants’ perceptions of competence, including overall as well as subscales, at the
time of pre— and posttest. ANOVAs were conducted on the overall and subscale scores
with repeated measures on time of testing. A significant time by treatment interaction was

found for each, thus confirming the perceptions of competence hypothesis.

70

Analysis of the overall perceptions of competence scores yielded a significant
time by treatment interaction (F (1, 48) = 30.421, p < .0001). Essentially participation in
the professional development workshops resulted in a significant increase in the
treatment group participants’ perceptions of their competence to understand and respond
to student motivation concerns. In contrast, control group participants’ perceptions
remained virtually the same (or even decreased slightly). Group averages for both
treatment and control group participants fell slightly below the somewhat competent
descriptor (3.0), with both groups averaging approximately 2.7 on the 5.0 scale. Upon
completing the series of workshops, treatment group participants rated themselves, on
average, nearly a point higher than their pretest scores, while control group participants
remained virtually the same.

Similar effects were found for each of the perceptions of competence subscales.
Significant time by treatment interactions were found for each subscale, including
conceptualization (F (1, 48) = 27.586, p < .0001), assessment (F, 1, 48) = 23.345, p <
.0001), intervention strategies (F (1, 48) = 19.972, p < .0001), and communication and
persuasion (F (1, 48) = 24.425, p < .0001), with small to medium effects sizes of 0.365,
0.327, 0.294, and 0.337, respectively. (See Figures 2-6 for graphs of treatment and

control group means at pre- and posttest). Each subscale is explored in detail below.

71

Perceptions of Competence

 

 

 

 

 

3.8
3.6II
3.4!
(D
r;
3 32
2 .
"£6
.E
g 3.0-
2 Treatment v. Control
8 _
.— 2.8
g k 4 I Treatment
13 2.6 . Control
1 2
TIME

Figure 2. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of competence in
understanding and responding to motivation issues (overall) at pre- and posttest

Perceptions of Competence

Conceptualization

 

 

 

 

 

 

U)
C
as
m
E
E
.E
8
2 Treatment v. Control
8 _
E I Treatment
13 2.8_ _ . Control
1 2
TIME

Figure 3. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of competence in
conceptualizing motivation issues at pre- and posttest

72

Perceptions of Competence

Assessment

 

4.0

3.8 1

3.6 '

3.4 i

  
 

3.2 I

3.0 . Treatment v. Control

. - Treatment

. Control

 

 

2.8

 

Estimated Marginal Means

2.6

 

1 2

TIME

Figure 4. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of competence in
assessing motivation issues at pre- and posttest

73

Perceptions of Competence

Interventions

 

  
 

Treatment v. Control

 

I Treatment

. Control

Estimated Marginal Means
(a)
O

 

 

TIME

Figure 5. Graph of treatment and control group means on perception of competence in
developing and evaluating the effects of intervention for student motivation issues at pre-
and posttest.

74

Perceptions of Competence

Communication and Persuasion

 

3.4
3.2 I
3.0 -
2.8 .

2.6I Treatment v. Control

 

2-4 I Treatment

2.2 . Control

 

Estimated Marginal Means

TIME

Figure 6. Graph of treatment and control group means for perception of competence in
explaining motivational data and persuading teachers’ to implement interventions at pre-
and posttest

Of the four perceptions of competence subscales measured in their surveys,
participants started out, in fact, believing themselves to be most competent in their ability
to simply understand the nature of student motivation problems. This subscale received
the highest ratings across treatment and control groups at the pretest stage. In general.
both treatment and control group participants rated themselves as somewhat competent
(~3.0—3. 1) prior to the start of the treatment groups’ workshops. While control group
participants’ ratings remained virtually the same at posttest. scores for treatment group

participants were substantially higher upon completing the series of seminars. In fact,

their ratings jtrmped a full point from pre- to posttest. indicating that these participants

believed themselves to be significantly more competent in ability to understand the nature
of students’ motivational beliefs and their effect on learning and behavior.

Similarly, treatment and control group participants rated themselves below the
somewhat competent threshold with regards their beliefs about their competence in
assessing motivation concerns (~2.8 for both groups). While the self-ratings of the
control group participants changed an insignificant amount from pre- to posttest,
treatment group participants again rated themselves more than a full point higher (~3.8)
upon completion of the seminars. In general, participation in the series of professional
development workshops resulted in a significant enhancement of the treatment group
participants’ beliefs about their ability to assess the motivational beliefs of students and
the motivational climate of classrooms, and more specifically, to use observation,
interview, and surveys to do so.

A slightly different pattern was revealed in the analysis of changes in participants’
perceptions of competence in developing and evaluating the effectiveness of motivational
interventions. Pretest ratings indicated that there was no significant difference between
treatment and control group participants’ self-evaluations (~3.0 and ~2.8, respectively).
Control group participants’ ratings remained virtually the same at the posttest stage,
while treatment group participants rated themselves as significantly more competent
(nearly a full point improvement over their pretest scores) in developing and evaluating
the effectiveness of individual- and classroom-level intervention strategies to address
student motivation concerns upon completion of the series of professional development

workshops.

76

(If)

f.

And finally, in comparison with the other perceptions of competence subscales,
both treatment and control group participants were most critical of their abilities to
persuade teachers to implement changes in their classroom that could impact student
motivation. Both groups initially rated themselves fairly low in this area (~2.3 and ~2.4,
respectively). While the self-ratings of the control group participants remained
essentially unchanged at posttest, the treatment group participants’ averages improved
more than a full point (to 3.3). While these statistically significant results represent a
substantial improvement over the pretest ratings, it is important to note that treatment
group participants still rate themselves as merely somewhat competent in this area even

after completing the series of professional development seminars.

F ollow-up Measures: Delayed Post Test Results

The above results represent the participants’ ratings immediately following the
culmination the professional development seminars. While the significant improvements
suggest that the professional development seminars were effective in enhancing the
participants’ beliefs about their abilities to understand and respond to motivation
concerns, it is important to consider whether these ratings were sustained over time. In
general, treatment group participants maintained their overall sense of confidence in their
ability to address motivation issues. Table 10 shows the means and standard deviations
for the treatment group participants’ overall perceptions of competence at the time of
pre-, post- and delayed posttest. (One treatment group participant did not return the
delayed post-test measure and therefore the following analysis was based on 25 of the 26

treatment group participants.) A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main

77

effect for time (F (2, 23) = 32.988, p < .0001), with a medium effect size (partial eta-
squared = .579). Treatment group participants showed a substantial increase in their
perceptions of competence from pre- to posttest (F (1, 24) = 38.673, p < .0001), and
maintained that elevated sense of confidence in their skills through delayed post-test, as
indicated by the lack of significant differences between post- and delayed posttest (F (1,
24) = 1.045, p < .317). See Figure 7 for graphs representing the change over the three

data collection points.

Table 10

Means (and standard deviations) for Pre-, Post-, and Delayed Post-Test Perceptions of
Competence for Treatment Group Only

 

Delayed

Variable Pre-test Post-test
Post-test

 

 

Perceptions of

Competence 2.706 (.692) 3.688 (.475) 3.619 (.416)

 

 

 

 

 

78

Emmi

7v-
. I

Perceptions of Competence
Treatment Group

Pre, Post, and Delayed Post

4.0

 

 

 

Estimated Marginal Means

 

 

TIME

Figure 7. Graph of pre—, post-, and delayed-post means for treatment group participants’
perception of competence (overall)
Assessment Practices

Table 9 shows the means and standard deviations for the treatment and control
group participants’ assessment practices. Three subscales were explored in the initial
analyses. These included, 1) a collection of assessment practices and techniques
designed to understand student beliefs and behaviors related to motivation, 2) a collection
of assessment practices and techniques designed to understand the contextual factors
influencing student motivation, and 3) classroom dimensions in line with the TARGET
model. Separate 2 (Group) X 2 (Time) ANOVAs were conducted on the overall and
subscale scores with repeated measures on time of testing (pre- and post-). A significant
time by treatment interaction was found for each, thus confirming the assessment

hypotheses.

79

Research hypotheses were confirmed for each of the areas of motivation
assessment. Analysis of the data addressing assessment of student characteristics,
including motivational beliefs and behaviors, yielded a significant time by treatment
interaction (F (1, 48) = 29.082, p < .0001) with a small to medium effect size (partial eta-
squared = .377). While treatment group participants showed a significant increase in
their likelihood of utilizing a variety of assessment techniques to explore students’
motivational beliefs and behaviors, control group participants’ ratings remain unchanged
from pre- to posttest. See Figure 8 for a graph of this change over time and across

participant groups.

Assessment Practices

Student Characteristics

 

 

 

 

4.2
4.0‘
m
E
a) 3.8-
2
'16
.E
g 3.6
2 Treatment v. Control
'0 _
.93 3.4 I
(U Treatment
.E —
[B 3.2 .Control
1 2
TIME

Figure 8. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of student
characteristics at pre- and posttest

Similarly, there was a significant time by group interaction for contextual

characteristics (F (1. 48) = 38.954, p < .0001), indicating that participation in the series of

80

professional development workshops had a significant effect on the likelihood of
exploring contextual factors and their influence on student motivation (medium effect
size — partial eta squared = .446). While control group participants’ ratings stayed the
same, treatment group participants showed a substantial increase in their likelihood of
exploring the contextual factors influencing the motivation issues represented in the
hypothetical student cases. (See Figure 9 for a graph of treatment and control group

means for contextual assessment at pre- and posttest.)

Assessment Practices

Contextual Characteristics

 

4.2

4.0 1

 

  
 

 

Treatment v. Control

I Treatment

. Control

 

Estimated Marginal Means

 

1 2

TIME

Figure 9. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of contextual
characteristics at pre- and posttest

In relation to this contextual focus, a small effect size (partial eta-squared = .295)
was found for changes in the participants focus on the TARGET dimensions. Essentially,
treatment group participants showed a significant increase in their likelihood of attending

to the TARGET dimensions when trying to understand the role that the classroom context

81

plays in shaping students’ motivational beliefs and behaviors (time by group interaction.
F (1, 48) = 20.092, p < .0001), while control group participants ratings remained nearly

the same. (See Figure 10 for a graph of these changes.)

Assessment Practices

TARGET Dimensions

4.4

 

4.2 '

4.0 'I

3.8 I

3.6r Treatment v. Control

 

 

3.4 - Treatment

3.2 . Control
1 2

Estimated Marginal Means

 

TIME

Figure 10. Graph of treatment and control group means for assessment of TARGET
dimensions at pre- and posttest

Subsequent analyses were conducted in order to determine if there were
substantial and specific changes in particular types of assessment practices that were
endorsed by the participants, regardless of their focus on student characteristics or
contextual characteristics. In general, one goal of the intervention was to enhance both
the quality and quantity of assessment techniques. As noted previously, an earlier study
by this author revealed that school psychologists did not believe that they had sufficient

“formal” assessment techniques. Pretest results indicated that observations and

82

interviews were used most frequently, while surveys were utilized only minimally. The
items utilized in the student and contextual assessment subscales (the first 10 items of the
Assessment of Motivation survey) were re-sorted by type of strategy (observations,
interviews, and surveys) rather than focus of assessment (student vs. context). Alpha
reliabilities for pre- and posttest data for each of these assessment techniques were as
follows: observation (pretest or = .7269, posttest or = .6935), interview (pretest or = .7987,
posttest or = .7884), and survey (pretest CL = .8116, posttest or = .9353). Each of these
subscales are based on relatively small numbers of items (N = 4, 4, and 2, respectively),
so results should be interpreted with caution.

Table 9 shows the means and standard deviations for the treatment and control
participants’ endorsement of specific assessment techniques in response to the
hypothetical motivation cases. An ANOVA was conducted on the assessment technique
subscales with repeated measures on time of testing. Each analysis yielded significant
time by treatment interactions: observation (F ( 1, 48) = 21.655, p < .0001), interview (F,
1,48) = 17.653, p < .0001), and survey measures (F (1, 48) = 36.207, p < .0001), with
small to medium effects sizes of 0.311, 0.269, and 0.430, respectively. (See Figures 11-

13).

