,.. uh; 1a 112:: \1 9 :91: 1111:1311 V1“ 931‘“ 9‘ -9 1 311‘. ”.199 . I‘I': u. 919... 171. ma kn} n1 . l kA‘VN l. 91‘ .99991-9-9‘9 ‘ .“.;:".‘ HEN 9.79919 .. 1:19:91 9.11 2391111311 111’ Mm. . «19. V 1.591 994‘} "199111 99.1. 111 .1 1999 .U . .3111. £11191“? '9‘ '9'? . ‘1.-9"!.~.....11.. . :32}:va 191 99-999; 111:9 19111919 93911“ 4 ugh-.99! - 1:} .1123. 31“ .1151‘s' ‘3; 9 '3!‘ 3:4,“;1 1””. M V . 1' 9 1. 111a ‘4 “3.111%” 1” ,991‘99 . 9199199 "a :99 “11351912115119! £1,419.99. :21” 1 1,1 11.9191311399199. “ ",1, . :1513'3331’3 9911111191 9199: “ " 1111'”; 1 101.31 ,‘ 1 . .:I};: 11119 1"111L99,‘ 11 . 9 11151111 . ~ 7,31. , .1 .. 113.991. V 1 9151:; 9111159 9 fi" lll‘ 1‘1 .. ‘2‘93 fur 1-: h\ “M1711 “1911”:x..1...V1.1,.r931L 943 1:1 .959»: «.2... 2m~~1au 3.... my... O.~M\L‘~I.I\~: .. . \- 1|». .~ W . 2.9599999999»; ‘\ b. .. ‘;-.\7L upwzttfi. >4“ Inna“; yrghusmu~h~~ “$.13 hglmF-.xm.~1 \u. .- ~2a. 1 b~—~~ "M V M 9;- 1:911...“ :mustu‘ \. V\I.\-l MuNk§ I V xiv-9 :1" ' " Mk»?! A N |§&‘_u:::z o .— 333:2... .»—xo«=: sue: on .:a_c—u cu mou::_a cw o>:: »—:o :o> taa::u\xzsh _:ES:;z : .: .»HH:qu=u Ea:u o: o: .umOa uxoo 0;; :o o: H._3 snuzu ox.— nee—sou; :2:::::u:::c ;>_.::;z H a .»a:cs :3: »5 mo ouzo 04:“ ca 1:: 2:: axuo:u wcduuuz tauaaua H :o:3 u:o tezou H u:: .oue uzo» ea: H cos: who: mHHuxn omozu occuuoesu 30: 30:: uo>oc H :21? :>_._::; r. x .uswuc so;u you H :o:3 zoom HOOu »HH=ou H :osu as; .tuc: x:_;u 06 uses »o:u om:=uua new—scu: »xo_uu oxHH H .»xo«uu »-cou one use—so»: omega Co oeom see? :>_._::; c. H .aoE=w oEon »=—: 09 no» man HH.H co nouoH cozy .Eocu :o HHoa o: :o» «H uu::::om:ou ;>___a:; n c OJ xoo; any cu no acqeeo:m »uooouw om so» 20:: Easy woo: HH.:o> .WHHme omozu zoos :o» uosu uceuuoee_ m.uH noczozcum:c: ;>_._r:; :— m .vuooa aqua—Hs; on“ :o a: a“ use HH.H .uoeoe ooom »HHeou o o: :0» EH noczozcoazsu o>_s_m:; w 4 .59;. 3: so» ououoa Jouzu ou o>an HH.:o> .uovuo: on: am can: so auco osu use .HHo uo oHnsouu c: on egaosa Hm one; xxx? ;>_O_::; =_.n .n _ .OOu 59;; »o~=o HH.:o» xcwzu H was mEOHsoua uo moo“: omosu oqu H xxx? :>_._n:; .e. m .uoo» uxoc :uoE ecu Eozu woo: HH.:o» .mHHme omega 3oz: :o» uo5u acouuoeeq m.uH mouzozrom:oc _:b.::z :— _ uooEoucum :o_a=o_u_aac_u :o_u:o.C.nn=_U 01:; . .32 no m_z== »e:29u=u Ozuaoueum »v:um mfisu CH new: mucosmuoum :OHumucmmmpm uncomme mo :OfiumufimwmmeHu .o.m mane? 40 Analysis of the students' responses indicate a great deal of paraphrasing of the stimuli (teacher statements) in response to open-ended questions ("What do you think when your teacher says . . ."). The interviewer had to probe extensively and steer the students' responses frequently in order to get meaningful information (student reactions/perceptions). The open-ended interview format was thus found to be unsuitable and inefficient for obtaining students' perceptions of and reactions to the 12 teacher statements. Consequently, the decision was made to pair two statements together and require a comparison, the students being asked to make a choice (preference) and then to provide a rationale for their preference. The paired comparison format was thought to provide enough structure to focus students' responses on their reactions/perceptions. Since all of the positive statements were paired with other positive statements, the possibility of the student making a choice merely because of social desirability was minimized. Similarly, a negative statement was paired either with the other negative statement or with a neutral statement, and one neutral statement was paired with a positive statement. Thus, contrasts between the two statements in each pair were kept at a minimum. Although minimizing the contrast between the two statements helped to reduce social desirability responding, there was a possibility that students might have a social desirability response set. The Paired Comparison Method The theoretical rationale and the statistical procedures for the m Comparative Juggment, which is the basis for this method, were developed by Thurstone (1927a, b). The author will not review the development of this method nor provide its mathematical derivation. However, sources of such review are provided for the interested reader (Bock 6: Jones, 1968; Guilford, 41 1954; Thurstone, 1927a). Only the central concepts of the method are reviewed here. According to Bock and Jones (1968), the method of paired comparisons requires that, "if n stimuli are compared, n(n-l)/2 of pairs of stimuli must be presented if all possible distinct pairs are to be judged." (p. 116) Thus, all stimuli (S ‘s) are typically presented to an observer (9) in all possible pairs of non- identical (S 's). This results in n(n-1)/2 pairs and requires that the _C_)_ pick one S in each pair over the other one in the pair. The 9 compares one to another and judges which is 'better' or 'preferred' or 'has more' of some defined quality or quantity. To have a balanced design based on the paired comparison method, the number of distinct pairs that each 9 would have to judge would be 66, given the above mentioned formula. According to Bock and Jones (1968), "However easy the judgments may be, it is seldom feasible to require of a subject more than about 50 judgments in a multiple-judgment paired-comparison experiment. Even this number may not be attainable if the subject is poorly motivated. This means that the number of objects in a complete multiple judgment design cannot ordinarily exceed more than fifty" (p. 167). Bock and Jones's comments are particularly pertinent when the paired comparisons are used with young children. Given the characteristics of the sample in this study, the number of comparisons that a subject could reasonably judge would be far fewer than those recommended by Bock and Jones. When interviewing elementary school children, there is concern not only about the subjects' motivation, but also fatigue, satiation, and above all, the subjects' limited attention span (Yarrow, 1960). To address these concerns and achieve a balanced design, the following procedures were employed. 42 Since the main concern of this study was to gather information about students' reactions to positive statements made by teachers, a balanced design using eight positive statements (for a total of 28 comparisons) was employed. However, requiring the subject to make judgments on 28 multiple-judgment comparisons was not feasible, given the characteristics of the group under investigation. Thus, in order to conduct the study employing the method of paired comparisons, the author either had to further reduce the number of stimuli or use a fractional design. Reducing the number of stimuli would have considerably reduced the scope and the meaningfulness of the study, so the decision was made to employ a fractional design over the measures. This design led each subject to be exposed to only half of all possible distinct combinations of the eight statements (14 comparisons). According to McKeon (1960), Bose (1956), and Kendall (1955) this design would still yield complete tables of proportion scores where the statements could be analyzed as a set. Three comparisons of interest were generated from the remaining four statements that were classified as neutral or negative. These three comparisons were not part of the balanced design, and therefore were subjected to separate statistical analyses. Division of the Set of Comparisons. An 8X8 matrix consisting of all possible combinations of the eight statements was divided into two equal parts based on the criterion that no statement appears in one part more than four times. The numbers lthrough 8 (statement numbers) identifying the rows and columns of the matrix were reordered, using a table of random numbers. The combinations based on the reordered statement numbers made up the two parts of Form A of the interview. A second reordering of the statement numbers was done in the manner described above, and the author made sure that no systematic patterns appered in both the first and second reordering of the 43 numbers. Combinations based on the second reordering of the statement numbers made up the two parts of Form B of the interview. Table 3.7 presents the combinations that comprised the two parts of Forms A and B. The two different forms of the interview were created so that the subjects were not confounded with the form of the interview. The order in which the statements were presented within each combination could also affect the subjects' choice. In order to control for order effects, half of the subjects received the appropriate half of the Form A or B where the order of the statements within each comparison was reversed. The allocation scheme for the two forms is shown in Table 3.8. The appropriate "half forms" were randomly assigned to subjects in each cell. Open—Ended Questions. In Part II of the interview, the subjects were asked to explain the circumstances/conditions in which teachers make no introductions and launch directly into tasks. The results of the Brophy et a1. (1983) study indicated that student engagement was generally higher when teachers moved directly into tasks than when they began with some presentation statement. This was quite contrary to the researchers' expectations, so the question was of considerable importance in this study. The preceding part of the interview using the paired comparisons provided an adequate background for the students so that they were able to respond to the open-ended question without problems. The nature of the questions in the preceding part provided a smooth transition to this part of the interview. The students were told: "We have just talked about the many different ways teachers give assignments. But sometimes they might not use any of those different ways of giving assignments. They might just say: 'Do the problems on pages thirty-seven and thirty—nine' and not say anything else." Pilot testing had indicated that elementary school children were able to provide meaningful 44 Table 3.7. Combinations for Interview Forms (Part I) Al A2 Bl 82 3, 6 *5, 12 l, 2 S, 7 3, z. 6, 2. 8, 3 6, 8 2,1 1,8 5, 4 1,3 3, S 3, 4 7, 6 2, 5 *9, 10 *9, 10 *9, IO *9, IO 7, z. 6, 7 2, 3 4, 7 1, 6 2, 5 4, 8 l, 6 5, 8 3, 8 S, l 5, 8 2, 3 l, 4 *ll, 9 *ll, 9 *ll, 9 *ll, 9 3, 7 3, 4 7,1 5, 7 2,8 2, 6 5, 4 2, 8 5, 6 l, 7 6, 8 4, 6 1,4 *12, 8 *12, 4 3, 7 8, 7 3, S l, 3 S, l *12, 6 4, 6 7, 2 2, 4 4, 2 l, 8 6, S 7, 8 3, 6 2, 7 * The pairs marked with an asterisk were not part of the set of pairs in the balanced design. NOTE: Table 3.8. 