83

Assessment Techniques

Observation

 

4.3
4.2 (
4.1 -
4.0 -

3.9

  
 

Treatment v. Control

3.81

 

I Treatment

. Control

3.7

 

Estimated Marginal Means

3.6

 

i 2

TIME

Figure 11. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of conducting
observations to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest

Assessment Techniques

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview
3.7:

U)
C
8 3.61
2
E
.E
9 3.5-
(U
2 Treatment v. Control
“D __
9 3.4! I
to Treatment
.§ —
“’3 3.3 . Control

1 2

TIME

Figure 12. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of conducting
interviews to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest

84

Assessment Techniques

 

    

 

 

 

 

Survey
4.0
3.5 I
(D
8
a) 3.0 I
2
TB
.9
g) 2.5I
(U
2 Treatment v. Control
U —
.93 2.0 I I
(U !——-————"—'—_. Treatment
.E —
L3 1.5 . Control
1 2
TIME

Figure 13. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of administering
surveys to assess student motivation at pre- and posttest
Intervention Strategies

Table 9 shows the means and standard deviations for the treatment and control
participants’ intervention recommendations. As noted earlier. three broad categories of
motivation interventions were explored in these analyses. These included 1) an emphasis
on effort, improvement, and choice, 2) the use of competition and public recognition. and
3) a reliance on punishment to enhance students’ motivation to learn. Separate 2
(Group) by 2 (Time) ANOVAs were conducted on each subscale with repeated measures
on time of testing (pre- and post-). Research hypotheses were confirmed for two of the
three types of intervention strategies.

Analyses revealed a significant time by group interaction for strategies

emphasizing effort, improvement, and choice (F (1, 48) = 9.776, p < .003). indicating that

85

participation in the series of professional development workshops had a significant effect
on the likelihood of recommending such strategies in response to the hypothetical student
motivation cases. While control group participants’ ratings of the effort/improvement/
choice strategies remained virtually the same from pre- to posttest, treatment group
participants’ ratings revealed a significant increase (see Figure 14), suggesting that this
group of psychologists are highly likely to utilize such strategies when faced with similar
motivation concerns. It is important to note that, though these results were statistically
significant, they yielded a relatively small effect size (partial eta squared = .169). This
may, in part, be due to the fact that these strategies were already rated fairly high prior to
the intervention (~3.6 and ~3.8 for the treatment and control groups, respectively), and

therefore did not have as much room for improvement.

Intervention Recommendations

Effort, Improvement, Choice

 

4.2
4.1 I
ml
3.9 I

3.8

   

Treatment v. Control

 

 

Estimated Marginal Means

 

3.7 I
35 I Treatment
3.5 . Control

1 2

TIME

Figure 14. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of recommending
intervention strategies emphasizing effort, improvement, and choice at pre- and posttest

86

As expected, treatment group participants were less likely to endorse strategies
associated with encouraging a performance orientation in their classroom. There was a
significant time by group interaction for the strategies focused on competition and public
recognition (F (1, 48) = 28.766, p < .0001), with control group participants reporting
virtually no change while treatment group participants reporting a sharp decline. The
effect size for this interaction (partial eta-squared = .375) fell within the small to medium

range. (See Figure 15)

Intervention Recommendations

Rewards, Competition, Recognition
2.4

 

2.2 I

 

2.0
1.8

1.6 . Treatment v. Control

1‘4 ‘ . Treatment

1.2 . Control
1 2

 

Estimated Marginal Means

 

TIME

Figure 15. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of recommending
intervention strategies emphasizing rewards, competition, and recognition at pre- and
posttest

Finally, the research hypothesis was not confirmed for the punishment subscale of
the intervention recommendations. Overall, there was a significant main effect for group

(F (1,1) = 8.865, p < .005), yet not for time (F (1, 48) = 0.282, p < .598). Examination of

the pre- and posttest means for each group revealed that, while the treatment group’s

87

mean ratings were substantially lower than the control group’s at posttest, there was a
substantial, though not statistically significant, difference at the outset as well. Therefore,
while the posttest ratings indicated that treatment group participants were slightly less
likely to recommend punishment strategies in response to motivation concerns (dropping
from ~23 to ~21) and the control group participants slightly more likely (increasing
from ~25 to ~26), the differences at posttest cannot necessarily be attributed to
participation in the series of professional development seminars. (See Figure 16) It is
important to note that the time by group interaction approaches significance (F (1,48) =
3.195, p < 0.08), however does not quite reach the strict standard of .05 level

significance.

Intervention Recommendations

Punishment

 

2.7
2.61
2.5
2.4 I

2.3 I

22 . Treatment v. Control

21 . I Treatment

 

2.0 . Control
1 2

Estimated Marginal Means

 

TIME

Figure 16. Graph of treatment and control group means for likelihood of recommending
intervention strategies emphasizing punishment at pre- and posttest

88

Program evaluation

While all previous results include data from all study participants, only those
participants who completed the series of workshOps were eligible to complete the
program evaluation survey (Nfl3). This includes both the treatment and control group
participants from the first two districts and only the treatment group participants for the
remaining two districts. The professional development workshops for the latter two
districts were scheduled too late in the school year to allow time for two complete series
of workshops to be conducted. Therefore, the treatment group seminars were completed
for school districts #3 and #4, however, as noted previously, the control group sessions
for these districts are in the process of being completed this fall (2003). Forty-one of the
43 participants who took part in the workshops actually completed the program
evaluation form.

Overall, the workshops were rated highly by the participants. Using a scale
ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent, the average overall program rating was 4.78, with
a standard deviation of 0.423. Participants indicated that the objectives of the program
were clearly evident (mean = 4.83, SD = 0.447) and the materials were relevant and
helpful (mean = 4.73, SD = 0.554). The researcher’s instructional skills were rated as
excellent (mean = 4.93, SD = 0.267) and the program held their interest (4.50, SD =
0.555). Finally, the participants indicated that they would be able to use the information
and skills acquired through the program to improve theirjob effectiveness (mean = 4.45,
SD = 0.645).

In response to the open-ended question regarding what could be done to improve

the training experience, twenty participants provided additional feedback beyond the

89

quantitative ratings. Of these responses six participants indicated that no changes were
needed and/or that the workshops were excellent. Two participants provided pragmatic
suggestions, including providing all the handouts at once, rather than session by session.
Another participant recommended that the information should be shared with other
school professionals, including teachers and principals.

Two participants suggested that more practice was needed with case studies
(N=1) and the PALS surveys and TARGET framework (N=1). Similarly two responses
indicated a need for more specific examples and strategies to apply the concepts, with
one participant recommending that videos be used to illustrate performance and mastery
oriented classrooms. Another recommended that more practical input was needed with
regards to what to expect when attempting to consult on motivation issues. One
participant called for “more relevant data with respect to norms.” Presumably this
individual was looking for normative information on secondary level students, as the
PALS manual only provides data from elementary level students.

Five participants suggested that the timeframe could be improved. Two of these
responses indicated that the sessions should be scheduled earlier in the school year when
schedules were less stressed and more permissive of trying out new ideas and skills.
Another suggested that the session length could be shortened with more sessions
scheduled. Two participants suggested that more time could be scheduled between the
second and third sessions in order for participants to have more time “to try out the skills
learned.” Finally, one participant indicated that a follow-up session should be scheduled
in six months that provides an opportunity to “share ideas of how to incorporate in daily

psych world.” Similarly, in response to the question requesting input for future sessions,

90

three participants indicated that second set of workshops on student motivation should be
scheduled, including more information on “how to consult effectively now that we know

theory.”

91

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a series of
professional development workshops on the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of school
psychologists with regards to student motivation issues. Overall results suggested that
the series of seminars was effective in enhancing the knowledge and beliefs of the
participating school psychologists, however it is important to consider additional findings

as well as any research limitations revealed by the study.

The starting point...

The need for these professional development workshops was, at least in part,
predicated on the assumption that school psychologists did not already have a great deal
of knowledge about achievement motivation, did not already believe that they were
sufficiently competent to respond to concerns in this area, and were not already utilizing
research-based assessment tools and interventions strategies. The fact that they chose to
spend valuable professional time in participating in the workshops affirms this
assumption in part. Pretest data from all participants (across treatment and control
groups) provided persuasive confirmation of these assumptions.

Results from the pretest knowledge quiz suggested that participants had minimal
knowledge of motivational concepts prior to their involvement in the professional
development workshops. Focused primarily on achievement goal theory and its
application in the classroom, participants (treatment and control group alike) correctly

answered, on average, slightly more than a third of the pretest questions (mean = 5.35).

92

While somewhat better than chance, pretest results indicated that the workshop
participants did not exhibit sufficiently complex understandings of student motivation, in
general, and achievement goal theory, in particular. Such results suggest that, at least for
the psychologists who chose to participate in the workshops, exposure to this material
through training programs and/or other ongoing professional development opportunities
has been minimal.

Similarly, prior to participating in the series of motivation workshops, participants
did not rate themselves as very competent in their ability to understand and respond to
motivation issues. Looking across treatment and control group responses and combining
survey items exploring participants’ perceptions of competence in conceptualizing,
assessing, developing interventions, and persuading teachers to follow through on such
interventions, participants rated themselves overall as somewhat competent (mean = ~2.7)
in addressing motivation issues. Subscale scores indicated that they felt most competent
in their abilities to understand the nature of motivation problems (mean = ~3.0), followed
by the assessment of motivation (mean = ~2.8) and the development and monitoring of
motivational intervention strategies (mean 2 ~29). Perhaps most importantly, they
perceived themselves to be least competent in their abilities to communicate to teachers
their understanding of student motivation issues and to persuade such teachers to
implement strategies that will likely impact the students’ motivation (mean = ~2.3).
Overall, pretest results indicated that the research participants believed themselves to be
somewhat competent at conceptualizing student motivation issues, assessing the nature of
such concerns and developing individual and classroom level interventions to address the

issues. In contrast, their responses indicated that they were skeptical about their ability to

93

communicate to teachers their findings regarding student motivation concerns and more
importantly, their ability to persuade teachers to implement strategies aimed at both
individual-level and classroom-level changes.

With regards to their endorsement of particular assessment and intervention
practices, pretest responses indicated that participants were somewhat likely to examine
student factors (e.g., behaviors, beliefs, etc.) prior to their participation in the workshops
(mean = ~3.5). Similarly, they were somewhat likely to explore the role that contextual
factors play in influencing student motivation (mean = ~3.1), including the specific
TARGET dimensions (mean 2 ~34) that were introduced in the second workshop. With
regards to the specific assessment techniques, pretest results indicated that participants
relied primarily on interview and observation strategies prior to their involvement in the
workshops (mean = ~3.6 and ~3.7, respectively), while few (mean = ~1.7) utilized formal
survey measures to understand the nature of student motivation problems.

Finally, pretest ratings indicated that participants were most likely to recommend
to teachers the use of strategies that emphasized effort, improvement, and student choice
(mean = ~3.7). They were much less likely to recommend punishment strategies (mean =
~ 2.4) and strategies emphasizing competition and public recognition (mean = ~1.9).
These trends are in line with the theoretical perspectives explored in the professional
development workshops, in that the first set of strategies encourage a focus on learning
while the latter two sets of strategies center more on developing student compliance with
adult expectations. Therefore, while on the right track, participation in the workshops
offered an opportunity to explore in great detail the benefits and costs for students when

teachers employ each type of strategy.

94

In summary, overall pretest results indicate that, prior to their involvement in the
professional development seminars, participants had little formal knowledge of
achievement goal theory and its application and rated themselves as somewhat competent
to address such concerns in their daily practice. They relied primarily on informal
interview and observation to assess motivation issues, paying attention to some degree to
both student and contextual characteristics and factors. And finally, they were more
likely to endorse the use of intervention strategies emphasizing effort, improvement, and
choice, rather than strategies focused on competition and public recognition or
punishment, though the latter strategies were still rated as slightly below somewhat likely
to be used. Essentially, pretest results indicated that participants were “on the right track”
in certain aspects of understanding and responding to motivation issues, yet still had a

great deal to learn from the professional development workshops.

Impact of the professional development workshOps

The majority of the hypothesized effects of the professional development
workshops were supported, suggesting that participants’ knowledge, beliefs, and
practices were enhanced significantly by their participation in the seminars. Specific

results are explored in detail below.

Changes in participants’ knowledge.
Treatment group participants showed a sharp increase in their knowledge of
motivation concepts covered in the seminars. In fact, the number of items correct on the

posttest nearly doubled from the pretest scores. Given that the quiz focused primarily on

95

application of achievement goal theory concepts, treatment group participants displayed
substantially more complex understandings of the beliefs and behaviors associated with
various motivational orientations and the ways in which classrooms can be structured to
influence such motivational beliefs. Treatment group participants were much better able
to define achievement goals and the behaviors and beliefs associated with mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. Further, they improved
significantly in their distinctions between adaptive and maladaptive classroom practices
and their influence on students’ achievement goals. In particular, they were much better
able to predict how certain classroom practices may lead to particular goal orientations in
students.

While the improvement in quiz performance from pre- to posttest was substantial,
it is important to note that treatment group participants still missed, on average, nearly
one third of the items. Furthermore, performance on the quiz varied considerably across
participants, with posttest scores of treatment group participants ranging from 6 to 12 (out
of a possible 13). While some participants demonstrated a thorough and complex
understanding of the content upon completion of the series of workshops, others were
still struggling to apply the ideas introduced in the seminars. Though the overall
knowledge of the group improved significantly over the course of their participation,
participants still showed some gaps in their ability to connect the concepts introduced in
the seminars to hypothetical application scenarios presented in the quiz.

To some extent this variability is predictable as all participants cannot be expected
to move from minimal understanding to “complete” understanding, no matter how

effective the seminars were. Participants certainly varied in the extent to which they truly

96

engaged in the seminars and attempted to apply the ideas outside of the sessions, both of
which would be expected to have an influence on their quiz performance. Other factors
may also influence the degree to which participants were able to internalize and apply the
content taught in the workshops.

While reasons for this “gap” were not studied explicitly as part of this research
project, program evaluation responses interpreted from a constructivist leamrng theory
perspective offer a possible explanation. Treatment group participants attended several
hours of professional development training. They were systematically introduced to
motivation theory and its application. The assessment measures and intervention
strategies provided in the workshops not only served as tools that could be used in their
practice upon completion of the seminars, but also functioned as learning tools, helping
them to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts in practice. The content was
stretched over three sessions, and participants were allowed multiple opportunities to ask
questions to clarify their understanding of the new theoretical perspectives and their
application.

Nevertheless, many participants acknowledged that they had minimal opportunity
to actually apply the concepts learned in the workshops to the context of their daily,
professional lives. While it was recommended that participants try out the assessment
tools and intervention strategies between the second and third sessions, several could not
take the time to do so, given other “required” job responsibilities that took precedence.
For many “learners,” simple exposure to new information is not sufficient for developing

complex understandings. Instead they must take the time to develop their own personal

97

understanding, to do their own personal meaning making, based on opportunities to try

out ideas in their own professional lives.

Perceptions of competence — enhanced beliefs about professional skills.

In addition to showing significant improvement in their knowledge of
achievement goal theory and its application, treatment group participants also judged
themselves to be far more competent in their ability to understand and respond to student
motivation concerns upon completion of the seminars. Treatment group participants’
ratings increased nearly a full point from pre- to posttest, while control group scores
remained virtually constant. A similar trend was revealed for each of the four subscales,
with treatment group participants rating themselves as substantially more competent in
understanding the nature of student motivation issues (conceptualization), assessing
individual and contextual factors contributing to such concerns (assessment), developing
and monitoring individual and classroom level interventions (interventions), and
persuading even the most resistant teachers to follow through on such data and
recommendations (communication and persuasion).

In addition to exploring the net changes from pre- to posttest, it is also useful to
consider the actual ratings. In general, posttest results for treatment group participants
indicate that the school psychologists believe themselves to be most competent in the first
three subscale areas (4.05, 3.83, and 3.62, respectively). Overall participants appeared to
be much more confident in their ability to understand motivation problems. Upon
completion of the workshops, they believed themselves to be much more capable of

effectively assessing the personal and contextual factors influencing student motivation

98

issues. Further, they were substantially more confident in their ability to develop
effective individual and classroom-level interventions designed to encourage a more
adaptive orientation to schooling.

To the contrary participants rated themselves as only somewhat competent (3.32)
in the communication and persuasion subdomain, even after completing over ten hours of
professional development in this area. This trend of scores might be expected as each
successive subscale requires more sophisticated understanding and involvement on the
part of the school psychologists. In addition, this subdomain more so than the others
relies heavily on colleagues being open to hearing the ideas presented by the
psychologist. In particular, many questions asked participants to rate their persuasiveness
with even the most “resistant/difficult” teacher. Rating themselves high on these types of
questions requires not only that the psychologists believe themselves to have a thorough
understanding of the issues and quality recommendations that are likely to make a
difference, but also persuasive, perhaps even coercive, skills that can chip away at
opposition to change and resistance to recognizing the role that the teacher him- or
herself may play in the motivation issues.

Given that fact that school psychologists provide motivational support on an
indirect basis, via consultation with teachers, the latter subscale is perhaps the most
critical of all. In essence, participants can judge themselves to be professionally
competent to understand, assess, and develop interventions with student motivation
concerns, however unless they are (or see themselves as) capable of effectively
persuading the direct service provider, the teacher, to actually make changes in his or her

classroom or to implement appropriate interventions, the professional gains may hold

99

little value in the motivational lives of students. The treatment group participants did
indeed make substantial growth in this area, and those gains must be recognized and
applauded. Perhaps with more time to consider the ideas and more opportunity to try out
their newfound skills, participants will continue to feel more confident in their ability to

make a difference in the motivational lives of students.

Change in reported choices of assessment and intervention strategies.

As noted in the introduction chapter, one of the goals of the professional
development workshops was to encourage participating school psychologists to explore
not only individual level factors influencing student motivation and behaviors, but also to
examine the contextual factors which may be influencing or shaping students’
motivational beliefs and behaviors. Taking into account both personal and contextual
factors when exploring motivation issues allows the psychologists to consider the
environmental and systemic influences on the beliefs and cognitions of students, and to
explore ways to alter the context to produce more desirable outcomes for students in
terms of learning and engagement. In general, many in the motivational research
community have argued that a contextual or interactional perspective provides a more
accessible point of entry for school psychologists (Stipek, 2002) as well as one that has
the potential to reach multiple students beyond those who might meet the threshold of
being called a “motivation problem.”

Results indicate that treatment group participants rated themselves as significantly
more likely to explore both student and contextual characteristics upon completion of the

professional development seminars than they were at the outset of the workshops. They

100

were more likely to look to both students and teachers to get a better understanding of the
motivational beliefs of the students as well as their (students’ and teachers’) perceptions
of the contextual factors influencing such beliefs and behaviors. Building upon their own
enhanced knowledge and understanding of motivation they were more likely to take their
now “more informed,” perhaps “more critical,” lens to their observations of classroom
environments and their assessment of the motivational climate of such classrooms. This
was made particularly clear in the increased ratings of their likeliness of taking into
consideration the specific TARGET dimensions during classroom observations.

In examining the specific types of assessment strategies, the results indicate that
the greatest gain was made in their endorsement of the use for formal survey techniques
as a means of understanding student motivation issues. As school psychologists in a
previous study (Rau, 2001) had acknowledged that they didn’t “really have a formal way
to assess motivation,” the introduction of the PALS surveys appears to have filled a gap
in the “psychological assessment toolbag.” While much of the growth was in the use of
survey measures, treatment group participants also rated themselves as much more likely
to utilize interview and observation techniques upon completion of the series of
professional development seminars. This increased likelihood to utilize these latter two
common assessment techniques may represent not only a better understanding of how to
collect relevant information, but also may result from a better understanding of what they

are indeed looking for when utilizing such techniques.

With regards to intervention techniques for student motivation concerns, pretest-

posttest differences indicate that two of the three research hypotheses were confirmed. In

101

general, the series of professional development seminars centered around motivational
techniques which encouraged students to focus on their learning and development.
Instead of pushing a typical compliance agenda where students are engaging in learning
activities in order to earn an extrinsic reward, gain public recognition, or to avoid
punishments or unpleasant consequences, the achievement goal perspective emphasized
in the seminars suggests that students who are focused on their own individual
improvement and progress will show more adaptive patterns toward learning.

In responding to the hypothetical profiles in the research measures, treatment
group participants were more likely to recommend instructional and management
strategies that encouraged students to focus on their own improvement and progress and
that provided more choice and autonomy with their learning experiences after completing
the series of professional development workshops. Given that both the treatment and
control groups initially rated such strategies rather high at the outset of the series of
professional development seminars, the fact that the treatment group still made
substantial gains suggests that the workshops had a strong effect on their motivational
belief system.

Similarly, treatment group participants’ posttest responses for strategies
emphasizing public recognition and competition also showed a marked change in the
expected direction. While both treatment and control group participants initially rated
such strategies rather low even before the workshops began (1.8 and 2.0 respectively),
treatment group participants’ posttest responses indicated that they were substantially less
likely to encourage teachers to employ such strategies. In fact, posttest responses of

treatment group members approached the lowest possible threshold, averaging ~ 1.3 on a

102

scale of 1.0 to 5.0. This small, yet significant, change, despite initially low ratings as it
were, suggests that treatment group participants fully accepted the philosophies endorsed
by achievement goal theory, in general, and the TARGET model, in particular.

Finally, while the time by group interaction for punishment strategies did not
meet the criteria for statistical significance, treatment group participants’ responses did at
least show a trend in the appropriate direction. While control group ratings of their
likelihood of recommending punishment strategies in response to motivation concerns
increased slightly, treatment group participants were somewhat less likely to recommend

such strategies.

Implications for practice

Taken together, the results explored above indicate that the professional
development seminars had a clear and substantial effect on the knowledge and beliefs of
the participating school psychologists. The performance on the quiz indicates that they
have a much more solid grasp of the concepts introduced in the workshops. In addition,
the psychologists themselves acknowledged that they believed they were more competent
in their ability to understand the nature of student motivation problems, assess such
concerns, and develop effective individual and classroom-level interventions that will
ideally lead to more adaptive student motivation. Further, the enhancement in knowledge
and beliefs were reflected in the participants’ responses to the hypothetical cases, in
which they were more likely to utilize the tools and frameworks introduced in the
seminars and to recommend the strategies and practices that follow from such

frameworks.

103

This growth in professional knowledge and beliefs has the potential to lead to
change in professional practice. Taken at its most fundamental level, participation in the
professional development seminars provided a new lens through which the participating
school psychologists could understand student motivation issues. Grounded in a solid
conceptual and theoretical framework, such a lens provides an alternative means through
which to interpret students’ behaviors and beliefs as well as the adaptive and/or
maladaptive practices that take place in schools everyday.

When working with an individual student, the participating school psychologists
can now better understand the motivational factors contributing to academic and
behavioral difficulties. In conjunction with valid and reliable tools for assessing
cognitive, academic, and behavioral skills, the psychologists can now bring an equally
informed set of knowledge and tools to understand the motivational factors. This
provides the research participants a better means of distinguishing the academic
impairments from the motivational factors contributing to their negative effect. In
addition, it also provides the participants with a means of exploring the contextual factors
contributing to the motivational, and in turn. academic difficulties.

Such a contextual focus also provides the psychologists with an opportunity to
extend their reach beyond the individual children with whom they are asked to work.
Given achievement goal theory’s focus on how the learning context shapes the
motivational beliefs of students, intervention recommendations designed for one student
have the potential to impact others in the class. Even if teachers/consultees do not

initially see the benefits of implementing intervention recommendations on a larger,

104

class-wide scale, results from individual students may lead to increased confidence that

such changes could lead to positive benefits in other students as well.

Limitations
While results from this study indicate that the treatment group showed significant
improvement in their knowledge and beliefs regarding student motivation issues, it is

important to acknowledge the limitations of the study and therefore the ability to make

definitive claims based on the results.

Non-random group assignment.

As noted in the methods chapter, the original intention was for participants to be
randomly assigned to either treatment or control group. Random assignment is preferred
in that it provides a measure of control over other factors which could potentially
influence the effectiveness of the intervention (i.e., the professional development
workshops), by attempting to evenly distribute such characteristics across both groups.
However, “the likelihood that groups are equivalent increases as a function of the size of
the sample” (Kazdin, 1992, p. 87). The equivalence of groups may not be assumed with
small samples, as individual differences have a greater impact on the overall group
averages. In the case of relatively small participant samples, such as those used in this
study, Kazdin suggests that it is important to control for potential initial differences by
conducting thorough pretest measurement on a variety of variables that may impact the

ability to attribute group differences to treatment effects.

105

When it became evident that random assignment would not be feasible, this latter
point was taken into consideration in determining matched assignment. Professional
experience and preparation were the primary factors presumed to affect the outcomes,
and thus the groups were balanced for years of experience and degree level. While these
factors were taken into consideration and every attempt made to balance the distribution
of these factors across the two groups, there is still a chance that additional factors,
unmeasured in this study, may have contributed to the resulting group differences.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the treatment and control group
participants did not differ significantly on w of the pretest outcomes. This suggests that
the matched assignment to treatment and control groups was successful. While random
assignment would have been preferable from the standpoint of scientific rigor, it was not
pragmatically possible for this study. The lack of significant pretest differences suggests

that posttest differences can be more confidently attributed to the effect of the workshops.

Control groups - alternate research designs.