45 Allocation of Formsfifor Part I of Interview 1 1 S RA S RA B and B together make up the 28 paired comparisons for a balanced design using the first reor- dering of statement numbers together make up the 28 paired comparisons for a balanced design using the second reor- dering of statement numbers are forms of A and B where the order of statements within each comparison is reversed represent the subjects in one cell This allocation of forms is repeated for all of the 12 cells in the design 46 responses to this question when it was preceded by the paired comparisons. The subjects were told to generate a list of those circumstances/conditions in which the teacher gave no introductions. In Part III of the interview, the students were asked to generate teacher statements that 3331 would like to hear in order to make them "feel like really working hard in math." This question was included to find out the degree of overlap between the teacher statements presented in the paired comparisons and the statements generated by the students (see Appendix F). Validity of Instrument Many measurement specialists believe that establishing the validity of a test is the most important problem facing test constructors (Ebel, 1977). Even though this issue is a critical one, there is no single satisfactory solution to the problem. Thus a variety of methods for reporting validity have been used in research. Some measurement specialists favor the use of validity coefficients in terms of Pearson product-moment correlations: p (Mehrens 6c Lehman, 1978). However, Ebel (1977) warned that single quantitative indices of validity are not sufficient grounds for establishing the validity of a test. Instead, he suggested that a test should be "clearly defined" and focus upon the "reasonableness of inferences drawn from scores obtained in a particular situation." Since most parts of the instrument employed in this study were new, greater emphasis was placed on developing the instrument so that it met Ebel's criterion. The teacher statements reflected the coding categories defined by Brophy et al. (1983), and independent judges, when given the teacher statements, were able to code them in the correct categories. Further, these statements were based on those used most frequently by the teachers in the Brophy et a1. (1983) study. 47 One major concern in that study was the ecological validity of the statements. This issue is of some importance, because where ecological validity is lacking, there is greater likelihood of the results indicating a developmental difference. (This issue has been discussed at length in the review Of literature). The ecological validity of the statements was established by using the following procedures: a) six independent elementary school teachers were asked to provide feedback on the twelve teacher statements based on how frequently they were likely to be used by teachers at the elementary level and the appropriateness of the language/style of each statement. The feedback from the teachers was used to revise the statements. b) Teachers (N = 8) who participated in the study were asked to fill out a "Frequency of Use Survey" where, for each statement, they indicated on a five- point scale how frequently they would use the statements (see Appendix G). PROCEDURES The student interviews were conducted by four graduate assistants who were part of the Classroom Strategy Research Project of IRT. There were two male and two female interviewers. Since the author was involved in the process of random assignment of students to various forms of the interview and was aware of the achievement level of students, she did not conduct any of the interviews. This was done in order to minimize interviewer bias. The interviewers were blind to the purposes of the study and the achievement information about the students. Each interviewer interviewed 24 students (two students randomly assigned from each cell of the design). Traininiof Interviewers The interviewers were trained according to the principles outlined by Yarrow (1960), Baldwin (1960), Weinstein (1981) and other sources in child 48 development and social psychology. The training included the following elements: 1. Building a rapport with the students. 2. Considerations for interviewing in a school setting. 3. Considerations related to the developmental level of the student. 4. Reading statements with the right emphasis. 5. Identifying key motivation— related comments made by students and probing for more information on these comments. 6. Recognition of when a response is complete. 7. Recognition of when a response is unrelated to the question, and methods to refocus the student's response. 8. Alternative ways of stating open-ended questions to assure a full response from the student. 9. Alternative methods of probing. 10. How to handle pauses and "I don't know." 11. Methods to refocus wandering attention. 12. Methods of handling various types of "problem interviewees" (see Appendix H). Interviewers were trained in four sessions of three hours each, and a variety of techniques was used. The general elements of the training were accomplished through a lecture format. After the interviewers had sufficient background about interviewing young children, role playing and critique were used to reinforce the issues addressed in the lecture. Further, the interviewers listened to audio-taped interviews conducted by an "expert" inteviewer. Written guidelines that focused the interviewer‘s attention on key elements of the "expert" interviewer's style were provided. Using the same guidelines, the interviewers also observed, through a one—way mirror, the "expert" interviewer 49 interviewing a student. The author felt that the interviewers' training should proceed gradually in order to ensure standardized interviewing procedures. Finally, each interviewer conducted three practice interviews before proceeding to the actual interviewing for the study. After every practice interview, the author provided extensive feedback so that each succeeding interview was of higher quality. A wrap-up session was held to address any issues or concerns raised in the process of training. An evaluation procedure (see Appendix I) was established which the interviewers completed after each interview. This evaluation form provided information about contextual factors that might have affected the interview and also indicated any concerns, observations, or questions the interviewers had after the interview. Student Interviews The student interviews were conducted at times suitable for teachers and students. Periods when there was testing, assembly, gym, and recess were avoided to minimize students' concern about "missing out on something." The actual interviews took place in empty rooms within the school, far away from the classroom. This was done to reinforce the idea that the interview was "different" and confidential, and to allow more time for easing into the interview. On the way to the room, the interviewers attempted to establish rapport with the student, using first names to introduce themselves and conveying to the student that they were there to "learn from the student." The interviewer carried on an informal conversation, emphasized the confidential nature of the interview, and checked whether the student had "heard anything about the interview." Students were given the right to discontinue the interview if they wished. The seating arrangements in the interviewing room insured the comfort of the students who were seated away 50 from heat vents, drafts, distracting stimuli, etc., and who were seated close enough to the interviewers so that the voices could be audibly recorded on the tape. The actual interview began with the students testing out the tape recorder and playing it back to hear themselves on tape. This procedure was successful in reducing the students' anxiety (if any) about the taping process itself (see Appendix J). The students were informed about the structure of the interview and what was required of them at each stage. The interviewers emphasized the unique nature of the task, and therefore the need to think very carefully about each question. They also made the students feel comfortable about repetitions of questions if they did not understand any part of them. The warm-up section of the interview focused the students' attention on math and the different things teachers might say while giving math assignments. This cued the students to the salient aspects of the interview (see Appendix J). For the first part of the interview, each pair of statements was presented verbally, and the students could also follow them in a notebook that displayed the pair of statements in big, bold print (see Appendix K). This minimized the number of repetitions required and helped to focus the students' attention on the task. After the two statements were presented, the interviewer asked "Which of these two ways would you rather have your teacher give you the assignment?" Once the student made the choice, the interviewers asked, "Why would you rather have your teacher give you the assignment that way?" If the student's response or other nonverbal cues indicated that s/he had not understood the statements, they were repeated in reverse order. The open- ended questions were presented in a standard way to each student, and there were standard back-up questions that the interviewer could use if the student did not understand the original questions. 51 If a student wished to stop the interview, the interviewer reassured him/her that s/he was being helpful, that there were no right or wrong answers, and that it was a tough job to answer all the hard questions. However, the interviewers were told not to use peer comparisons ("Johnny got through it") in order to change the student's mind or offer rewards for continuing. One student's interview was not completed because the interviewer observed that she had severe speech problems. After each part, students were told "You have two more parts to go," or "You only have one more question to answer." The entire interview ranged from 30-45 minutes and was conducted in a single session. On completion of the interview the students were thanked, assured that the interviewer had "really learned a lot," and escorted back to the classrooms. The overall time—line for implementing the study was three months. The school district was contacted in February, 1983, the Human Subjects Committee at Michigan State University in March. Data collection began in the first week of May 1983 and was completed before the end of the month. ANALYSIS All of the student interview tapes (N = 96) were transcribed. The typescripts were then proofed by listening to the tape. This was done to insure that all student data were accurately recorded, all actual names deleted, and all pauses, sighs, etc. marked on the typescript. This proofing stage proved very valuable, because students often talked in hushed tones or mumbled. Many of their comments either were not heard or not understood on the dictaphone equipment, but were audible on the more powerful tape recorders used for interviewing. The preparation of typescripts took approximately five months. 