In addition, it is important to consider the potential of alternate designs in
answering the research questions of the study. This study utilized a no-treatment, waiting
list control group. The choice of this design over a simple no-treatment control group
ensured that all participants were equally interested in participating in the seminars.
However, as Kazdin (1992) notes, “a simple comparison of treatment and no-treatment
control groups does not establish what facet of “the interventron” led to change” (p. 129).
In order to answer this question, alternate treatment groups must be included in the

design, thus allowing the researcher to determine if the specific intervention or specific

106

characteristics of the professional development are particularly important in producing
change in the participants. For instance, control group participants could be provided
with a motivation text, thus allowing for comparison of the effectiveness of various
instructional methods.

While future studies ought to explore this important issue in order to understand
how best to provide professional development for motivation issues, this study provides a
preliminary answer regarding the possibility of growth when professional development is
provided on student motivation issues. While the research questions specifically note
that this study explores the effects of participating in the professional development
seminars, the seminar format itself was not necessarily in question. Instead, this study
explored the effects of exposure to these particular motivational concepts, frameworks,
and tools. Clearly the results indicated that participants’ knowledge and beliefs were
enhanced significantly. Future studies may explore the effectiveness of alternate formats

and content on the knowledge and beliefs of school psychologists.

Self-Report Measures.

This study relied primarily on self-report measures. The knowledge quiz served
as an objective measure of the growth in understanding of the motivation concepts,
however all other measures relied on subjective self-evaluation of personal changes in
beliefs and hypothetical practices. This reliance presented a challenge to documenting
the “true” growth of the participants. Most importantly, there is an inherent response bias
present in all self-report measures. The participants spent upwards of ten hours in

professional development workshops in addition to the time spent thinking about and

107

attempting to apply the concepts that were introduced in the sessions. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that they would be inclined to rate themselves higher after
participating in the professional training.

To some extent the consistency in amount of improvement across perceptions of
competence subscales, combined with the moderate posttest rating in the communication
and persuasion subscale (i.e., persuading teachers to make changes in their motivational
practices), lends credibility to their overall self-evaluations. While ratings for each
subscale improved nearly the same (i.e., ~1.0 point higher at posttest), they did not all
result in a universally positive judgment of their skill development in each subdomain. In
particular, they were initially most skeptical about their ability to persuade teachers to
make changes. And despite significant improvement, they were still tentative in their
judgment of their competence in this area. This variability in final ratings suggests that
the participants were thoughtful and critical in evaluating their skill development over the

course of the seminars.

Hypothetical vs. “real-life ” cases.

It is also important to consider the fact that participants responded to hypothetical
cases developed by the researcher. The three cases were designed to capture a range of
motivational problems that could potentially be brought to the attention of school
psychologists. The use of hypothetical cases provided some measure of control and
predictability to the experimental design, as all participants, including both treatment and
control, considered the same data when interpreting and responding to cases. While

necessary for the purposes of this experimental design, it is also important to note that

108

they do not represent actual cases that the participants themselves have experienced. For
instance, for measurement purposes, all three hypothetical cases described 5’h grade male
students. Many of the workshop participants work with middle and high school students
and therefore may not have the experience of working with elementary-aged students and
may be inclined to. endorse different assessment and intervention strategies for the
secondary level students. Future studies should examine the extent to which participants
similarly endorse the motivational assessment techniques and strategies across different

grade levels.

Measurement issues.

Most of the measures utilized in this study were not validated in prior studies.
With the exception of the Motivation Strategies Survey, all other measures were
developed for the purposes of this study. In general, analyses indicated that each scale
and subscale had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities. Nevertheless, the measures
need to be validated in future studies with other populations (e.g., additional school
psychologists, teachers, and other educational professionals) as well as be validated
against other motivation measures.

In addition, the survey instruments designed for this study required participants to
evaluate their likelihood of utilizing particular assessment techniques, paying attention to
particular classroom characteristics, and recommending particular intervention strategies.
Assessment and intervention techniques could also be explored in a more naturalistic
way. Instead of providing a list of potential assessment and intervention strategies,

participants could be asked to describe how they approach specific motivation cases that

109

are brought to their attention. This latter approach provides a more authentic evaluation
of the extent to which participants have internalized the concepts and strategies

introduced in the professional development workshops.

Workshop Timeline.

Another limitation of the study involved the timing of the professional
development workshops. The study began in early February and the final workshop was
not completed until the end of May. Especially as the school year progressed,
participants noted that their schedules were so intense that they were struggling to find
the time to employ new strategies and tools into their daily practice. Participants may not
have been able to devote substantial time and professional energy to interpreting the data,
developing recommendations for changes in the classroom learning environments. and
then evaluating both the response of those teachers and effects of the changes.

To some extent the increases in participants’ perceptions of competence may be
largely based on knowledge increases and the expectation that this knowledge will lead to
consultation success, rather than actual personal experiences of success. In this regard,
though, it is important to note that treatment group participants’ perceptions of
competence remained high at the delayed post-test follow-up when many of the
participants had had more time to implement the strategies and techniques introduced in
the professional development workshops. While the timeframe for the delayed posttest
was short (three to six weeks after completion of the seminars), the consistency of the
data across the four sites, each ending at different times in the school year, lends support

to the claim that participants maintained their sense of competence. Additional follow-up

llO

assessment would lend credibility to the assertion of sustained growth, confirming the

long-term effects of the workshops.

Future directions

As noted above, this study explores the direct effects of the workshop on the
participating school psychologists’ knowledge, perceptions of competence, and
likelihood of using particular assessment techniques and recommending particular
intervention strategies. Future studies should address some of the limitations of this
study noted above, by examining the impact of the psychologists’ participation in these
workshops beyond the self-report measure, with “real” cases in addition to hypothetical
cases. Exploration of changes (or lack thereof) in actual practice will provide more clear
understanding of the lasting effects of the workshops. It is one thing to be better able to
analyze cases in the abstract, however the “real” test of the effects of the workshop lie in
the ways that it impacts the participating school psychologists’ practices.

Further, while this study explored changes in the knowledge, beliefs, and
practices of the participating school psychologists, it did not address the ancillary effects
of these changes in the knowledge, beliefs, and, most importantly, practices of the target
audience — the teachers and students with whom the school psychologists’ work. In
effect, while the study may demonstrate positive changes in the school psychologists,
such changes may only be determined worthwhile if they eventually result in the
development of more adaptive motivational climates in classrooms and schools and more

adaptive motivational beliefs and behaviors in students.

111

 

While school psychologists may bring more effective knowledge, beliefs and
strategies to the consulting relationship, the school psychologists themselves provide
indirect service to students by attempting to affect the knowledge, beliefs, and most
importantly, the actions and behaviors of the consultant teachers. Success depends on the
consultee’s (i.e., the teacher’s) willingness to engage in consultation and to act upon
school psychologists’ recommendations that will eventually produce changes in will
motivation. In fact, participants’ pretest responses indicated that teachers were only
somewhat likely (mean = 2.80, SD = 0.728)) to seek school psychologists’ support on
student motivation issues. Future studies should explore teachers’ beliefs about the
effectiveness of school psychologists in providing support on student motivation issues.
In addition, students’ motivational orientations as well as their perceptions of the
motivational characteristics of the classroom environment should be examined in the
future. Changes in the beliefs and practices of these two groups would lend great support
to the claims regarding the effectiveness of the professional development seminars in
providing meaningful and far-reaching change for student motivation issues.

Finally, results from this study also yield recommendations for changes in the
professional development workshops themselves. In particular, results from the study
suggest that participants gained a great deal of knowledge about motivation constructs
and their application and learned valuable new methods for assessing motivation
concerns and effective strategies for developing more adaptive classroom learning
environments. However, participants still rated themselves as only somewhat competent
in their ability to actually persuade teachers to implement such changes. One

interpretation of this finding is that more time may need to be devoted to specific

112

consultation skills. In addition to exploring what types of assessment techniques should
be utilized and what the data reveal about the adaptiveness of students’ motivational
beliefs and the motivational climate of the classroom (i.e., how to interpret the data),
more time may need to be devoted to how to convey such data to teachers in ways that
they will understand and respond productively. Similarly, in addition to exploring what
types of intervention strategies are most effective for developing adaptive motivational
beliefs and behaviors, more times may need to be devoted to how to effectively describe
and recommend such strategies in ways that encourage teachers to see the value despite
any additional work it may require of them. While this was done to a limited extent in
the workshops, results suggest that greater emphasis may need to be placed in this area.
Several participants called for follow-up sessions which may provide just such an
opportunity.

Nevertheless, even with changes in the professional development seminars,
professional constraints may yield limited opportunities to implement the strategies
learned, regardless of the substantial effects on the knowledge, beliefs, and potential
practices of the school psychologists. The psychologists who participated in this study
indicated that they already spend a relatively small percentage of their time on
consultation (12.4 percent) and intervention (5.1 percent) activities. These percentages
themselves provide support for the need for more expanded roles for school
psychologists. While preparation programs and ongoing professional development
provide the educational foundation to support teachers, staff, and students on a multitude
of educational, behavioral. and mental health issues, there is still the struggle to break

from the traditional role of assessment and diagnostic services.

113

 

The gains made as a result of participating in these workshops at least provide
psychologists with the knowledge and expertise to address student motivation concerns
as they present themselves in their daily practice. Participants must now find the time to
address such concerns, thus capitalizing on their professional growth. Perhaps the
enhanced knowledge and perceptions of competence will lead to opportunities to
advocate for such role change, yielding benefit for the students and staff whom they
serve. As school psychologists act upon the knowledge gained in these professional
development seminars, utilizing meaningful data that informs recommendations for
changes in classroom practices, they illustrate the potential of asking for and getting more
valued service from their school psychologists. Successful consultation efforts provide
the opportunity to not only make positive changes for that student or classroom, but also
to yield allies (e. g., teachers, administrators, and parents) in their efforts to expand the
roles of school psychologists for the betterment of students. It is hoped that the
knowledge and training provided in these seminars serves as an impetus for change, and
that momentum is slowly gained in recognizing the possibilities that school psychologists

provide for supporting teachers and students alike.

114

 

APPENDICES

115

 

APPENDIX A

Influencing School Psychologist"
Knowledge and. 83111. Rafludmc
student “OtiVQQIOR

’J know she eon/t! do it if she just tried. ’

’5e ’9 so concerned with looking ’lumh’ that he won't even make an attempt. ’

Concerns like these about motivation are commonly expressed by both teachers and
parents alike. School psychologists can be valuable resources for addressing these
problems, however many would like more resources to address such concerns. The goal
of this series of three workshops is to provide school psychologists with effective ways to
think about motivation and empirically-supported strategies for assessing and intervening
with such concerns.

Workshop Objectives:
0 To enhance participants’ knowledge of motivation concepts
0 To enhance participants’ knowledge and use of assessment tools for motivation
0 To enhance participants’ knowledge and use of empirically—supported
intervention strategies

Workshop Content:
Workshop 1: Exploring Current Practice... Introducing New Perspectives
Workshop 2: Tools and Frameworks: Evidence-Based Assessment and Intervention
Strategies
Workshop 3: Exploring Participants’ Experiences Using Tools and Frameworks
Systems Change: Moving Beyond Individual Cases and Classrooms to
School-wide Reform

*** Participants who complete all three workshops will be eligible for (1.0) SB-CEUs ***

Workshop Format:
Concepts, assessment tools, and intervention strategies will be introduced via lecture
and large-group discussion and developed in small group discussions focused
primarily on case-based application activities.

116

 

Research Connection:
While not required, all participants are encouraged to participate in the research study
accompanying these professional development workshOps. (See enclosed letter)

Workshop Dates and Times:
All participants, regardless of their participation in the research component, will be
randomly assigned to one of two series of workshops. In addition to providing
comparable treatment and control groups for the research study, it will also ensure a
manageable number of participants in each series.

Series A: [Session #1 date & time] Series B: [Session #1 date & time]
[Session #2 date & time] [Session #2 date & time]
[Session #3 date & time] [Session #3 date & time]

Unless otherwise noted, all workshops will be conducted at the [location]. If necessary,
please call [person, phone number] for directions. Snacks and refreshments will be
available at all workshops. In addition, lunch will be provided for the second workshop
of each series of workshops. Please indicate if a vegetarian lunch is preferred.

RSVP:
If interested in participating in the professional development workshops, please
contact [person] of [school district] at [phone number] by [date].

Presenter information: Cheryl Rau is an advanced doctoral candidate in the School
Psychology Program at Michigan State University. Ms. Rau is a certified school
psychologist who earned her Educational Specialist degree at MSU, including internship
experiences at the Secondary Learning Center of Ingham ISD and Plymouth-Canton
Public Schools. She completed additional doctoral-level internship training with Ann
Arbor Public Schools. Ms. Rau has been studying student motivation throughout her
graduate career at MSU and has presented at numerous national conferences. including
the annual meetings of the National Association of School Psychologists and the
American Educational Research Association. In addition, she has taught a Masters-level
motivation course (CEP802) for teachers and administrators and has served as sole
instructor, teaching assistant, and/or field supervisor for several courses in the School
Psychology Program at MSU.

If you have any questions about these workshops, please feel free to contact the presenter
at [home phone] or [work phone]. She can also be reached via e-mail at [email address].

117

APPENDIX B

REMINDER!!! SB-CEU Opportunityll
Professional Development Workshops at [School district]

Enhancing School Psychologists’ Knowledge and Skills
Regarding Student Motivation
Objectives:
0 To enhance participants’ knowledge of motivation concepts

0 To enhance participants’ knowledge and use of assessment tools and empirically-
supported intervention strategies for motivation

Workshop Dates and Times:
All participants will be randomly assigned to one of two series of workshops.

Series A: [Session #1 date & time] Series B: [Session #1 date & time]
[Session #2 date & time] Series B: [Session #2 date & time]
[Session #3 date & time] Series B: [Session #3 date & time]

Participants who complete all (3) workshops will receive 1.0 SB-CE Us

Deadline: Please call or email by [date]

[phone number] or [email]

118

APPENDIX C

Goal Structure Activity - Student Descriptions

Struggling Student

School does not come easy to you, though you’ve gotten by over the years
because of your solid work ethic.

Though you earn passing grades in most of your classes, it takes a great deal of
effort and extra support from teachers, friends, and parents.

You are beginning to get frustrated with the extra time and effort necessary for
moderate success and have recently begun reducing your workload.

Star Student

You are star student in the class

You are respected by your teachers and classmates as one of the brightest in the
class

You always earn top grades, turning in all assignments and doing well on all tests
Despite your abilities, you do not always challenge yourself as much as you
could.

Hopeless Student

School has never come easy to you

After years of difficulties and failure, you have come to believe that you are just
not a “school person” and have essentially given up.

Your teachers try to help you as much as they can and have made an effort to ask
other students to work with you as a tutor. While you can do the work when they
are around to help you, you can’t seem to do it on your own.

Inconsistent Student

You are believed to be a very capable student, however you don’t seem to care
much about school.

In particular, you do not like the routines of school and seem bored with most of
the traditional curriculum.

When interested, you turn in stellar work, however when not interested, you
rarely bother to turn anything in at all.

119

 

APPENDIX D

Enhancing 5chool flsychologists’
~znowledge and $kills
Zegarding $tudent motivation

Workshop #1 — Conceptual foundations

~,Cacilitated by:
Cheryl 92‘. zau
\School psychology @octocal Candidate,
michigan fitate anivecsity

with financial and administrative assistance from
[fichool @istrict]
[@ate]

120

Why is Student Motivation important to consider?

Influence on student learning
> Direct (Keith, 1988; Walberg, 1986)

0 Others include previous achievement, ability/aptitude, quality and quantity

of instruction, and more
> Indirect (DiPema, Volpe, & Elliott, 2002)

0 Academic Enablers - “attitudes and behaviors that allow a student to
participant in, and ultimately benefit from, academic instruction in the
classroom” (p. 294).

I Motivation: assesses initiative and persistence regarding academic
subjects (includes responsibility, preference for challenging tasks.
and goal-directed behavior)

I Interpersonal skills: assesses communication and cooperation
behaviors necessary to interact with other people in the classroom
(including social interaction, work interaction, and responsive
behavior)

I Engagement: assesses level of active participation in classroom
instruction (including asking questions, volunteering answers, and
assuming leadership in groups)

I Study Skills: assesses behaviors, strategies, and skills that
facilitate the processing of new materials (including work
preparation, work completion, and work review)

Model of Student Learning

 
  

  
   
 
     
    
     

Prior
Achievement

  

Current
Achievement

Engagement
Interpersonal
Skills

Taken from DiPema, Volpe, and Elliott, 2002

121

> Motivation has a mediating role
> What’s missing from the DiPema, Volpe and Elliott model?
0 Where’s the context?
I Only explores within-student characteristics without acknowledging
contextual influences on the expression of those characteristics
0 Where’s the “attitudes and beliefs”?
I Limited inclusion of cognitive components; primary focus on behaviors

Coping Mechanism
> All students will experience academic difficulty at some point
> Response to that experience is key to effective learning

*****316**************************

Behavioral Perspectives on Student Motivation

Behavioral approaches to motivation are the most common approach used in schools.
> These approaches are based on the idea that through the provisions of additional
incentives, students will be more likely to produce the desired behavior.

Overall goal = increase behavior

Behavioral Mechanism:
Offer incentives that are desired by the student in order to
encourage behaviors that are desired by the teacher/parents/adults

Some motivation scholars argue that rewards undermine students’ intrinsic motivation to
learn.
> Intrinsic motivation theorists posit that human beings are naturally inclined to
want to learn and develop competence
’59 They believe that this natural inclination can be supplanted by rewards
I Discounting Principle - If one possible explanation for an individual’s
behavior is particularly salient, all other explanations are discounted
I Student Interpretation — if you must give me a reward to engage in
a behavior, then that behavior must not be all that desirable in the
first place!!

I If extrinsic reward is no longer available, then students will show a
reduction in the behavior because the “new reason” for engaging in the
behavior is no longer present. Results in the student...

I Putting forth less effort

I Pursuing less challenging tasks
If certain tasks will earn the reward, what’s the point of
challenging myself to pursue more difficult tasks that
won’t offer much in the way of additional rewards?

 

Major question -
Is it the rewards that are the problem or is it the way that reward systems are
structured that reduces intrinsic motivation ?

> Reward systems can be structured in various ways:
I Informational — conveys competence and increases intrinsic motivation

I Controlling — conveys external locus of control and undermines intrinsic
motivation

> Overarching question to consider...

I To what extent do students interpret the use of rewards as informational
vs. controlling?

> If you choose to use rewards, use them effectively.
I Make explicit the connection between the desired behavior and the reward
0 Deliver rewards in ways that provide informational feedback on progress
I Emphasize instructional goals that serve as criteria for earning
reward
0 Avoid competitive reward structures
I Focus on improvement
I Individualize goals/standards
I Make rewards less salient
I Keep focus on learning rather than reward

123

Social-Cognitive Perspectives on Student Motivation

Social-cognitive perspectives on student motivation emphasize the role that social-
contextuaJ factors play in detennining how students cognitivelyI interpreiand respond to
learning experiences.

> Students’ perceptions of classroom and school environments are seen as central

determinants of achievement-related beliefs, affect, and behaviors (Ames. 1992;
Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Roeser, Eccles, & Strobe], 1998).

> Children are active meaning makers within social contexts
“the meanings children derive from their experiences in school are
instrumental in shaping their beliefs about themselves as learners,
about the content being learning, and about the goals of the
learning process itself” (Roeser et al, p. 168).

> Such meanings influence the effort directed toward learning (Ames, 1992a) and
are influenced by their perceptions of the organizational, instructional, and
interpersonal features of classroom and school environments.

“One of the most important assumptions of social cognitive models of
motivation is that motivation is a dynamic, multifaceted phenomenon that
contrasts with the quantitative view taken by traditional models of
motivation”

(Pintrich and Linnenbrink, 2002, p. 313).

Key Tenets of Social-Cognitive Perspectives

> Qualitative perspective on motivation

I more important to understand how and why (rather than how much)
students are motivated for school learning

> Situated and contextualized

0 Motivation is more than personal disposition or trait that is only modestly
changeable

I Student motivation is responsive to changes in characteristics of the
learning environment

I Thus school professionals have an opportunity to structure learning
situations in a way that encourages students to adopt a more adaptive
perspective on learning and the educational process

124

Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement goals refer to students’ beliefs about the goals or purposes of engaging in
achievement-related behavior.

“Students who approach the same lesson or activity with different
achievement goals may engage in it quite differently and emerge with
different outcomes” (Brophy, 1998, p. 27).

Research over the last 20 years has identified two distinct achievement goals, mastery
goals and performance goals (Ames, 1992).

>

Mastery goal orientation
0 Students are focused on developing new skills and understandings and
achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced standards.
Performance goal orientation
0 Students are focused on (their own and others’) judgments of their ability
I Distinction between perf-approach and perf-avoidance goals
I Performance-approach — students are focused on gaining or
maintaining favorable judgments of their ability
I Performance-avoidance - students are focused on avoiding
negative judgments of their ability
Research has explored the extent to which these goal orientations have positive,
adaptive effects on student learning. In general...
I mastery goals are universally considered the most adaptive goal orientation
I perfonnance-avoidance goals are universally considered the least adaptive
goal orientation
I performance-approach goals - research is mixed; too early to make
definitive statement regarding the adaptive nature of this goal orientation

Benefits of adopting a mastery/learning goal orientation

Focus on influence of effort, as opposed to ability, in determining success or a
sense of mastery

Persist in the face of difficulty
Take risks and pursue challenging tasks

Employ more effective learning strategies in order to gain a deeper understanding
of the material

 

 

 

Consequences of adopting a performance goal orientation (espec. perf-avoidance)

I Focus on their own or others’ perceptions of their ability

I Evidenced by performing better than others or achieving success through minimal
effort
Failures are interpreted as evidence of low ability .
Effort is the “double-edged sword” (Covington & Omelich, 1979) - it is
necessary in order to master challenging material, however if you put forth effort
and do not succeed, then low ability must be the explanation for failure
Avoid challenging tasks
Utilize ineffective or superficial learning strategies

Achievement Goal Structures

Individual Characteristic vs. Clgssroom Characteristic

While achievement goals are considered to be adopted by an individual, classrooms and
school communities can be structured in ways that encourage or elicit a particular
achievement goal orientation.
> Situations or contexts can provide information cr cues about the purposes of
achievement in that setting
‘P To the extent that individuals gttend to these cues, the messages provide the
structure in which individuals form their decisions about the goals they will
pursue

Cues in situation '9 create a goal structure -) influences the personal goal
orientation of the student

Examples:
Cue/Message - teacher stresses the value of learning and understanding for its
own sake
7‘ creates mastery goal structure

C ue/Message — teacher stresses the importance of learning about a subject
because it is a competitive world and the only way to get ahead is to know more than
others .
9 creates a performance goal structure

Questions to guide assessment and intervention activities:

I To what extent does this classroom structure encourage a leaming/mastery goal
orientation? In what ways does this classroom encourage a performance goal
orientation?

0 In what ways do students get the message that learning and improvement is the
priority in this classroom rather than social comparison and competition or vice
versa?

0 Are whole class tasks structured with a competitive, indivrdualistic, or
cooperative focus?

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

8>.. 58 2885. 285:3.
.5835 ..0 8.53 2050:. 0. 50285.50 0. Ea>0.2 .5885 95.55 0. 50>.w m. 50552.0 0.25 c
m. 8205-80.33 8.8.5:. w:.E8_ ..0 0855:. o .5885
.08. :.0? 550 .80505058 .0 50.28.8505 550 08860 E2500 :0 285.5m .
.2885. .2853; 0. 2500.500 :0 50800”. o .08. :57. 55.. .88E. :. 8050.0...5 5:53.55.
85.500 @5580. .0 50.53 50808:. a ..0 80.55%“: .5885 05am 2 5085.8 2.85:; __< o
5000EQ< ..m.0~.<... 50005.3 5505.555
”Susana 2.8.05.5... 5:0 w:..88.:.
5:... 8:053... .05 83.3.0: 028—...50 0. 5:0 0w:0..§.0 ..0 .030. 55.2.0 :0 0530.5 0. 8 0w 3.8. 80.0w 3.8....

0.003055. ...m.O~.<... 05 5. 528050 flaow 50.85%:580. :0 800. 059.55 085 05 E. 8 50.5505 50550

550 88838 50088.0 0. 8800550 5505.55. .3 85.0 5.3 E22800 5085.800 08 E5 8882:. 50088.0 08.98 30.05

8.0: 055 .200w 028550.52. :05 855 200w w558. 5.3 E22800 m. .05 .33 a c. 80 550 0.5.5 0. 2:05am 5.05 02530050

>05 E28 :53 0. 05.58.05 0. 80.85.. 50088.0 5.05 05530 0. 5025:0050 05 5.30% ..05 .25 05 0 ... 8.00m 2850858
035050 2.2.0 55 505500.50 50088.0 0 $588 3 50.52.05 .2852; 5.05 80.... 0. 43.52.5550 ca 02:. 50:08...

.05.... 5:0 50.83.28.