52 Statement Preferences As previously indicated, for this part of the interview each subject was a half replicate in the design. The preferences of the appropriate half-replicates were combined, and preference scores for 48 replicates were obtained. For the positive statements, each of which was presented to each replicate seven times, preference matrices were generated, using both raw preference scores and proportion scores (number of preferences divided by number of times statement was presented). The preference scores from the four statements which were not part of the balanced design were also converted into proportion scores. The proportion scores for each replicate were used to conduct a multivariate analysis of variance. Grade level, sex of the subjects, and achievement level of the subjects were the independent variables in the design and the proportion scores for each statement were the criterion variables. In the analysis of variance in factorial designs, the total variation of the criterion variable is divided into orthogonal parts which are attributable to main effects, interactions and experimental error. One of the factors that influences the relative magnitude of each of the corresponding variances is the scale of measurement used in the study. As Winer (1971) points out, "In determining the Choice of a scale of measurement for the observed data, two cases will be contrasted. In one case, a priori theory and experience determine the appropriate model as well as the appropriate scale. In the second case where there is neither adequate theory nor experience to serve as guides, the appropriate model and the proper scale of measurement are determined only after the experimental data have been partially analyzed. In the latter case, the design of the experiment should provide the experimenter with sufficient data to permit the evaluation of alternative formulations of the model." (p. 397). The present study could be an example of Winer's "second case." 53 Data transformation is one way to evaluate "alternative formulations of the model." Transformations, which are changes in the scale of measurement, are frequently used to achieve the following results: homogeneity of error variance (Box, 1953), normality of within-cell distribution, and additivity of effects (Tukey, 1949). Two different transformations were used to convert the proportion scores. The first transformation was an arcsin transformation (which is: XIjk = 2 arcsin 5831. where Xijk is a proportion). second transformation was a logarithmic one, performed on the following converted score p/I-p, where p is the proportion. Since the results did not vary with the variation in the scale of measurement the reported results are based on the analysis performed on the original proportion scores. Teacher 5' Responses Recall that teachers rated how frequently they used the 12 statements used in generating the paired comparisons. Teachers' responses to the statements were treated as scale variables and correlated with the student preference scores. Coding System for Qualitative Data Students' reasons for preferences and responses to open-ended questions were coded by using a system designed by the author. This coding system was in part, empirically derived, based on the reading of a subset of actual interviews (two interviews were randomly selected from each cell of the design for a total of 24 interviews). The coding system incorporated recurring and distinctive themes that appeared in the interviews, and also variables derived from attribution theory, reinforcement theory, and the literature on 54 socialization. The qualitative data pertaining to student preferences were coded for 1. Reasons for preference/non preference 2. Classification of multiple responses along various dimensions 3. First response classification 4. Level and kind of inference in students' responses 5. Themes that recurrently appeared within responses of each student (see Appendix L). Students' responses to the open—ended questions were coded for 1. Reasons, conditions, situations in which the teacher gives no introduction 2. Kinds of motivational statements/activities that make students work hard. 3. Breakdown of the various motivational statements into specific subcategories (see Appendix M). Coding Procedures Three graduate assistants working on the project coded the students' rationales for statement preferences and their responses to the open-ended questions. All data were at first coded independently by two coders after which they met to discuss the codes each of them had independently assigned and to resolve differences in codes through discussion. The coders were blind to the specific hypotheses of the study. They were trained by the author (see Appendix N) on a subset of the transcripts and attained 80-percent exact agreement before actually coding all of the data. The percentage of exact agreement was computed by dividing the total number of agreements by itself, plus the number of disagreements, plus the number of 55 codes made by the first coder but not by the second, plus the codes made by the second coder but not by the first. This is a more conservative approach to assessing agreement than is commonly used to derive the percentage of exact agreement. The final reliability between coders was 82.5 percent. Analysis of Students' Reasons for Statement Preference Each specific category within the coding system (with the exception of the categories of first response classification and the number of interviewer repetitions and probes) was scored 0 (not used) or 1 (used). For each replicate these scores were aggregated according to the statement preferred. Thus, for each replicate there were 12 sets of rationale scores (one for each statement) and within each statement (Statements 1-8) any category coded 0 or 1 could have a score ranging from 0 to 7 (since each statement appeared seven times in the balanced design). Frequency and breakdown data were obtained for these scores. The examination of descriptive statistics (facilitated decisions about collapsing, summing up, or eliminating certain variables from further analysis. The data were aggregated across statements for each replicate because a statement-by- statement analysis of the rationales appeared to be too molecular to answer the questions posed in this study. The data on the reasons for non-preference were eliminated from further analysis because of the infrequency of their occurrence (see Table 3.9). The the specific categories (reasons for preference) were aggregated to form broad motivational categories. These broad motivational categories were useful in making results from this section comparable with students' responses to the open-ended question in Part III of the interview (What kinds of things could your teacher say/do to make you feel like working hard?) Table 3.10 presents the specific combinations of categories used to create the 56 :— mm HH wqu Bum No NH 3 ed Cd u:OEODcuw :u:: C: muscuououelzoz you meomzoz mo »u:o:voum we : c _ c c c : _ c c c c N c a c c l 3 H : : H H : N N N m c .2 c2 1... N--- m 9 z m z m P < 9 m c c 3 3 mm— M; 3 2 :HH WI. : mNH C H c m o... C a 3; ._.— 30:30 : xaz3 o. \uqau us: um:uoo% .nH oxHH us:u=ou yes: «H 4.:32 auzatsum .QH ses: odzazuu: no; a: 13::m Eo:;:va .nH so» as: so 2:.»ud \:c» u:«;.;: :— u;;;=o+ .NH 3 a“ cave u.czao= uo;uco% .HH H aside 359—:OG: mom u::\::o_ 3.2.2.. 3.. \smau u;u_E euzwozum .oH m mason u:H»oH: mo pneumza :ucoH o~=o:m .m .. zea=~\:.eu= 5.2: 9.22:..— o: :3. .w 3 :£o_:ou: »r=o ESE. ......z: ......XJH u...32 .m m oaouzu SUD—BUM 2.— an—Cerudflz .O H unaduau Ho you: .m H usuusmmoue mu Oceanuwum .c m wcuHmoeao:3\u:muu0neq ac: mwucwavomcou .m m cofiuo3u0uca :mzozo uo:\»H~qm z=:SOm\:u=E sud: ow ou wzq:uo: no: .N H mEOHaoue »xo«uu\vuo: axfiH u.c:: .H cam oHnooHHeeo uocxocoz .o 4- moHAoHum> .a.n oHnt -.‘.—._.. ~, A! 57 m o on N H o 53m Mfl HH o H c H m N c a a w... M: a. - m P z m z m 9 < b m »uuuoam \u=n>oHuuu« nosuo .mH »C_uo:a\uco>OHou nozuo .HH QumHEQOCQQo utsew uo: acoEwumum .cH moHnouuo> A.s.u=ouO a.m assay 58 AA Xavcweewuoz .A0csvaoC0ue you mSOmcoz u: moHucuoumU uHuHuoem uo weaum_m:oov coconummue LOU mccmsoz :_ moHLCRODEU Hmcowum>_uoz Hauwcmo .cq.m afisce 59 broad motivational categories. A multivariate analysis of variance procedure was used to analyze the scores aggregated over statements and the scores combined to create general categories. The students' entire responses to Part I of the interview (statement preferences and rationales for preferences) were coded for general themes in students' responses. These categories of codes (Category K in the coding system) (see Appendix L) were considered dichotomous and scored as 0 (when category was not used) and 1 (when category was used). These scores were also used in the multivariate analysis of variance. Students' Responses to Open-Ended Questions Students' responses to the open-ended questions were also scored as 0 (not used and 1 (used) within each category of the coding system pertinent to that question with the exception of interviewer repetitions and probes. Frequency and breakdown data were obtained for each system. The variables generated from the coding system were also subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. When a category within the coding system was broken down into more specific categories (for example, rewards and punishments broken down into different kinds of rewards and punishment), the analysis of the specific categories was conducted on the subgroup of responses that were coded 1 (used) on the more general category. Thus, when performing analyses on the specific categories within rewards and punishments, only those subjects who had mentioned any rewards or punishments were included. 60 Statistical Versus Meaningful Significance Statistical and meaningful significance are both important criteria to determine the success of a treatment/study. Statistical significance refers to the possibility of observed differences occurring due to chance. However, meaningful significance will be considered as a guide for interpretation of the results. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS This chapter on results consists of four sections. In the first section, students' preference data will be presented and compared with teachers' frequency of use data. The statements will be referred to by their number (as listed in Appendix E). The second section will focus on students' rationales for statement preferences and the general themes in their responses. In the third section, data from students' responses to the open-ended questions (Part II of the interview: When does the teacher launch directly into tasks within an introduction?) will be presented. In the fourth section, data from students' responses to the open-ended question: "What can your teacher say/do to make you feel like working hard?" are presented. Within each section, general trends will be discussed first. These will be followed by a discussion of group differences in the data, focusing on the grade level, sex, and achievement level of the students. Results indicating a group difference (grade level, sex or achievement level main effects) will only be interpreted if there are no interactions associated with those variables. If interaction effects mediate any main effects appropriate qualifications will be mmadeiwhen presenting the data. The reported results of the analyses will be those that are significant at or below the .05 level of significance. Univariate tests for the dependent variables are reported to be significant only when the multivariate test associated with the set of dependent variables is significant. Thus, significance levels associated with the univariate tests are not due to chance. 61 STATEMENT PREFERENCE DATA General Trends Among the first eight statements (the set of positive statements), Statement 1 (You'll need these skills for math next year) was the one preferred by all groups of students an average of 68 percent of the time over all of the other statements in the set. Thus, among the eight choices offered in the set, students selected a direct statement about the importance of the material for insuring success in school achievement as the most powerful motivator, preferring it over statements of enthusiasm by the teachers, promises of rewards (the chance to play games or to have a good paper displayed on the bulletin board) and even teachers' attempts to point out that the skills being practiced would be needed for life outside of school. Statements 4 and 7 were ranked second and third, and were preferred 58 percent and 57 percent of the time over all other statements in the set. Thus, statements communicating a promise of symbolic rewards for good performance and statements communicating the importance of learning and pride in mastering challenging material were frequently chosen by the students. Statement 2 ranked fourth and was preferred 50 percent of the time over all other statements. Statement 3 was ranked fifth and was preferred 46 percent of the time. Statements 6 and 5 were ranked sixth and seventh and were preferred 42 percent and 41 percent of the time, respectively. Statement 8 was preferred only 38 percent of the time. These results are presented in Table 4.1. Statement 9, which was paired with Statements 10 and 11, respectively, was overwhelmingly preferred over each of these two statements. Statement 9 was preferred 75 percent of the time over Statements 10 and 11. Statement 11 62 63 mucuHaeou some »n momma“ OHOB AxIHV mucoamunum me me_:; Eu:HHcH7 anHmmoe HHc oucHw monocuo.x:ca Oeo3 wIH mu:050u=um AHCO H ms ea Hm as He an HR mm w.o.m.q NH Hm He am an ON ow on em a HH c. aH sH nH oH aH HH CH s OH me as He «a se 8H ea ma HH .oH a we mm eN He mm mm mm mm H.o.m.q.m.~.H m w as as an mm an an on em w.s.m.s.m.~.H m H HN mm mm an as He ma Ne w.k.m.s.m.~.H c c as .e am He He am we He m.k.o.q.m.~.H H m es s; es en N: am mm mm w.k.s.m.m.N.H N 4 NH :4 cs am He as sq es w.e.o.m.s.~.H m . m sq es an an on as mm om w.k.c.m.s.m.H e N me x8 me CH so He me we w.e.c.m.e.n.~ H H ovens oven: mtnac muu>uq;u< wmw>cH:u< mHuHU m»om :30uu mmmmmi-msiwac-HemmmmeII--ue:_w------Hm<_ Hence émm 3:? 2H HszUH3 :mzzuzmz; bzzzuk<9w mmZHF :c moHuHDE Hepocmw ozu ma »H:O ouszHuficwwm we H0>OH mo. v a k 0.11 '1! acmOHchwHw cmpmvflmcoo mum ucoEwumuw some you wquO m muefium>flcs mzh "meoz NNN. aHN. NNN. new. msm. on. same. sac. oxm. ass. Hen. HRH. xem. was. new. Haw. ram. sass. Ham. ses. sms. Nae. NNH. can. . Has. «:33. .ac. Hem. max. sec. ess. sea. Hum. s:~:. 8mm. cHs. acmc. an. awe. «mac. sea. ace. . ems. can. sss. asm. soH. HHc. azzz=>:_:c< zzOH mocmuwwfiomev moosoumumue uzoEOHon use oocmfium> mo mHm»Hm:< mmo. mac. one. «mac. mHH. mam. Ham. «Has. new. :34. com. mew. wNH. ch. cse. :mc. New. mMH. now. see. mms. Hm». cwH. new. mma ex~c In ~o I» cm H s ezmzmsaww. 66 »Ho>Huoo:mou .mpovMHw sum use .sus .vCN mmumquCH mu cam .No .Ho “meoz mocmqucwwm Ho Hm>oH no. v a « msH. HNN. sHmc. augmUHHchHm mac.n awo.n me.I oaHm> we Hememuwum .m soco._ cam. sooo. augmUHHchHm HNm.. occ.- on. maHa> as unassumum .N «HHc. was. smHo. augmUHHchHm sHH. Nco.- HRH. a=Ha> . ss scaeaumum .H -mMflanmm. INM%mem%J INMflnWme- muonssz ucoEOHmum Amuse mucmumuwue unmEOchmv muumuum Hm>ma sumac ucouawacwam mo mcomfiumefioo mmfisufimm uosluwom .m.< mHnmh 67 high and low achieving students in the classroom, and that high achieving students like school better than low achieving students. The only achievement level difference in these data indicated that high achievers responded more favorably to the challenge of tricky problems (Statement 3) than low achievers. Three way interactions were significant for Statements 9 and 11, indicating the presence of cell-specific effects. A two way, sex by grade interaction was significant for Statement 3. An examination of the cell means suggested that this interaction was disordinal. Second grade girls and fourth grade boys are less likely to prefer this statement than second grade boys, fourth grade girls and sixth graders in general. Results of Data Transformation Recall that the preference data were transformed using the arcsin and logarithmic transformations. The main reason for using these transformations was to obtain additivity of effects. As Table 4.4 indicates, the transformations did not change the nature of the significant higher order interactions. The three-way interactions for Statements 9 and 11 have the same level of significance regardless of the scale of measurement. A logarithmic transformation would have eliminated the sex by grade interaction for Statement 3, but it would also have eliminated the achievement level main effect associated with that statement. An inspection of the significance levels obtained for each of the effects using the different scales of measurement suggests that the transformation did not affect the data systematically. The differences in results were statement-specific, so that the decision to use the proportion scores for the analysis seems justified. H H -IIIIIIIIIIIIIll-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIIII .HuoHCu o:u no Ho>aH oucouHC_:m_m com—Con uuacau :u13 :HHJ stmHOOmme mvsHm> an. sN. s». cm. my. cN. cc. cc. Nm. sN. NN. _s. .coH an. sN. an. Nc. cc. cc. oN. cN. cc. cN. HN. cN. .ccc xcm cc. cN. an. NN. cc. Nc. mc. cc. cc. cc. sN. cN. .cccc an. cN. an. cm. cN. ms. cm. cc. N.. cc. Na. :s. .ccH mm. cN. an. an. cs. cs. 5.. cN. c_. cc. cc. cc. .cz< .:u< NN. sN. an. NN. cm. cs. cc. Nc. NN. sc. ca. ss. .ccca Na. Na. Ns. sN. ac. NH. scccc. Nc. cc. c.. cc. Nc. .ccH NM. NM. Ns. an. sc. cc. mcccc. Nc. Nc. cc. cc. c_. .ccc co NN. Nn. Ns. as. no. cc. mcccc. cc. Nc. Nc. Nc. :N. .cccc mm. sc. NN. ac. ac. Hc. cc. _c. cN. Ns. cs. :N. .ccH mm. so. NN. mH. cc. cc. cN. cc. sm. cN. as. N_. .om< ccm NN. sc. NN. sN. NH. NH. cc. as. cs. cc. cs. c_. .cch 00 ,6 cm. cc. cN. «N. NN. No. cN. Hc. NH. __. .c. _:. .ccH as. Nc. cN. Hc. sN. cc. :9. sc. cs. sc. Hc. cc. .ccc cxm cm. Nc. cN. cc. cs. mc. cc. Nc. Ns. cc. sc. _c. .ccca ma. as. cN. NN. sc. cc. sc. cc. cc. cN. cs. .c. .ccH me. as. cN. Ns. Hm. Na. c_. ca. cN. ms. Ns. cs. .oc< cxc cc. cs. cN. cm. Hs. Na. NH. sc. cm. 3N. cs. c_. .chc ma. acc. sn. nc. cN. cN. cc. cc. cc. Ns. cc. _c. .coH ma. mcc. sn. no. cN. sc. cc. .m. sc. cc. ca. sc. .ccc cxcxm cc. mcc. cm. Nc. cN. sN. .c. ms. sN. sc. cN. cc. .cccc N. _H cH c c N c n s m N H mchHc meomcam m e z c z c e < a c -zcccmzQH 90:3;HHHcaHav 3H::_z:> H: x_m»H::< .c.q oHnuP 69 Teachers' Responses Teachers rated (on a five-point scale) how frequently they used the statements that were presented to the students. In this section, results of the teachers' responses to the students are presented and compared with the students' preferences. General Trends The statement most frequently used by the teachers was Statement 9. The average use of this statement was 3.90. They were also likely to use Statement 1 very frequently (X=3.88), followed by Statement 5 (2:315). Other, less frequently used statements were Statement 3 (2:296), Statement 10 (i=2.85), and Statement 8 2:275). The teachers were least likely to use Statement 6 (i=l.60) and Statement 11 (i=l.23). These data are presented in Table 4.5. Relationship Between Teachers' Responses and Student Preferences Correlations between teachers' responses and student preferences (see Table 4.5) for the statements showed significant relationships for three statements. Teachers' responses are positively related to students' preferences for Statements 1, 7, and 11. Recall that Statement 1 was the most frequently preferred statement by the students and Statement 11 was not frequently chosen over Statement 9 (which is very frequently used by the teacher). Thus, students' preferences were influenced to some degree by the extent to which they were exposed to the statement in the classroom. However, this influence does not seem consistent or systematic. The second ranked student preference was Statement 4. This statement was not frequently used by the teachers. Statement 5 is used quite frequently but is only preferred by a subset of the 70 cc.1 see. I c mH. “Q. I A— Hc. me. n ; we. 8. «No. l c NN. Nn. I c 3. co. .. c .2. So. u c 2... c2. .. .. 3. NH. . a HH.. «nee. I a NH. .06: Ho »uco:voum uosoeuh new moooouououm uoovoum oouauon neoHumHouuoo He. me. an. scc. nc.H Hc.H an. «Nq.H Na. :6. Ha. sew. Cm m~.~ mm.— mc.~ co.n m».~ HH.N co.— mH.m cm.N ca.~ H~.