5553050 505.8003. c9505:< 3.8... ”0520:. 4.2.... 800.805. 5:0 8.2.2. 05.3.0058 0520:. 0. 50088.0 05 5:02.05

505528 05 58 88888 085 58:55 8.00.. 50.85%:58. 5.3 55:0. 2850855. 550 2558. 535.255 05 :0 800.

a 2.2.0 .05 >03 0 c. 50885 05 58 E5 5080:8885; 50088.0 5m 88.98 0.503055. ..mO~.<..t 0;... 8.50m. 5285\w558.
2.050 0. 25053.0. 88800.8 85 .33 a 5 m50088.0 $5305; 50.. 85.0555 5050.085 03:. 53058 .000 E050>0Eo<

:3. .5522 a. £632 82 .288 ”N3. 8.54 52: .855
0.3552... 8.055.

m. X.DZm.n.n.<

127

 

 

 

_0>0_ E050>0.:0.. :0

5.0.00 8.5.0. 8:. .05.... 28.25 :0 502.: 2 0.55090 o
00000505x0
w:.:...0_ 8.2.08: 3.00.05 5830. 8.0.83

5 50225550 2 02.8558 8:. .05... 00.885000 0

:0285500 .5000

:0 502.: 5058580 03.505500 0 55.008 ._0>0_
.:050>0.:00 .0 5...»... :0 502.: 3.025... 2 0.55.8.0 o

28508.80 ..0 8285500 .2000. ..0. 5.52.0550

50808:. 58 8.58. 5:... 8.80.0.5 .5000 85.55
8.. 0.530.... 5.005.355 :83 5:025... 28505 c

 

 

88...... 50:5

 

50.8.55... _...:0...5...._.r

 

 

00255500

.5000 5:0 00....05500 5500.85.05. 00.5.55 58 55:80. 03.885000 0.050.... .0... 803 5 500.5 55500....

 

5.0.82.5 50.8.w 2 .0255

8.50.05. :0...:w000. 5008850050 .85 85:: o
50558.05 5.805.255 08

.:0...:w000. .0. 800.580 0:. 08.085 58 80.8.5 .
..0...0 0.8585500 8555.0 58

0880.5 5.8320: 85.05 .0. 5028.000. 08 28505 c

28508.8: ..05 8.. 505858 .850 ..0 E0050 0:. .0
08.588. 8.58.000. E8 5 .08. 285...... 0.8500 081. o
2850850.. ..05 8.. 585.5000.
5.2.5.5 0.8 .08. .8:w.: 0:. .0 0850... 0:3 2:05am 0
22.: 0>....05500 52.5.. 0 :0 50530.5 2 :0...:w000~. o

 

 

 

88.5... .5005

50.8.55... 8:00.55...

 

 

8030.80 .8:w.: 0:. 80;: ..:050>0..55. 30:0. 58 0850.5 00.05 0:3 2850.0 ..0 00.0.5000. 50.280020.

 

5080.08 0: :.3 505 30: 58 .2 :80. 50:. 30: 5.8.
50:. 8:3 .03. 00.0:0 0.885.800 :0>.w 08 28505 a
8...>..0.. w5500. 58 .2350: 25.50.55...
w558w0. 2850.0 5.3 52.05.... 88:0 8:08.: 0

80.82.30 58 852.00 n55:80. W._...0.00..m
5:... 2.8m w:...0m 5 00.0> 0...: 505.8... 08 28505 0
8550:0550 w:.:._...0. 5:... 830:0: 0.5.5085...
w555885 ..0. 0.850... 585.25 8508.. 8:000... o

 

 

.:000.55< 5505.5...

 

2.0.8.55... 8:05.55...

 

 

8.25.00 w5800. :0 .055 5:0 020:0 50:. .

5530.5 .3 20050.0 :..3 3.25.00 05:0 53.8507.

128

 

 

 

 

$-on 6N .:.,..§ié.i.,.l Sgtgztm E829? 2.5628 < ”:EEEBE ::0—42m wEo::::m .23: .U she—mug: a. :2 .5022
..:I-BEOo—2 ”<2 £98m .53.: E 322:5. u.:.:§::€< .500: ._. $5.95

.5335. ”HZ 6.33:5 .Awwméhm .9: 53.3.7.5: 2:
E :.2:.:§E.E agrizfi 4.3m: ::23m .0 JV 2322 A E 22:20 3:223:22: Ecosmiu 3: 2.5m. EoEo>qu< .325: .U .m2:<

4919313 $3.3m 33:25 2.3332 55:: o. 30: 2263: 3:3 ”9:33.22 .53: .U .m2:<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.33.5.3.
222:5 E02320 03:82:: 3>o wEE3_
32:31:: wEEmEQEo m9: 53:593.: 229:3
o. 2:: 232:3: 33w 2: 8:03; .330: 3:3 .
33583 : 9:823: .333 6863 333:2 1.3:... 2: 3:526: 55m o
3.22:3 3235:: 3:: 2:: :o 8: 2:38: 330 o 3.33:8. 2.5:: 3.3 SE 5
8:32:30 2: E 3:33: :0 ems: 332w . E: o: :2: 8:53: wEE3_ was: 2 3:359? 2::
: ominous 9 3:5 E 3:3: 29: 32. .9: 2E: o wEE>oE £2328 03:52:: 0:: 3.42: 0.5 33.30 o
”3:89? Ram]; :_u_..o:::< 3323...:
2.3.89 mus—u 398:: SE E S 3:: 3.3 .2: $533: wE—Zao.
032...; .3 mm: 9.2: ..8 .52.: ..:: 95:33: Eu: .3 355.5259 2: ~23 .2: 933 253.5 E 2:: am: 3:59
9:3: :9» .5
8:05:22: 3: tote a; wEEfi: : 335. :0» 3:3: - E03 3:: 2::-o:c 1. : :o:_5__..>m o
3329:: :o 23:93 2: szsa 2:: .m.:oE:w_mm: ..::39:8
3... £8. :2: 232 3 32:25am: 52% 2: 233% o 3: :cm_._::E3 :33 wEwsSoEu €88: 0E3. 2: E
36:39.25: :33: 3:: BSEmmomm: 2:3 2: :c 3.1.2.30 2... 233; :< .
1:339 $9.on :2: wEEEUE 3.32 5:23:33 ::3 EamcanQ 03.250: .5 852523:
.338: : m: wEE3_ 32> o. coma—.33 2: 3:255 o ..: m_o>o_ 2:32.: :o 3.95 3.35? 2: m:.:.::_:>m_ a
”3:293 Fm0m<rr ”3:293 3:323;

 

 

 

 

2:55 .5 Ens—EZtE ..: gear—29:8 :2: .85.“.— mmegwcua ..: 2.253%: 13:32:31.: .5 25.... 2:22:35

129

TARGET Model (Ames, 1990)

The TARGET provides a framework for organizing classrooms and learning activities in
ways that encourage students to take on a mastery goal orientation. It explores six
classroom factors that can be manipulated to encourage students to focus on mastery
goals.

T(ask) select tasks so as to provide an (flimal level of chalinge and to emphasize

activities that students find interesting and intrinsically engaging

° Structure tasks with short-term, realistic goals - helps students focus on their
progress

- Variety and novelty in tasks and activities - helps to minimize opportunities for
comparison and makes learning more enjoyable

- Opportunity for review and challenge - helps students focus on learning,
progress, and improvement

° Participation structure - the way teachers allow or require students to participate
in classroom activities

A(uthority) share authority with students by providing them choice and input on
learning activities
° Encourage self-monitoring and evaluating their own work
° Leadership roles in the classroom

R(ecognition) recognize all students who make progress and show achievement, not
just the highest achievers

° Individual student progress and improvement
° All students opportunities to receive recognition
° Private delivery of any kudos

G(rouping) group in ways that promote cooperative learning and minimize
interpersonal competition and social comparison

° Flexible grouping patterns — responsive to interests and changing skills
' Emphasize social skills necessary to work well and learn with the group

E(valuation) focus on individualized assessment of progress rather than comparisons of
individuals or groups

° Focus on learning as a process vs. simply collecting evaluation “products”

° Individual mastery and improvement — no comparison

' Self-evaluation - consistent reflection on what is known and what can be learned
° Opportunities to improve performance

- Various forms of evaluation

T(ime) use time in creative ways that ease the constraints of rigid scheduling and
allow for more use of valuable learning activities that are hard to fit into shorter
class periods

' Consider pace and timing of instruction

° Allow for learning at own pace — time extensions if necessary to facilitate
learning

 

Questions to guide your assessment of the learning environment
based on the TARGET framework

Task
1. Are tasks structured to optimally challenge students at appropriate skill levels?
2. Are tasks presented in ways to connect with students’ interests and experiences?
3. Are the purposes of learning activities clearly explained?
- Connected to instructional goals
0 Connected to future learning opportunities
4. Are students working on a variety of tasks, thus minimizing comparison across
students?

Authority

1. Are students provided choices regarding topics, format, and other assignment
features?
2. Is student input incorporated into classroom learning activities?
0 Acknowledging students’ insights into the topic
0 Encouraging pursuit of unique interests while still providing structure

Recognition
1. Are students recognized publicly or privately for their individual achievements?

2. Is recognition provided only to those students who perform the best normatively
or are students recognized for improvement, effort, and persistence (i.e.,
traditional honor rolls and displays of the “best papers”)?

Grouping
1. Is grouping structured to encourage cooperation rather than competition?

2. Are group assignments varied so as to allow students to work together based on
common interests rather than achievement level?

3. Does the classroom function as a collaborative learning community, with students
working together with the teacher toward shared learning goals?

Evaluation
1. Are students allowed/encouraged to redo assignments for improved learning?
2. Are students given multiple opportunities to display what they know?
3. Does learning on a particular topic seem to stop at the point of assessment?
0 Is material revisited (individually, small group, or whole class) when it
becomes apparent that it was not learned well the first time around?
4. Are evaluation formats varied in order for students to best show what they know?

1. Are students given additional time when needed in order to maximize learning
opportunities?

2. Is time used in flexible ways that allows teachers to structure learning activities
that allow for deeper understanding and engagement, yet would otherwise not fit
into typical 30-60 minute time blocks?

131

APPENDIX F

Survey Results from

Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) (2000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Full Personal Goal Orientation
Student Class (Purpose/Goa] = ' )
3.2 3.4 Mastery - develop competence
2.2 3.6 Performance-Approach — demonstrate competence
4.2 4.0 Performance-Avoidance — avoid demonstrating incompetence
Case Full , Perceptions of the Goal Structure in the Classroom
Student Class (Purpose/Goal = i
3.2 3.5 Mastery — develop competence
4.2 4.0 Performance-Approach — demonstrate competence
3.6 3.5 Performance-Avoidance - avoid demonstrating incompetence
Student Class . Students’ Academic-Related Perceptions, Beliefs, and Strategies
2.5 3.5 Academic Efficacy
3.5 3.2 Academic Press
3.5 2.2 Academic Self-Handicapping Strategies
4.0 2.4 Avoiding Novelty
1.5 1.4 Cheating
2.2 1.8 Disruptive Behavior
1.5 2.2 Self-Presentation of Low Achievement
3.0 1.8 Skepticism About the Relevance of School for Future Success
Teacher Teachers’ Perceptions of the School Goal Structure
3.0 Mastery Goal Structure for Students
3.0 Performance Goal Structure for Students
Teacher Teachers’ Approaches to Instruction
3.25 Mastery Approaches
3.5 Performance Approaches

 

 

 

I32

 

Observations based on TARGET Model

The TARGET model draws your attention to various classroom factors that can be
manipulated to encourage students to focus on mastery goals as opposed to perfonnance
goals.

T(ask) select tasks so as to provide an gatimal level of challenge and to emphasize
activities that students find interesting and intrinsically engaging

- Several mini-assignments with clear instructions and objectives

0 Good modeling of tasks prior to independent work; significant scaffolding on
written assignments (step-by-step examples on worksheets

- Minimal variety in tasks and activities - all students working on the same
assignments at the same time; primarily worksheets and seatwork

0 Minimal opportunity for review and challenge — expected that students will do
that on their own time

A(uthority) share authority with students by providing them choice and input on
learning activities

° Minimal choice in assignments, minimal project-based learning

R(ecognition) recognize _al_l students who make progress and show achievement, not
just the highest achievers

' Very few public displays of work
° Bulletin boards are devoted exclusively to new content
° Private conferencing on grades

G(rouping) group in ways that promote cooperative learning and minimize
interpersonal competition and social comparison

' Minimal group work at all

E(valuation) focus on individualized assessment of progress rather than comparisons of
individuals or groups

° Evaluated via tests, quizzes, seatwork, and homework; virtually no projects or
papers
° Clear standards for evaluation — no comparison to other peers

° All assignments are teacher graded — percentage correct listed, however no
comments

° No opportunity to improve performance

T(ime) use time in creative ways that ease the constraints of rigid scheduling and
allow for more use of valuable learning activities that are hard to fit into shorter
class periods

° Rigid scheduling; rigid deadlines

 

 

APPENDIX G

TARRGET Framework
(Maehr & Anderman, 1993)

Task — how learning tasks are structured
° extracurricular activities that make learning relevant
° goal setting activities (use for home room?)