~ ww.n M on: «o »o:o=voum posuooh no. v a « «mm. mm. NH «cm. cc. HH mm. c_. oH «mm. m». m HN. an. m «mm. Hm. H «mm. me. o eH. Hq. m CN. cm. s eH. cc. m HH. Cm. N NH. we. H TIM—Ian! - I I Ix: - - .Iouzu Iudwmcnowmww AmcoHuuoeoumvmooconuoum wcocsuw .om: mo »o=o=coum puzuooh was mmocouwuoue ucmcsum coosuom m:OmHuecho .m.o oHamH 71 students (upper grade students). Statement 7 is not used very frequently by the teachers but ranked third in students' preferences. REASONS FOR STATEMENT PREFERENCES General Trends The most frequently mentioned reason for preferring a statement was that the skills to be learned would be useful in the future (need skills in the future). The second most frequently offered reason was belief in the importance of learning and doing hard problems. The third most frequent reason for preferring a statement was pride in good workmanship (feel good/ proud about good work). Other reasons frequently offered by the students were: a concern for being rewarded or for avoiding negative consequences, appreciation of warning information provided by the statement, the possibility of peer recognition following good work, and the possibility that math would be easier in the future. Some reasons were only mentioned when cued by the wording Of thestatement, such as: I like enjoying problems (which was mentioned when Statement 2 was presented); I like to play games or it is good to get a break from work (which was mentioned when Statement 6 was presented), and it is fun to do another page (which was mentioned when Statement 11 was presented). These results are presented in Table 4.6 and 4.7. Recall that the coding categories of reasons for preference were combined to form broad motivational categories. Results indicate that within these broad motivational categories students most frequently Cited reasons pertaining to the importance of the academic task as their reason for preferring particular statements. Students frequently reported liking a statement because it conveyed that the task would be Challenging. The prospect of reward for 72 ocH a o o m o a mm c an H m c uuouuo\xuo3 meow New vovumsou on ust: .NH mm NH H N a H NH O N m OH H H cum; onzu ou muoovaum wchauaooco \wcHumou\onwcmHHe£o Hocuaoh .eH oH o o o q n o N n o H c c uocvsun Hem choocou mzosm Hosumoh .m— mcH NN HH m an o NN n H m MN c x xmeu acomoue :0 ans: ounuooum NON chooooo .cH Hm N o N c c N N H c Hm He : »mco on ucwHE mEoHnoum .NH NN N n HH mH e c m o N NN N N ooHocu mm; \CHomco;\EHz come see ucovaum .N. HNH o m N cN o cN H a H Ha H c. oeHHNxmnu u:ocm :oHumENOHEHIwcHonS .HH nmN NH N H e mH me e m— c No NH ms cuwcwHHmcu on\uoouec xcqu Noyes cueoH emu .mEoHnoun the; ou\:umoH ou acmuuomEH .c. mmH e m o as N oH q H m N c Nm oomuw heuuon c umw\u=ov=um Hugues m on .o HHH H H o NH e e H __ H s H an occuzu cH umemo can: .m oNn N H H HH NH m H «HH H N N HHH uNHH Hews :H mHHme oooz .N an o c c c c c an c c c c c macaw NaHa as macHH .c 3 c c c c c c c c c c cs c 2.383 9.16.2.6 933.. .m HN H c c c c N c c N NH N c 26363 u:_u:o_Hc;u\»onuu\ouo: moxHH .s S c _. c H c H c c c N : c 9.522.. N23 33.3 .N cN_ CH n N _ H Hx c N mm m m c xuoa zoom uaoca oonQNcoom Hook .N ...N a c c s s N .2 N s NH .: s 8H: can; rcucoH\u6uuon moczom ucm5uumum .H S H c c N m n N H c N N N 6332...... 39:28: .c acm NH HH cH a a N c m c n N _ oocouwuoum HON moonooz m H z a : u e < e m acofioucuw swam mo oocwuvuvu; you reca=uz Cc »u=o:coua .c. 4 :H;:% »uHoochu::>wHoHHH Nosuo »GHooemiucc>oHou Husuo xuoa voom own CNO\v:ouc mucwuwm muoovoum Hosuo new ~>HuooocH omHoue\:oHuchouwu poem wcHuo>Huoe mH wzHNHHocomuoe nozomoh ooU HHH3 so» .Eocu moxHH umzoowu CH omen um;uoce ov 0u cam moo:o=vom:ou o>Huewoc vHo>m ou nevus: »HH xuoa Eocu xeou: a as» ou voou NH c c c H c N c N o N H c ocN sN c H NH c Hs s. s cs cs cm cN Mm Ns s c c H c s H c NN H s c a c c c o c c c c c o c H NoH N o o o N H H o sa o H c ms c c c H NN N c c c c NH c mc c c c c o N c c H N cm c s o N c H o c c c c H o o HsH c c. c HH NN cH N cN c m N cN cm H c c c c N NN c c N H H .amw NH HH cH a c N c m s N N H m H z m z m b < b m H.c.8=cuc c.s chee .NN .cN .mN .cN .mN .NN .HN .cN 74 NN on eH am He Ne mm NH voHoso neLNHHom - Iuo:\EH: come see ucmvaum .NH on nN NN «a ma an Nw HNH mEHu\xmmu usonm :oHucENOmcHIwchumz .HH ooH HOH cm mmH NNH ncH NqH mwN newcoHHmso o; \Hovpc: sz;u\wuoe :HmOH coo .mEoHQONL can; ov\:HeOH cu ucmuuerH .oH cc no Nn cm HH mm cm mmH wcouu Hague; uww\u:ow=um Nauuos c o: .o on we aN Nm mm Ne cc HHH oususu c. cchoo :umz .m MNH me me MNH mmH oeH ccH an mucus» osu cH mHHme vomz .N s sN Hm mN sm cN Hm an mass» Nch on maxHH .c NH NN sH cN cN NN HN cs msoHcccc cchcha caxHH .m NN cH NH Hs cm cN ms HN cEchccc cchcaH _ IHe:o\»xo_Hu\cuo: mmxHH .q n n c cH c oH c cH aschotc Nasa maxHH .N am ss HN cm sc no Hc sNH cue: coo» uzcsc 1:0u:\vcom Hume .N NH HN Hs Hs cm Hm cs aN 96H: c=_oc accuses \uwuuo; m5::cm ucoemumum .H eH «H; mN He oN MN an Ho oHcecHHccc Ho:\o:oz .c oveuu oveuo ocfiuo mCH wcH mHuHo whom cauz III :uo cue UGN I>0Hsu< IWoH£o< onaom OOCOHONUHL New mCOmmmm :3: 36H H ...u o... u on ueczuzeeuze .mkzmcabm zcm m20mHucouoH .QN . m wN mo _ mN no mm ms mm NOH _ omHmua\coHUH:wooou poem .NN HN NH NH aN cH cH NN ms _ ccHoc>Hooe .mH wcHNHHmcowuoe Hegemoh .NH NN oH mN mm wN He NN no 00u HHH3 so» .Emzu moxHH u0:umou uH .HN H m c m H c c c wane Hosuoco o1 cu cam .oN . _ mm mo wH so NH am He HcH mousmssomzoo o>Hu . flame: vHo>= o; Hosea: »pe .NH _ . _ o HH OH NH NH mH mH on xuos _ EOHH Have; a How OH vooo .NH _ m NN cs No on Hc sc cN csH ouocHoNccoa cooc . “ .ooc cocooaoo.oc Hcch .NH m sN NN HH NN HN NN cN cc “ coo; czHco oo . “ mucovsum wzHuouzoO:o\wcH Tuneu\w:Hw:oHHe;O NOLOmOH .cH . . NH 3 N a HH 3H m oH . uzocsum uoH ecuoccco mange HegemOH .m. . cc cc cs cc mN No cN ccH coco ooosooc co coo: _ mucusuuc New :uoucoo .cH . _ oH mq eN Ne 9: cc me He »mmo o: ustE mEoHnoum .mH H Ovuuo wvcud vvcu w .1” II . _ . c cH :H oHoHo a»oc can: . m cue ;uc tcN I>onu< noono< oHcEem oocmfimuwum Now mcomcmm _ cch soc Hooch ._ .H o... 1 mzczmzzgmz; .mézmazym :0: mzcmUzmaomz: H.c.o=ooc N.s oHcoN 76 »Homwuou :uoo moeHu Go Hosea: EDEchE osu .Hsovsum some 0u vmucwwoua whoa muHoe mH much .Ncc.H oH cocoo oc coo "whoz »uHooacIu:m>OHouuH nocuo .HN »uHowaquom>oHou uwzuo .cN xuoa voow mow :mu\v:oua mucoumm .mN oucouououm you mCOmmom _ H m c H 6H m o mH NN No Hc mHH HQH cmH oNH ocN m mH «H HH Hm mH NN Ne fimmmmmfl mwmmmfi Immmmmfi I MCH wwH mHuHo when cauz I: sue sue ch I>mHzo< I>OH£O< mHeEcm ccsc 36H HoooN Hoe ccccce9 vm>fiuov mum mmauowwumo Hm:o«um>fiuoe awash "meoz , m. _ mm ... cm. me. we. Hm. 5mm _ o..=...=. ... «N. ... ... mm. .mm cam c- cm. _ u.a=...xu .o. ow .N a. a: a. H. mm a. _ ...: page... .a m. xN .m «e e. an a: as. " Hmmggm .o;ueoe .w mm we a. «c N. on He ... m.=as;m.:=a .. we we cc cc «a an mm mm. _ cowuqzwouoz .o _ o. N. ea «c. ... MN. ma w.~ m 3.33 ans. .m H. ... aw mam an. .NH “a. Hem “sequcs.c.c. emunfio. ease .q ... .... Am. mm. m_~ .NH New mNM .=.czuz .m Re. .oe_ RN. .mm as. How mam «a. owcofifiezo .N “on cam cmN em. man NH. 9.. n “ma muss..oasH .H 2...: ......a; .23.- .....- ... .22 .2. l............ ..... ... .....a...................-......-. sac :uc wzm I>aqzu< I$o«;u< mazacm” :x.= so; Ha.oe ........ --uquu. cox. wzccuéHHOZ :Uwuoz vacumv mucoummwpm pew mcommmm mo zucmsvmum .m.q canoe 79 mam. owo. mmo. Hma. fimm. ..m.o. moo. .«mmc. was. owe. mum. vac. «fin. New. OHN. mam. xmm _:~. ..xm. ccm. qmw. Nmn. orw. mm». <_m. cc“. c_~. Neg. fizz—.55”.— :_:< cHN. ¥_QC. «mmc. :MN. + ace. .Ncc. sc.. cam. NAVM . wnfi. :cc. can. ::04 03::Uqu«:w_mv mom. tat; x;:3 c. mozvtaux u:_:cu::;:; \::_a:oa\x:uu=o__=;u u:::=zé .N— nmn. uc«;:.ua as; :goucou zzosc yo:uco+ .cm moo. xmcu u:omo»: :o xucz auauauu: you =~ou=03 .nH sow. xmco vs u:wue mEMapOpg .QH soda. ovuogu mo; \uavaao;\sa; mun: :cu ucotsum .MH men. U:5u\o_:=u u::;= :Cqu=ELCW:_Iw:«:haB .NH Com. 132:0d u_::u o:\uocu:: x:—;u\ouca :c:;_ ::u .msodsou: can; c=\:ucv~ 3a u::u»$:E_ .H~ «afio. ovzuu usage; u:u\u:oc:uz gauge: a 3: .OH «moo. wususu c. p:.mco :ucz .o nmo. 0.:uzh :d Ida—gm 1092 .w awe. moEcw >:_L Cu toga; .m «mm. on~20ua u:.>:a:o auxw: .o Ham. tau—acu: ac“ Ixcmqa=;u\xxu_uu\=uc: mega; .n mos. msw~30uz zmco aux“: .q own. xuoz uses: 7::u:\=:cx ~29; .n mom. sc.: u:_:: uo:z:og \uouooa mvzsom ucosuucum .N mom. oapmodazac uo:\o:oz .H ox Ho m_m>_cc< .a.c o_;:% 8O «Hm. nan. com. cmq. don. mmm. mmo. men. mnc. can. .oom. ONO. wsm. ..NO. .Nfio. mmN. mam. 0mm. xmm qmm. afic. o-. nc_. mam. c__. mac. «moc- a-. m_c. ~¢m. Nee. xmm. new. szrm>m—:u< mm~. amnc. qm_. «use. «qdo. ~m¢. -q. «me. man. can. can. mmq. cam. car. ham. .gxcc. NNO. ch. m=«uoe uu:umwu Ou mucvuwuwz moo. cauumsu0ucu voucaou gash emu. Acoaaa «modon\wu:w>oHoz Nfim. o>fiuuouu< cam. yuan u.:mu .nm .qn .nn .Nm .Hm .on :ouuchu_:m=~u omzoamoz mmm. a 53m .aw «mo. zufiooamuucm>ofiouufi um;uo .mm emu. mufiomamnuzc>o~ou uosuo .nm qma. xuos coca wow :QU\v:oua museum; .ow wNH. mucocaum nozuo new o>auchCH .mN ooq. ochua\:o«u«:wcuwu puma .qw Non. wzfiuc>quoe ca wzfiuqamzomuw: um;uco% .mm cmo. ecu Ana: :ox .Evzu max—a no:ucau “H .NN who. can: uosuczc 32 Du :z: .- mam. moucczcczzou v>qu laws: 1ao>= cu Lozuc: 55% .GN dmn. gas: ecu» xccun c you ca 5300 .od mom. x.oa zoom new wovusaou a: ugqu .mH ox=~zc< «.cc. cam. aOAV. axnc. NcN. ll'l ”...—<28 emc. wmc. won. womo. mma. wuase Haumcwm w;u ufi >Hco u::;.u_:uam kumCHmcco mu: >ucuouwu :ucw u0u mummy m ouwaua>fi:: wsb ccc. #NN. ccw. flax. nma. Uxm ewe. was. «ow. dam. ace. . ox< casch nmkoz obscuHuuzufim mo Ho>wH mo. v a « w Eoum ill} ZUUp—UHUNCH Gav—Q: UCQVDUV. man. :cdu:u_aurmaHU wmconwwu umhuk .mn .Hm om:o=woz uwuuz 3.9521323333 22.5 Auquoamnuca>oaou u0;uo HUSUQOU Ou COHUUQOK .m .cn .mm .om mmuzmmmmmzm «on m20mfiuass Hmuozow wzu «H zaso acmowmwcwfim cmuowamcou mum muoamumo :oco yew mumou m muwfium>wcs 0:9 ”@902 mocmuwWficwfiw mo Ho>wa mo. v Q 2 mam. ..o. «N.- mce. a... m... «emc- uodc. ch. qwe- mmo. “Rm. «mmo. cao. own. 09o. owe. wmm. wmc. .c.. .o.. N... a... com. a... cam. omn- mNM. mmm. ohm. oma. sec. New. «ex. «on. wad. New. 5.3. N... can. a... .NQ. .NHO- 2.3:. game. m... cum. .mfi. .... axe. Non. com. .NN. .... N... .woo. N... a... w... m... moo. .qcc. a... a... can. a... pair... :3. .558 «Ix-w. mam. .wlxd oéxm ”mmwquOumo Hmco«um>wuoz vwoumv mocoumumum you meowmom you Awao>oq cosmowmwcwwmv mocmfium> up wquawc< .oH.< canoe wow: umzomwh .HH wouwfim. xmwe .oa coauwzwoowm oawcfiuuxm. damnapucH Hammad nosomwh mocmuquEH owcoaamco .m .w .m .c xuoz ammm .m .Q. .m mucoszmwcsm .N .H ovumzom moanmwum> 83 .oc. «.NC. «coo. mucaufiuficwfim m.n.~- msm.p- ace..- m=Ha> a... .moo. 2ooo. mo:au...:w.m mum.~ an... no... ~=Hm> doe. «moo. .Hoo. u.c.u...=w.m ms. moo.m- man.~- ~=Hm> .ch. emfi. .Nfio. auccofiu.cm.m mN._ mN._ m.~ u=~m> .ch. «efio. .mq. ouccu...cu.m xxc.- mac. mm.- os—e> «ac:- m_¢. ..cc. m.:cu...:u.m c..- we..- cw..m- o=Hc> era. .NNC. .Nwo. u.=:u...:u.w mm.. an. M. «N... w=Hc> «nee. HHN. .reo. oucau...cu.m xx_.m- mam. m_x..- csfic> ..Ncc. 3.x. «ccc. moccqucua m~._ mhm. mm... m=Hm> :mmwwm; .mawmm. -qulafl Acua: oozouohoga LC; acommwmv mucouum Hw>oa okuc ucaofiuwcafim we mzomaucasoo wmwahfiwm uc:|umom Hcoaga fimofiuofi\wocm>o~o= .o w>..u...< .m moucosvomcoo o>aumwoc vao>w ou uwvum; zue .n xuoa coca no; 10vu=3ou ma usudz .c u.:::.gm ac; :uouczc 23::m uo:ucoé .m wEfiu\xmcu uses: :cfiumEL9ucalwcfiCHm3 .e ucoczum umuumc c o: .m vacu:u Ca afiawxm 1052 .N moscw scan Ou mega; .— ‘I'Ol'l’IIII mwascwuc> ....q 0.... 84 >~o>duuaamou .muovnuw :uo was .zue .vcm wmumu«vCu no .No .Ho "2502 mucmoauficwfim mo Ho>oa no. v a« «moo. «omo. aooo. oucnoauwcwflm mandamumum Eouw mwuco WNC.N Q®@.€ ”HmoN UDHN> THUWCH mmxma ucmvaum oHH «mmc. can. «moo. mocmowwacwfim mcowuom\mfimom\u>«uoa m~.mn «sc.: mNH.cn o=Hm> “ozomou ou mucoumuoz .OH ...