Authority/Responsibility - student participation in leaming/school decisions

° instructional programs that encourage students to take initiatives and
challenge themselves

° student feedback — ask for student comments and take them seriously

Recognition - the nature and use of recognition and rewards in the school setting
° encourage “personal best”

' reduce emphasis on honor rolls and other recognition systems that single
out just a few students

Resources — decisions that are made on the use of money, materials, equipment, etc. and
the provision of opportunities for students and staff

' encourage the development and maintenance of strategies that enhance
mastery-goal emphasis

° create committees and/or enlist key personnel to procure necessary
resources and develop necessary policies to encourage mastery goal
structures

Grouping — the organization of school learning experiences

° provide opportunities for cooperative learning and problem-solving with
active participation of all students

Evaluation — the nature and use of evaluation and assessment procedures

° establish policies and procedures that give students opportunities to
improve their performance;

' create effective study skills classes to encourage students to become more
reflective on their learning and to enhance their self-regulation;

° structure report cards to provide substantive feedback on learning;
° encourage student participation in the evaluation process

Time -- the scheduling of the school day and learning activities
° encourage flexibility in scheduling
° encourage cross-departmental collaboration
° give teachers greater control over time usage

I34

232 $053 4 <.—.O,—.

Enema:— 133.3.50
Exam .3:

Begum 23:2
ESE—SE

.95. £5 E
3:22.? .3 non—Ea: .55. £253 .3 non—E: Z

”BEE—o 25.2.5 ..:c» E Ego» ..: eon—::Z

"2.2—Ewan Eat—5

 

 

 

”am ”BE. 20:23—
”3255 37.: bass: 2: 2 5:53 a: 8555..— EE .52; Eon—:30 5:5 ape—.83 moucotoaxo 3.83835 .9853;

afiuecaozmm Begum a ma westwaxm ..e aha;

"ougtoaxm 3568.35
.25 .mdm .m._>=.<.2 ”.96. «unwan— m .2 Mao—=80

ohm—.5530 5:958:— Ema—.225—

: X_Qmem<

135

 

 

 

******************..:—3..**************************************************************

 

A ”36on 33?: EEO
52323.5

255.522.: $th us. 60:53:. .wEBmcsoo 2.2.5225 Eocow 3622.: 2.22822:—
Encoimfioa 85o .2523 .2223. wcfiaocc 522.3250

choeombcoEmwomm< 12:28:—

35.5» tone wEnEUEV =o_§:_n>m census—om BBommbcoEm8mm< BEE”.

AmwcsooE wESaE cones—gm .3582: HMS .mwczooE mm: .mwccooE beam 228 metSm

2.28 2.3622 .mwcsooE tsm ..wov :o_.E.m_EE_o<

“8:252. 32528.3...— u£30=8 2: .2. :23 :e .2.on 32.9.23 .5» «.33 22. 2:: .2. ems—.33”. 2: 83:2: 335

"mo—.2 3528292. 2.92:9

.2226 30:8 2: E 95.53 m.m_wo_o;o>ma .0058 Co 232...: ::0...

6:26 .0058 :5» S $5.52. .0 28E? ..:oh

2.22228:— 3225

136

 

 

 

$508320 :05 E 0220 ..:: 3:3: :0:..>:0E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n v m N _ 200 20003 :.0» ._00m 203 :0» E05: 53. 20:03. 0.: 0.. 2.03.0 .23 0 H m
23:33.0 300% 20.. biog—0 ..:0Emm0mma 20. 220.0. ..w.0v
w v m N _ 30260: 23:33.0 .028 was—..:. :0:3 :0:..>:0E 2.09.2 202300 :0» _
0: .0020 .33 0. 400:8 E wERwEE 020 0:3 8:032 3303.. :055
0.332 “chm”... 8:...30w 2.0.3. .032
3" 3:30:06 0:32.00 0.2.0020 0.: 0. .08.: 3:255:00 25:00:: E. 2 =0:..>:0E

£023 ..0. .3202: 0:. >05 5023 E 303 .0 032.0020: 0.: 0.03.8209. 030E

023....050000 00:03.— 5 :0:...50—2

137

APPENDIX I

Motivation Knowledge Quiz
For the questions listed below, please select the best answer amongst the choices.

According to achievement goal theory, an achievement goal refers to...

a. The standard by which you and others judge whether or not you have achieved what you
intended.

b. The short-term (proximal) goals that students set in order to make tasks more
manageable.

c. A belief about the purposes of engaging in achievement-related behavior.

d. All of the above

e. None of the above

 

Students with performance—approach goals are best characterized by which of the following
descriptors?

a. They are concerned with doing their best possible work on their assignments.

b. They always challenge themselves even though they know they will make many
mistakes.

They frequently ask questions in class in order to understand the material better.

They are focused on outperforming their peers on class activities.

Both A and D

Both B and C

rho 0.9

Which one of the following statements indicates that the speaker is focused on a

performance-avoidance goal?

a “I hope that I do well on this presentation, otherwise my friends will think I’m stupid.”

b. “I hope that I do well on my math assignment, otherwise I’ll probably have to do more
practice sets.”

c. “I don’t want to do too well on this placement exam because I’ll be placed in the higher
level classes.”

d. “I’m quite certain that I didn’t do well on that paper, but hopefully my teacher will give
me helpful feedback.”

Which one of the following best describes a student with a mastery goal orientation?

a. Michelle is focused upon earning the best grades in the class.

b. Greg likes to be creative in his assignments, seeking new ways to display what he knows.

c. Anne often goes over old assignments to make sure that she understands items that she
missed.

(1. Both A and C

e. Both B and C

f. All of the above

138

 

Which one of the following best describes why a person with a performance goal orientation

may choose to procrastinate on a major assignment?

a. Laura doesn’t care much about the grades she receives and therefore chooses to simply
put forth the minimal effort to earn a passing grade.

b. Carolyn is concerned that she will not do well on the assignment and thus does not want
to try hard and end up looking stupid to her classmates.

c. Jennifer does not like the topic that she is assigned to write about and therefore is not
interested in doing the work necessary for the assignment.

d. Both A and B

Three of the following classroom practices are typically associated with mastery goals.
Which one is not?

Emphasize what will be learned from an activity when it is introduced to the class.

Give challenging tasks on which students will make many mistakes but also learn a lot.
Allow students a great deal of choice over how they will present what they have learned.
Encourage students to compete with one another in order to enhance their learning and
engagement.

 

9.0:!»

An achievement goal theory perspective on motivation suggests that understanding why
students engage in academic tasks is more important than the effort they put forth on those
tasks.

a. True

b. False

According to achievement goal theory, which answer is true when incorporated into the
following statement:
encourages a maladaptive goal orientation because it...

a. Cooperative learning... allows students to benefit (grade-wise) from other students’
knowledge

b. Normative grading... emphasizes relative performance rather than what the student has
mastered or not.

c. Time extension on an assignment... encourages students to procrastinate rather than meet
expectations for class assignments

d. Both B and C

 

Students in Ms. Stevens’ science class have to give an oral report on a planet in our solar
system. Which one of the students or groups of students exhibit behaviors most consistent
with a performance goal?

a. Steve and Tom decide to do a joint report on Venus. They know that they work well
together and can trust one another to complete the assignment and earn an exceptional
grade that they both desire.

b. Jeff and Theresa decide to do their report on Earth because they’ve always been
interested in understanding the evolution of the earth’s ecosystems and both have already
read a lot about it.

c. Tammy decides that she will do her report on Pluto. Her sister had to write a similar
report a few years ago when she was in Ms. Stevens’ class and Tammy believes that she

can use some of her sister’s materials. thus saving her some work.
(I. Both A and C

139

10. Teachers often post examples of best papers or assignments in order to provide a model of
quality work. According to achievement goal theory, this is likely to encourage which
achievement goal orientation?

a. Mastery

b. Performance-approach
c. Performance-avoidance
d. Both A and B

e. Both B and C

11. Which classroom conditions will best encourage students to adopt a mastery goal orientation?
Allow students to retake tests for improved learning and performance.

Publicly praise students when they earn one of the highest scores on the test.

Develop fun assignments that students will enjoy and work hard to complete.

Both A and B

Both A and C

All of the above

rhea-09‘s»

12. According to achievement goal theory,

because they... .

a. Honor rolls provide a clear, measurable standard that students can aim to achieve.

b. Programs like Book It give students an incentive (in this case, Pizza coupons) to read
more books.

c. Policies like revise/resubmit provide students opportunities to improve on their initial
performance.

(1. Both A and B

e. Both A and C

f. All of the above

encourage an adaptive goal orientation

13. According to attribution theory, a student’s explanation for why they succeeded or failed is
@ important than the actual success or failure in terms of how they will respond to future
learning tasks.

a. True
b. False

140

 

 

APPENDIX J

 

I! Perceptions of Competence II

we PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH THE FRONT AND BA CK PORTION OF THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE ***

The following items are designed to assess how competent you believe you are in
understanding and responding to student motivation issues you see in your practice. We
all know that school psychologists are called upon to address a great variety of student
problems and that they may feel more or less confident about their skills in different
areas. Therefore, please be as honest as possible in your assessment of your skills in
addressing student motivation iSSlfl.

For each of the items below, please rate how competent you believe you are in the area.

 

 

Likelihood Rating
Not at all Somewhat Very
competent competent competent

 

Using teacher interviews to understand the nature of

student motivation problems. 1 2 3 4 5

 

2 Developing classroom-level interventions to improve
student motivation.

 

3 Assessing the motivational systems that teachers
have in place in their classrooms.

 

Understanding the motivational beliefs and
4 . . . .
cognitions that underlie student behavror.

 

5 Persuading teachers to alter classroom practices that
influence student motivation.

 

6 Assessing the motivational beliefs and achievement
goal orientations of students.

 

7 Assessing the effectiveness of classroom-level
interventions to improve student motivation.

 

8 Using student interviews to understand the nature of
student motivation problems.

 

9 Assessing the effectiveness of individual-level
interventions to improve student motivation.

 

 

10 Developing individual-level interventions to improve
student motivation.

 

 

 

 

141

 

 

 

 

Likelihood Ratin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all Somewhat Very
‘ . competent competent competent

Assessing how the classroom structures (such as

11 grouping practices or evaluation systems) influences 1 2 3 4 5
student motivation.
Discussing with teachers the classroom-level factors

12 . . . l 2 3 4 5
that influence student motivation.

13 Understanding how motivation influences students’ 1 2 3 4 5
learning and performance.

14 Persuading teachers to implement individual-level 1 2 3 4 5
motivation strategies and interventions.
Persuading even the most difficult or resistant

15 teachers to structure their classroom along best 1 2 3 4 5
practices guidelines for student motivation.
Understanding the classroom-level factors that

16 . . . 1 2 3 4 5
contribute to student motivation problems.
Using classroom observations to understand the

17 . . l 2 3 4 5
nature of student motivation problems.

18 Discussing with teachers the nature of the l 2 3 4 5
motivational beliefs of students.
Using teacher and student surveys and questionnaires

19 to understand the nature of student motivation I 2 3 4 5
problems.

20 Assessing the motivational climate of the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5
Supporting even the most difficult and resistant

21 teachers in making changes to the classroom that l 2 3 4 5

 

support student motivation.

 

 

142

 

 

APPENDIX K

Michael

Michael is an 11-year-old, 5th grade student in your school. He has
been brought to your attention by his teacher, Mr. Jones, because
of concerns regarding his academic performance. More
specifically, Mr. Jones notes that he is performing below average
in the area of mathematics. In other areas, such as reading and
writing, he is performing at an average level compared to his
classmates. Overall he notes that Michael strikes him as a kid who
does not like school much and puts forth the minimal effort to get
by, especially in subjects that he does not enjoy or believe he is
capable.

A review of Michael’s record indicates that he has a history of
poor performance in math, though his teachers also noted that he
put less effort into this subject than others. Despite this history,
this is the first time that he has been brought to the attention of any
of the support staff. His previous and current teachers have noted
that he performs poorly on tests, showing minimal mastery of basic
math facts and concepts assessed. In addition, Mr. Jones notes that
he does not complete much of his classwork (50%) nor does he
turn in much of his homework (25%) in math. What he does turn
in is often incomplete and/or incorrect due to silly errors. He
believes that Michael is capable of learning the material, however
he does not appear to put much time or effort into this subject.

Keep this particular student in mind as you are
responding to the following surveys:

> Hypotheses questionnaire

> Assessment of Motivation survey

> Motivational Strategies survey

143

 

 

Tommy

Tommy is an ll-year-old, 5th grade student who has been brought
to your attention because of concerns regarding his academic
performance. More specifically, his teacher, Ms. Smith, notes that
Tommy is performing below average in all academic areas. Ms.
Smith believes he is one of the worst functioning students in his
class, however she is not certain about his actual skills because he
rarely gets a true glimpse of what Tommy can and cannot do.

Ms. Smith notes that, instead of working on his class assignments,
Tommy is often found socializing with friends or goofing around.
While Tommy has respectable homework and classwork
completion rates (~75 percent), Ms. Smith notes that he gets a lot
of help from classmates. In fact, she suspects that for much of his
work, he is simply copying answers from his classmates rather
than really trying to understand the concepts and skills. He
appears to put little effort into test and quizzes and doesn’t even try
to mask his inattentiveness. While Tommy may be capable of
learning the material, he does not appear to put much time or effort
into his learning.

Keep this particular student in mind as you are
responding to the following surveys:

> Hypotheses questionnaire

> Assessment of Motivation survey

> Motivational Strategies survey

144

Chris

Chris is an 11—year-old, 5th grade student who has been brought to
your attention because of concerns regarding his academic
performance. Chris is a well-liked student, popular with both
students and teachers alike. Despite this popularity and genuine
affection, his teacher, Ms. Miller, has expressed great frustration
regarding Chris because she believes that he is capable of doing
much better in school. She notes that he does not seem to apply
himself unless he is extremely interested in the concept being
covered.

Standardized tests reveal that Chris is a capable student who
should be performing much better than he is in school. His parents
note that he loves to read at home, especially in the area of science.
They further note that he loves to write and has penned a few short
plays which he and siblings perform at home. Surprisingly though,
his talent for writing is rarely evident on his school assignments.

In addition, Chris rarely participates in class discussion nor
volunteers answers to Ms. Miller’s questions, unless he is very
interested in the topic. While Chris appears capable of learning the
material, he does not appear to put much time or effort into his
learning.

Keep this particular student in mind as you are
responding to the following surveys:

> Hypotheses questionnaire

> Assessment of Motivation survey

> Motivational Strategies survey

145

APPENDIX L

 

I! Assessment of Motivation II

The items below are designed to gather information about how you would go about
assessing [profile name] motivation and the factors influencing it. Recognizing that
school psychologists have a limited amount of time that they can spend on any one case,
please indicate how likely you would be to use the following assessment techniques to
understand the motivational aspects of [profile name] case.

 

 

. Likelihood Rating
Assessment Techniques ”0:11" Somewhat Very
' a likely likely

likely

 

Observation and analysis of the motivational climate of
l the classroom and classroom practices and policies 1 2 3 4 5
influencing the student’s motivation

 

2 Interview with the student regarding his motivation and
beliefs about learning

 

Student and teacher surveys assessing perceptions of the
3 motivational climate of the classroom and classroom
practices and policies influencing student motivation
(Please specify: )

 

4 Observation and analysis of the student’s behavior in the
individual assessment situation

 

 

Interview with the teacher regarding his/her perception
5 of the classroom practices and policies influencing the 1 2 3 4 5
student‘s motivation

 

Observation and anal sis of the teacher‘s instructional
6 )'
practices in the classroom

 

Student and teacher surveys assessing the student’s
7 beliefs and motivation (Please specify: 1 2 3 4 5
)

 

 

8 Interview with the teacher regarding the student’s
motivation and beliefs about learning

 

9 Observation and analysis of the student’s behavior in the
classroom

 

 

Interview with the student regarding his perceptions of
10 the classroom practices and policies influencing student 1 2 3 4 5
motivation

 

 

 

146

 

In attempting to understand the nature of [profile name] motivation and the classroom

factors influencing it, how likely are you to gather information about the following

classroom structures/dimensions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Likelihood Rating
Assessment Techniques Not at Somewhat Very
all likely likely likely
I How learning tasks and activities are structured l 2 3 5
How much authority or autonomy the students have
2 . . . l 2 3 4 5
With regards to their learning
How students are recognized for their learning and
3 l 2 3 4 5
performance
4 How students are grouped for learning activities 1 2 3 4 5
5 How students are evaluated 1 2 3 4 5
6 How effectively time is used for student learning and l 2 3 4 5

 

motivation

 

 

147

 

APPENDIX M

Participant #

I! Motivation Strategies ll

The items below are designed to gather information about the types of strategies you would
recommend to teachers when addressing [profile name] motivation. Recognizing that various
factors affect the recommendations that school psychologists make to teachers (e.g., how
effective you believe the strategies would be for that particular student, how likely the teachers
would be to implement them, and how capable you are of supporting the implementation), please
rate how likely you are to recommend that teachers employ these strategies and implement
these policies to address rot'ile name motivation concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likelihood Rating
Motivational Strategies ”0' 3‘ Somewhat Very
.3" likely likely
likely
I Reward students for high performances. l 2 3 4 5
Contact the parents of students when they are not trying hard
2 . 1 2 4 5
in class.
Grade down for incomplete assignments or poor work quality
3 due to low effort. 1 2 3 4 5
4 iAllow students to retake tests for improved performance and l 2 3 4 5
earning.
5 Display the work of high achieving students as an example. I 2 3 4 5
6 Stress the importance of trying hard. 1 2 3 4 5
7 lSay, if you put more effort into your schoolwork. you Will 1 2 3 4 5
earn even more.
8 Emphasize the importance of getting good grades. , l 2 3 4 5
9 Give grades based on improvement. ‘ I 2 3 4 5
10 Encourage students to try to do better than others. I 2 3 4 5
Assign extra work to students when they have incomplete
ll . . . . , l 2 3 4 5
aSSlgnments or have shown minimal effort on their work.
12 Give specml priVIleges to students who do the best I 2 3 4 5
academically.
l3 Require students to correct mistakes on assignments. l 2 3 4 5
14 Hold academic competitions. 1 2 3 4 5
15 Recognize students for effort and improvement. 1 2 3 4 5
l6 Praise students when they show that they are working hard. I 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

148

 

Motivational Strategies

Likelihood Rating

 

Not at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all Somewhat Very
likely likely likely
17 Require students to spend extra time on schoolwork when l 2 3 4 5
they have incomfite assigfllents.
18 Emphasize the importance of making the honor roll. 1 2 3 4 5
19 iAllow students to choose how they present what they have 1 2 3 4 5
earned.
20 Let students create individual work contracts that detail what 1 2 3 4 5
they need to master and at what level.
21 Reward students for improved ef fort: . 1 2 3 4 5
22 Post honor rolls to recognize high performances. l 2 3 4 5
23 Contact the parents of students who have incomplete 1 2 3 4 5
aSSignments.
24 Display best papers and projects in the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5
25 Publicly recognize students when they get good grades. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

149

 

APPENDIX N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS . Poor Excellent
Overall, I would rate the program as: l 2 3 4 5
The objectives of the program were clearly evident: l 2 3 4 5
The leader(s)/instructor(s)’ instructional skills were: 1 2 3 4 5
How effective was the program in holding your interest? 1 2 3 4 5
The facilities and accommodations were conducive to l 2 3 4 5
learning:
The materials were relevant and helpful: 1 2 3 4 5
I will be able to use the information and/or skills
acquired through this program to improve my job Disagree Agree
effectiveness:

1 2 3 4 5

 

 

WRITTEN COMMENTS (For additional space, please use the back of this form)

 

What could be done to improve the workshop/training?

 

For future workshops, what topics would be most helpful in performing your job?

 

 

Additional Comments?

 

150

 

REFERENCES

151

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece
& D. Schunk (Eds.), Students' perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-
267.

Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1995). Linking assessment to intervention. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 679-
688). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Blanco, R. F., & Bogacki, D. F. (1988). Prescriptions for children with learning and
adjustment problems: A consultant's desk reference (3rd ed.).

Blumenfeld, P. (1992). Classroom learning and student motivation: Clarifying and
expanding goal theory. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students tO learn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Brophy, J ., & Rohrkemper, M. (1981). The influence of problem ownership on teachers’
perceptions of and strategies for coping with problem students. Journal Of
Educational Psychology, 73, 295-311.

Chapman, J. (1988). Cognitive-motivational characteristics and academic achievement
of learning disabled children: A longitudinal study. Jounzal Of Educational
Psychology, 80, 357-365.

Christensen, S. L.. & Anderson, A. R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the

learning context for students academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review,
31, 378-393.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences (2"d ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

DiPema, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

DiPema, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student
achievement: An introduction to the mini-series. School Psychology Review, 31.
293-297.

DiPema, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). A model of academic enablers and
elementary reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review. 31.
298-312.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist.
41, 1040-1048.

Elliott, C., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in
children with learning disabilities: A multiple group comparison study. Journal
Of Learning Disabilities, 23, 177-184.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliott. A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement
goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational
Psychologist, 33, 1-21.

Kazdin, A. E. (1992). Research design in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Macmillan Publishing Company.

Kazdin, A. E. (1999). Overview of research design issues in clinical psychology. In P.
C. Kendall, J. N. Butcher, & G. N. Hombeck. (1999), Handbook of research
methods in clinical psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3-30). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Keith. T. Z. (1988). Using path analysis to test the importance of manipulable influences
on school learning. School Psychology Review; 17, 637-643.

Keith, T. Z. (2002). Commentary: Academic enablers and school learning. School
Psychology Review, 31, 394-402.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic
success. School Psychology Review, 31. 313-327.

Maehr. M. L., & Anderman, E. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents:
Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal. 93, 593-610.

Maehr, M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide
approach. Educational Psychologist, 26. 399-427.

153

Meece, J. (1991). The classroom context and children’s motivational goals. In M. Maehr

& P. Pintrich (Eds)., Advances in achievement motivation research (Vol. 7, pp.
261-286). Greenwich, CT: J AI Press.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals:
Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal
Of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-86.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J ., Nelson, J ., Roeser, R., &
Urdan, T. (2000). Manual [or the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales LPALS ).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-
handicapping strategies. Journal Of Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411.

Minke, K. M., & Baer, G. G. (2000). Preventing School Problems - Promoting School
Success (pp. 143-169). Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.

Moore, L. A., Waguespack, A. M., Wickstrom, K. F., & Witt, J. C. (1994). Mystery
motivator: An effective and time efficient intervention. School Psychology
Review, 23, 106-118

Morrone, A. S., & Schutz, P. A. (2000). Promoting achievement motivation. In K. M.
Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing School Problems - Promoting School
Success (pp. 143-169). Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study
strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001).
Teachers’ communication of goal orientation in four fifth-grade classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-58.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, L. H., Middleton, M., Linnenbrink, L, Hruda, L. 2.,
Edelin, K., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). Manual for Observing Patterns of
Adaptive Learning (OPAL): A Protocol for Classroom Observations. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
learning and achievement. Joumal Of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

154

Rau, C. A. (2001, April). Exploring school psychologists’ beliefs and practices
regarding student motivation. Poster session presented at the annual conference
of the National Association of School Psychologists. Washington, DC.

Roberts, M. L. (1995). Assessing environmental factors that impact student performance.
In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.
679-688). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Strobel, K. R. (1998). Linking the study of schooling and
mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the
individual. Educational Psychologist, 33, 153-176.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ self appraisals and academic engagement:

The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 408-422.

Ross, R. P. (1995). Best practices in implementing intervention assistance programs. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 227-
237). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking
for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy,
teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 1-8.

Skinner, E. A., & Wellbom, J. G. (1997). Children’s coping in the academic domain. In
S. A. Wolchik & I. N. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook Of children ’s coping: Linking
theory and intervention (pp. 387-422). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th Ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M, Kang, Y, &
Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance

strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 94, 88-106.

Urdan, T. C., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). Interpreting messages about motivation
in the classroom: Examining the effects of achievement goal structures. In M. L.
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Series Ed.) & T. C. Urdan (Vol. Ed.), Advances in
achievement and motivation: Vol. 11. The role Of context (pp. 123-158).
Stamford, CN: JAI Press.

155

 

Urdan, T. C., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal
structure in students’ use of self-handicapping. American Educational Research
Journal, 35, 101-122.

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational
Leadership, 41, 19-30

Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook Of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214-229). New York, NY:
McMillan.

Ysseldyke, J ., & Elliott, J. (1999). Effective instructional practices: Implications for
assessing educational environments. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.),
The handbook Of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 497-518). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ysseldyke, J ., Reschly, D., Dawson, P., Reynolds, M., Lehr, C., & Telzrow, C. (1997).

School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice - II. Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.

156

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

11111111111111111111111111111(1111111111111111111111111111