-um... i: ...-...... ...-......» A.v.u:oov HH.¢ canny 85 >~o>quowmmop .mumcmuw cue cam III'O-" 'I'I'It'll""lil‘|ll'l|' 'l‘r‘dlll .nuq .ecm mmumu.e:. no can .No .Ho .meoz oucmawficwam mo Ho>oa mo. V dc «mmc. dcm. «MOO. mN#.MI mHM.HI QMQ. wmumamp xmmh mucmowwficwam w3Hw> xpp3 xwmm oocmWfizwfim xmmh mo 05Hm> wocmuuanH oucnoquqzuqm c:d=> mucosswwcsm I'lll".|.|’!"1l ouzmuqu~zaam osfic> mvumBom wwfipm..mz Amowuowwuao #:20quc>fiusz twoum .ouzoLOWQHL no“ mcommozv muuobdm qo>oq mvmuo uccUAHacmqm uo mcomwumasou omfizufimm uo:uumom .NH.¢ manna .H 86 tricky problems). They did not seem particularly concerned with issues related to relevance of the learning material or its practical utility in the future. Thus, the second graders' rationales expressed enthusiasm for the learning process (enjoying problems, liking hard problems), and pleasure in being rewarded (symbolically or concretely) for good work (feel proud about good work, will be rewarded for good work). The fourth graders were more concerned than the second graders about issues related to the relevance of the learning materials and its practical utility. However, these students, like the second graders, were concerned about being rewarded for good work and liked playing games. The fourth graders were least likely to attribute positive motives to the teacher's actions (teacher shows concern for the student). They were also most likely to prefer statements that communicated that the task would be easy. In general, the fourth graders were concerned about the practical utility of learning, being rewarded for good work, and avoiding negative consequences associated with not learning the material. They also showed the strongest preference for easy work. The sixth graders' reasons seem to focus more on the future use of skills, the importance of learning, an appreciation of warning information provided by thestatement, and avoiding perceived negative consequences. They were least likely to focus on reasons such as a liking for games or the possibility of being rewarded for good work. The sixth graders' responses were generally characterized by a concern with learning material that was useful and important to their future success in school and life, and their appreciation for the teachers' communicating this information. Results indicate that high achievers respond more favorably to statements that communicate the importance of the academic task or provide warning 87 information about the task. The low achievers are more likely to prefer statements if they see a potential for recognition (either by peers or teachers or parents). These findings suggest that the high achievers focus on task related cues to make their judgments about the statements whereas the low achievers focus on the potential extrinsic rewards the statements might offer. Sex effects were associated with four of the variables (reasons for preferences). One of the variables (math will be easier in the future) was also associated with a three-way interaction. The main effect cannot be meaningfully interpreted. Boys are more likely than girls to appreciate warning information about tasks provided by the statements and to dilute teachers' intended punitive effects associated with Statement 11 by indicating a liking for working on the extra page. Girls are more likely to identify with the teacher than boys (If teacher likes the problems, you will too). Most of the sex effects are associated with reasons for preference that are statement specific (fun to do another page or if the teacher likes it you will too). Only one reason (warning information about tasks) that showed a sex effect appeared frequently across statements. Sex and achievement level did appear to have some cell specific effects. An examination of the cells means indicated that high achievers and boys were more likely to say that they preferred a particular statement because the skills to be learned would be useful in the future. Low achievers and boys are more likely to cite parental recognition as a reason for statement preferences whereas low achievers and girls are more likely to prefer statements if they have reason to believe that their performance might act as an incentive for other students. Although these are cell specific effects, there is some indication that low achievers (both boys and girls) base their statement preferences on extrinsic concerns (recognition, incentives for other students) 88 while high achievers (especially boys) are likely to be concerned with the potential utility of the academic task when judging the statements. Some reasons offered by the students were associated with higher order (three-way) interaction effects. Students reasons for preferring statements because of the possibility that math would be easier in the future or that the student could pace him/herself were associated with three-way interactions, suggesting that there were cell specific effects associated with these variables (reasons). General Themes in Students' Responses to Teacher Statements In addition to coding students' preferences and rationales for their preferences, the students' responses were content analyzed to discover recurring themes in the responses. The entire set of responses to the statements were considered when coding the general themes in students' responses. General Trends The most frequent theme in students' responses was a concern with future use of skills, mentioned by about 85 percent of the students. The second most frequent theme was the importance of learning and doing well, and pride in good workmanship (58 percent). Other themes that frequently appeared were theimportance of rewards (40 percent) and the importance of peer recognition and acceptance (24 percent). The students were also interested in challenging/hard problems (18 percent), concerned about parental recognition (12 percent), and wanted to get easy work and high success (12 percent). As mentioned previously, students did not perceive the teacher as manipulative or untrustworthy and the contrary perception was a recurring theme in only one student's response. These data are presented in Table 4.13. 89 we bosasz o;H ma 95am osu mH zuowoucu so: .Acmuzv wuooficsm o :H movou oHAHmmoa EsachE ozu .moocwuomoua :o :cHuoom o:. co omcozmoc ouHuzo m.u:ov:um some so come: one: masozu Hmuocow oozfim "who: o o o c o c o o xuoa whoa .mw\x.oz o. mmxHH .HH H o a c H a H NH H sauuoz lawsuu::\o>auaasawcms uosooms .OH H H a H H a N NH H ewesmmmua wchn moxHHmHa .m H H H N H H H Nm H sums moxHHmHo .m m c c m n N n uMH NH wwwooam cwH:\xu03 ammo mmxHH .m H a e H a e a NHH NH coHuchoumu Hmucmuma mo oocauuanH .o e e oH HH m a a NaH mH meoHsoua eum;\mw=oHHm:o mmxHa .m a HH c NH NH «H cH Nam em :oHuHcmouou puma \oocmuamuom mo mosmuuanH .q o oH a. NH mm wH Hm Nme oe meumamu mo mo:n..oaeH .m mm mH oH an RN NN aN New on xuoa use» eH meH.a\HHos wchv\wcH:ummH mo mocsuuozEH .N Hm om Hm N. o. me on Nam Nx mHHme mo ow: muauam :uHS :uoocou .H y.. ;.q .mmm;;aHmm;_ 20H mHuHu swam om mHmzmH m2uH ezmz xum so , uz so; mmmzouwmx .ma moasm we zm>=H=o< we .mmHozmaomza mmHozmacmza zH mm=m=a HHuaae Heuocow ecu mu cho useuHthme vouochcoo was xuoxmueo :oww new mummy m ouawue>fics esp .wmmm ou::o_uH:mHa mo Hv>oH no. v :4 91 owc. N... mac. o=¢. Hoa- Hoa. mm.- AuHuaamnbu;.c .HH oma. ¥~n:. ems. ncH. MHc. men. eke. :EOHQOua can; \au:uHH=;u moxH; .cH cow. _:m. Ides. caa. cam. «.3. mos. mHHme Quays“ :uH3 :uwucoo .a o~m. :mn. NHn. .cwn. Nun. NHn. mmn. x;.co3.m:uu::\o>Hu I=_:;H:cs ho:UQOH .c mem- -_. «Hes. .o~:. eHm. .93. was. meazzu. .: ouznuuc;EH .m HoH. aaa. mac. a... ace. aHN. aHN. socammo.; w:_o; moxHHaH: .c com. :Nm. var. a-¢ mac. mam. mac. amouusa ;:_; \xccz zany maxH; .m new. ac.- aaa. men. acN. a;~. a¢~. H;.=ev .zaH 12:: 0.2.3.: .c .59. .Nc. ..~:. a... sc.. :cm. acH. x.o: 23:: :H 31.»;\__93 “:__H;.\2H__:u_uv_ a: ouchuc;E_ .n new. xmc. was. an:. Nca. mam. HN_. :OHHH: 123......» A: a 2.: r..— .Ha 95.3.1155 . N Nan. asa- HNH. HmH. eac- n~_. mac. :oHstaoua. . coo:\ou:=u;:u no: a: auccquLEH .— Ndmymwiflflwundm é... mwm_._n_w_>w_._.__w.<- ”.556 «law.- uxm .92 0.2.;- ...-.....H....,H....9- A2H0>o;.ou:=u_.H:u_mv wucwewuaum Lozuzok :. mazzozxaz .muzutzum :— mosask _=Lu:su paw vu:c_u=> mo mme—=:< .q~.¢ snack 92 >H0>Huooammu .mumvmpw sue tam Il"l-||l’lllllllllll.ll‘l .zue .ecm mmumUHecH no use .Nc .Hc "meoz cosmUHuflcme mo Hw>mH mo. v as New. 2mco. 2Hoo. muchHuchHm _Hc.- Hx~.- mHm.- osHe> «mec- nae. «Noe. mesmUHchme mHm. Hoe. mam. msHm> «moo. ccx. «mac. wUGmUwacwwm mHH.- mHmo. Hm~.- maHm> -Hmwnwmmw. ..mwnwmmw- .mmluxwm: mHHHx. mufiunm :ua3 :MUUCOU .m mGHmbu Ho oucmuHOQEH .N xu03 uoow :« owau:\HH03 wcwoc \mcacumwa we mucmuuanH .H mmapmaumm AmocoEmumuw po:omoh Ou momcoammm .mucmw=um cfi moEo:H Hmumcoov muoobum Ho>oq mvmuo uncuHuchHm mo mcomaumano mezuHmm oczlumom .ma.q canny 93 assignment was a test (20 percent) a the teacher was testing or checking up on the students (19 percent). These results are presented in Table 4.16. These responses suggest that students focus on two main kinds of cues when ascribing reasons for no introductions to assignments. Students generally tend to focus on either the nature of the assignment or behavioral cues emitted by the teacher. The reasons generated by the students seem to indicate that teachers give no introductions to tasks in rather unusual circumstances. There are no responses that indicate that teachers routinely launch into tasks without any kind of introduction. Group Differences The analysis of variance indicated that the only effects that were significant were grade level main effects associated with the variable Al (It's a review), A2 (It's a test), and A5 (Teacher is upset/class is noisy or inattentive). These results are presented in Table 4.17 and 4.18. Correlations of these variables with grade level show a strong positive relationship indicating that there is an increase in frequency of these responses with an increase in the students' grade level. These results shed some light on one of the questions raised by the Brophy et a1. (1983) study, where students were highly engaged in their tasks when teachers launched directly into tasks without any introduction. The reasons offered by the students that had significant grade level effects provide us with some clues about why students were highly engaged when no introductions were made by teachers. If the assignment is a review, it is likely that the teacher has previously communicated the characteristics of the task, its importance for the students, the consequences of not learning, and so on. Hence, the students could be highly engaged in the task. When the assignment is a test, the consequences of not being highly engaged in the task could be 94 o m o _ m n H _ m u m _ n o _ e _ u m H n N 2 m : t NN ma . . . em . cH Mon—nu.” .. - w............ H. . p— u C :4 .V n h 1 IIIIII Llllutil . _ . C ..."-I"- ' lull""l't‘lu‘""""l'|"}'|l‘|l‘l. c AH atria _:_N .....L mcoHuostHU:H oz ho“ mcommmm mo HA NH ma mm cm - .... wa-- .53 __U< :sz mm 3N MN I."’. ‘ll .3:« I.>.;:o< 304 . ‘.Ill"'. NH aH @H «N :Hu_: NN cm mm Ilmxmm; ANOHV 0H ANaHV ma HNamv oH Haney He HNmev me wmzacm deuce you linuiilul >ocw=voum oumu u.:mo .w sac mzu pop wSHEcu ma wusuwumasm .m whosswsom ow.ou o>m£\>msa mucovsum .c Amucwvsuw :o a: wconozov mucovauw wcwumwu nosocoh .m one. m m..H .e muozaoEom ow Cu mm:\>m:a uozomoe .m o>choouczH .zch: mmc_o\uwwa: um:uco& .N 30H>op a m.uH .H :aHuoscouucH oz ho. m:omcwm 1"" 'I‘l'! . @H . ~\ UHDGH. 95 ammo . 00¢. HHM. Hex. Nmo. «ma. mm“. I'll: xmw «.09. 69H. ch. acH. ace. cqm. mum. Ilol'""--ll|t I 92”.. 22?..— H _ _U< you $00. mam. .«Noo. vwm. Hon. «Hoe. «Hoe. maoq cosmoHuchva mocmwum> wo mfimmec< .uzwowwwcwflm ma umou muefium>fiuase kuocww wcu ma xaco accoHMchHm wouovfimcoo mum xuomouwo some MOM mummu m oumfiuw>wcs ash "meoz 2.x. AHm. wmfi. 000. Gas. mac. me... wH mo. v a a new. mom. Nun. Nod. «ma. cow. mmm. Oxm;\>m:n mucucnum .c m>Hucwuucc=\>mHoc mwmao\uowa: posumwe .m uuwssweom ow Cu mm:\>m=a pocumoe .q wucmv laum wcfiummu Mucummfi .m umou m m.uH .N 3mH>mu m m.uH .H ..II .mmHamHum> .ma.¢ magma 96 >Ho>duuoamou .muocnuw :uo 1:: .;uq .1:N moucoH1:H no van .Nc .Hc "whoz ou:muda«:wwm mo Ho>oH mo. v as 5||III.,-I' ll"I‘J'l‘l'lllligl,"'I‘I-I'lInI-ll"‘i"‘llt't"li|'ltl'l «c_c. «Has. New. oucmoHuchHm Neem. eHem.: HNNH.- osHm> ape: museum .e a.:. cue. «soc. cosmUHHchHm smHoc oHN.I wm~.1 nnq.t 05Hm> wmmau\uom;: uozommh .m .Hco. cam. «Hmo. augmUHechHm . sem.- mHao. Haw-u ozHe> .ao. a m..H .N «mmc. Mme. sooo. mocmoHuficme cm~.- HH~.- Hwe.- osHe> aoH>o. e m..H .H Aqua.-- -..-.42..- {mm-.NH... ...-Haw mucouum Hw>wq ovmuo uzsuHuacmHm How mcomaucasoo mmfizuficm .mH.¢ waamH 97 negative. Similarly, when the teacher is upset or the class is noisy, the impending consequences of off-task behavior could also be negative. The kinds of reasons offered by the students are conducive to producing on-task behavior. The increase in frequency of these reasons with an increase in grade level suggests that as students move to higher grades, they become more sensitive to contextual cues. (The Brophy et a1. (1983) data were from grades 4-6). These data were marked by an absence of sex and achievement level main effects. Achievement level effects were expected since previous research (Weinstein, 1981) has suggested that different environments exist for high and low achievers within a classroom. WHAT CAN TEACHERS SAY OR DO TO MAKE STUDENTS WORK HARD? General Trends In response to the question about what teachers could say/do to make students feel like working hard, the most frequently mentioned response was that the teachers could offer rewards. About two-thirds of the students made reference to some kind of reward. About one-third of the students said that threats or punishments and statements communicating challenge would motivate them. Other responses, mentioned to a much lesser extent, included communicating the importance of the task, a personal appeal from the teacher urging the students to work hard, and getting easy work from the teacher. These were mentioned by an average of 15 percent of the students. These data are presented in Table 4.19. Group Differences In these data grade level effects again predominated over sex or achievement level effects (see Table 4.20). The grade level effects can be 98 mm ..-...efim - z u c H H N H o c o m w o m n H N w NH «H HHH mH qH _ mxmmmw.ammmmmw- suq vcm nnnnnn 41:11:11; H111 eH oH AHN oH cH nH mm mH wH on ANNV N ANNV N HNHV H ANNHV HH HNHHV nH HNHHV NH HNNHV eH HNomv .N ANNNV Hm ANooV mm iiwdH u>oHsu< gmH= me nooH:u< 3o.— mHuHO whom cvuz 0H 95.6 Hmuoe you NzcczeHu .n Havana Hmcomuma Hosomoh .o cumoH Ou ucmuuanH w.uH .m cum;\wCHw:oHstu m.uH .m mucus:mH=:m .N mvumaom .H moHuH>Huo< \mucoEoumum Hm:OHum>Huoz Nvum: sacs-mcovsum wwws ou. ow Ho awn vHsoo muozommu um:3 H .NH.H oHaep 99 2. NH NH NH NH NNNNC HN .uouum .N x mH wH 3N eH Aumnv on xuoa uo NHHHm:a\>omu=ou< .N _ _ 3H NH NH NH oN NNNNV NN coHuuHNEoo .H *.1110 full! 5 ''''''' 4 llnllvllllltrlllll'lllllltllA II _ mucus H A Ist::;\m1ueaox new mcommwz IIIIIIIII xvi-"(ill HIIIIIIIIIIII4""|I’IIA I’l-Illlll'cl'l. N H e N N NNNV N mmocoaaom Izoo o>HH=woz Suva wCOH .q N e N N N NNNV N .zas;mH=:; uHHoneNm .N e N N N N NNoHV cH mmonH>Hua No mmoH .N .n m N N m ANNHV eH mu:UEouH:cou\oEHu muuxm .H fiqalulll mucoszcham. mo wzsz w NH w oH HH HNva HN mousse» oHHonezm .q N NH HH NH HH NNHNV NN Hue: museum .N N NH NH NH NH NNNNV NN $1.538. HmHuo.m= .N :— oN cN ON QN Huch «c momoHH>Hua HmHuoam .H mvumzwz mo mvcHx ovmuo uni: emu: wdH mHuHu «Nam. oaLZII.n 1 :1 uuuuuu va I>onu< IboHso< 0Haaam :wH= 33H Hauoh u you it oH H. NH N_ NH NH 1N. 111111 2 111111 . ...... ... ...... N H N e N H N oH e _ N N . NH eH _ q NH NH .1111.... .mmmmmfl-mmmmmv ...... In. ;.e ;.H ................... A v lllllllll III; N.s..zouy NH.< uHHaN 100 NNN. mmo. omm. cmm. New. mas. cc_. Nma. ccc. «mNc. one. Hun. «cw. QNN. mma. Nxa. NNH. NNH. Nee. axe. Hae- CNN. NNH. cNN. HNN. sec. ch. .NN. Nee. .eco. ceN. NeN. NHN. NNN. HcN. HNN. Nee. NHN. HNN. .Ne. e... NNc. NNN. ch. ems. .HN. .HN. NNH. NNN. NcN. NHH. N2.- u.._N_:. .Ncc. .NN. Nee. =_N. e__. cN_. NNN. NNc. NsN. Ne:- :NN. . NHN. .NHC. sc.. .NN. .... rcN. .... NcN. HNN. Nee. .ee. .:.. :NN. cNN. NNN. NNN. NNH. 2N.- N_N. Ne.- _Nc. NNN. NNN. NeN. NNN. .NNc. .ch. H... c... Nee- Nma. «.cc. ¢Ho. 3:3. .cm. cwm. NNN. .NN. cNN. cNN. .NN. NNN. NcN. «N.s. NcN. a... NcN. NNN. ezazz>gH=u< mo<=o .u: mo mnOH .H .mmmammmmmmNHHHmmH xuoz convex .q mo:v..>.u= HmHowam .m 21.339» HmHuoch .N 21.33:» UHHonsxm .H . lavl'llll'""lll|lll a accz3um mo mvCHX szczcc ..om vHHzm .OH Hsoaaa _::ozuoa bozocoh .m zucz zmcm w>HU .w z.:.=uumcou \mH.E.H QEHH .N m::.~.uuaeoo \zvszw gun: .a .:uE:ch:L .m asuczox .q :unv. ... ..:.Huu..;.=. m..UH . 5") ..u..: \.:_.uH:..__;.c ...UH . F4 (‘1 u.:=>c.:v m.uH . :oHu.>Huo< \mszsonum .cchuc>Huoz Iii! menoHum> muo:omvu :mo umzz: Ho. AnHo>oH mucmuHuH:a_mv 3;::.z:> mo mHm>H35< .3N.¢ 9.3:? 101 .DcaUHNchHm mH umwu muprm>HuHss Hmumcmw wzu uH NHco uses...cuHm vonchccu mu: Aboumucu some yo. mama. L wuaHua>Hcs axe anOz ou:cu...:w.m .o .c>cH m:. V a r Hoo- eNN. HNN. NaN. :Nc. NNN. Nam. ..o..m .N .NH. NNN. NHN. sec. eNN. NNN. NNN. see: we NuHHwSV\>umu=uo< .N NNN. NNN. NNN. NHN. Neo- NNN. NeN. coHuoHagou .H .mwmmmmwdmm Hmmmmwwmzmmwammmmmwm HHH. .NN. NNN. ch. .NHc. Noe. ONN. .zoe;mH:=; UHHoscNm .H oNN. cN_. Has. Nca. .NH. .NH. oNN. caucuzeomcoo u>Hu team: Euwu wcoq .m www- .zwzww:.:u< wanna. «mm oxm mmq wxHuooamoN .muovmuw :uo ans .zuc .5:N mumUHccH no can .Nc .Hu "mHoz oocmonchHm mo Hm>oH mo. v a « I’lln- t'l..|I-l:!’ll"i"l"ll""nll" «Nco. Nxc. HHH. mucmHNchHm emN.| N33. mmH.| wsHm> ammo:0u uHom vHHsm .m i-..wad------...il-...N....o..:::----ltmow--- 8.2.22.2. NcH. NNN.- - NNH.- maHm> x.03 N... mm>Ho .e ..... . ...... ...... .. 222...... xcH.n .cH.n cmm.a oaHo> m1Hw3mm .m ...... . ......... ......“ ............. . ......»3-....__._-,......_..H..... eNm.| Nno. Ncm.: msHm> cummH OH uzmguanH m.UH .N ..-!wwwmw. ................. u: .eemwzs. macaUHNHcmHm mN..1 o mNH.I 93Hn> mHsm>0m=o w.uH .H N.s...s: -..NH.:.........- --.-1......- 994...... Hzmcums xnoB mucovauw oxme cu ow Mo New muosowou cmo u¢£3sv wHUGHHm Ho>m4 mkuo ucnuHuchHm uoH mcomHummEou omHsuHmm ooslumom .HN.¢ mHan. 101+ significant was for teachers' encouragement of students or communication of positive expectations (build self concept). Here, the low achievers were more likely to respond favorably to teacher encouragement than the high achievers. This finding is in keeping with what is known about high and low achievers (high achievers are more internally motivated and low achievers more externally motivated). There were no higher order interactions present in the data. There was a significant sex by achievement interaction for offer of rewards. High achieving boys and low achieving girls are most likely to cite rewards as a motivator. The use of symbolic punishment (check marks on the board, sad face on the paper) showed a sex by grade interaction. Boys in second and fourth grades are more likely to be motivated by symbolic punishment than girls in those grades. However, in the sixth grade, girls are more motivated by symbolic punishment than boys. SUMMARY OF RESULTS This chapter presented the results from the three general questions addressed by the study. In the first section results related to statement preferences were presented. It was demonstrated that grade level effects predominate in these data. Different scales of measurement were shown to affect the preference data unsystematically. The frequency with which teachers used the particular statements did influence the students' preferences for the statements to some degree. However, this influence did not seem consistent or systematic. In the second section results related to students' reasons for preferences of statements were presented. It was established that students did not discount or negatively interpret the positive statements made by teachers. These results 105 also indicated that grade level differences in the kinds of reasons offered predominated over sex or achievement level differences. In the third section data on students' responses to the open-ended question about instances when teachers launch directly into tasks without any introduction were presented. The results indicated that students' responses suggested that teachers give no introductions to tasks in rather unusual circumstances. Students' responses varied by grade level but not by sex or achievement level. In the fourth section data on students' responses to open-ended questions about the kinds of things teachers could say/do to make students work hard were presented. In these data, too, grade level differences predominated over sex and achievement level differences. Results also indicated that there were some contradictory findings when these data were compared to the statement preference data. These contradictions and interpretation of the other findings are discussed in the next chapter. _1. CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION This chapter is divided into three sections discussing the limitations of the results, the nature of the results, and the implications of the study for future research and practice. Limitations of the Study Several limitations of the data need to be mentioned before discussing the meaning of the results and their potential implications. First, the data were self report data, and thus open to social-desirability—responding and other forms of response bias that could detract from the validity of self report data. Although the students were interviewed individually and confidentiality was assured, the implicit demand characteristics of the interview situation (talking to an unknown adult, tape recording of the students' responses, etc.) may have caused some students to report only socially desirable responses. Social desirability was not a major concern because most of the statements used in the study were positive. Two negative statements (Statements 9 and 11) were used, however, although here the contrast in pairs was minimized by presenting these statements together or comparing one of them (Statement 9) to a neutral statement (Statement 10). There is reason to believe that Statement 6 (If you do well on them, then later on I'll let you play some games) may have evoked socially desirable responses, especially from the sixth graders. This issue will be discussed further in the next section. A more serious threat to validity was posed by the content and structure of the questions. First, the students were asked to self-report their affective responses to statements teachers make about tasks in the process of introducing 106 107 these tasks. It is possible that many students do not have consistent affective responses to such teacher statements, or they may not be aware of and able to articulate the consistent affective reactions they might have. Thus, the students may have been giving their conception of what seemed like reasonable responses to the questions rather than actual accounts of their affective reactions. Another limitation was that the content of the statements presented in pairs cued many of the students' responses to the questions. For example, students only mentioned enjoying problems following exposure to Statement 2 ("I like these kinds of problems and I think you'll enjoy them too."), and they only mentioned liking to play games following exposure to Statement 6 ("If you do well on them, then later on I'll let you play some games."). In general, many of the rationales and general themes in the students' responses to the first part of the interview were paraphrasings or minor elaborations of the content of the statement they had preferred. The specific way in which each statement conveyed the motivational content could also have limited the kinds of responses that were given by the students. For example, Statement 8 stressed the utility of learning the skills with reference to the teacher's own experiences. The students' responses may have been different if instead of referring to the teachers' experiences, the statement had referred to the students' own experiences. The students‘ responses could also have been affected by the way in which the statement conveyed that the skills to be learned would be useful in real life. Statement 5 stressed that the skills to be learned would be useful in the future when students went grocery shopping or to the bank. The students‘ responses to this statement may have been different if the "real life" application of the skills were couched in terms of the students' present reality (e.g., You'll need these 108 skills when you go to buy some gum this evening). With reference to the open—ended questions, it is possible that grade level effects were confounded with students' levels of verbal fluency. Some of the pairwise comparisons of significant grade level effects show decreases in frequency of the responses with decreases in grade level. The nature of the sample in this study also limited the generalizability of the results. The selected students came from schools which served a homogenous working class population. The students‘ responses might have been different if they had been selected from schools serving poulations from other SES. In summary, the paired comparison method was successful in enabling students (even most of the second graders) to understand and respond relevantly to questions about the effects of teachers' task presentation statements, although it appeared to induce or cue responses that might not have appeared if other methods had been used. The effects of different methods can be seen in the present data in the contrasts between the responses given in the paired comparison format and the responses given to the open—ended questions. The contrast is particularly salient in students' reactions to offers of reward, and is discussed in the next section. Discussion of Results Recall that the primary purpose of the study was to develop information about how students perceive different teacher attempts to motivate them when introducing an academic activity. Further, the study was undertaken to develop post-facto explanations for why students in the Brophy et a1. (1983) study did not respond positively (by being highly engaged in tasks) when teachers presented those tasks in a positive light. 109 One question was to assess the degree to which students discounted or negatively interpreted teachers‘ positive task introductions. Data on this point unequivocally indicate that students take teachers' statements at face value and do not question their motives. Only one of the 96 students interviewed attributed the teachers' statements to suspect motives (in this case, a desire to dominate and manipulate the student). Thus, the data provide no support for the hypothesis that the results of the Brophy et a1. (1983) study were due to widespread tendencies to discount or negatively interpret their teachers' statements about academic tasks. However, the data provide considerable support for the hypothesis that most of the "positive" task introductions observed in the Brophy et a1. (1983) study were ineffectual or counterproductive because the "incentives" they offered did not actually function as incentives to the students. For example, in that study, teachers frequently used statements communicating positive expectations (that the task would be easy or enjoyable) to generate student motivation. In the present study, students rarely mentioned enjoying academic tasks, and when they did, they had been cued by the wording of one of the stimulus statements. Similarly, with the exception of fourth graders, informing students that the task would be easy did not boost motivation. In fact, students seemed more enthused when told that the task was important or chasllenging than when told that the task would be easy. Other teacher motivation attemmpts commonly observed in the previous study included teachers' expressing personal enthusiasm for the task or relating the importance of the knowledge or skills being learned to successful coping with life outside of school. The present data show that students were not highly enthused by such teacher statements. Thus, most of the "positive" teacher task presentations observed in the llO earlier study were among the types that did not yield positive reactions by the students in the present study. Further, the task introduction statements that were received most positively by the students in this study (offering rewards for good performance or communicating the importance of the task for future school success) were rarely used by teachers in the earlier study. Thus, it appears that there is a poor match between the incentives stressed by the teachers and those incentives preferred by the students. This finding supports previous research findings of Ware (1978) and Yamamoto (1979). Ware concluded that there were differences between what students and teachers considered rewarding. Yamamoto concluded that there were differences between what children themselves considered stressful about their lives and what clinicians considered stressful about the children's lives. Clearly, students' perceptions of events that are relevant to their lives need to be given adequate consideration since these perceptions may be different from the perceptions of teachers or other adults. The overwhelming preference for Statement 9 (negative statement) over Statement 10 (neutral statement) and Statement 11 (negative statement) suggests that the classifications for Statements 9 and 10 need to be re- evaluated. In the Brophy et a1. (1983) study, statements mentioning that the material would be on a test were classified as negative, and reminders about time limits were classified as neutral. However, the present data suggest that students respond positively to statements that the material will be on the test, because such statements signal the importance of the material and alleviate some of the uncertainty associated with tests. In contrast, statements about time limits make students feel pressured and thus should be classified as negative, even though teachers intend these to be helpful reminders for the students. 111 One contradiction between the present findings and those from the previous study relates to Statement 12 ("Let's see how many of you can get them all correct."). The students interviewed in the present study preferred this statementover the four positive statements that it was paired with at consistently high rates (75 percent of the time). Further, a positive perception of challenge was frequently evidenced in the rationales offered by the students, and in the responses to the open—ended question about what teacher statements or actions would motivate them to work hard. However, in the previous study, student engagement rates were especially low when teachers introduced tasks by issuing challenges. It is possible that in the previous study, challenges were issued in contexts that were perceived as negative by the students. This is simply a speculation, however. The implied contradiction between the students' engagement rates following challenges in the previous study and their positive statements about challenges in the present study remains unexplained. The second graders' reacted most favorably to teacher enthusiasm (Statement 2) and challenge (Statement 12). These preferences suggest a greater tendency among the second graders to identify with their teachers, as well as illustrating the operation of the "good boy" and "good girl" levels of moral development described by Kohlberg. Students' responses to the question about occasions in which teachers launch directly into tasks without any introduction provided some explanation for the results of the previous Brophy et al. (1983) study, where students were highly engaged in tasks when teachers launched directly into tasks without any introduction. Students in this study frequently mentioned that teachers launched directly into tasks when the assignment was a review. If the assignment is a review, it is likely to signal the importance of the material to be learned. Further, the teacher must have previously communicated the 112 characteristics of the task and the consequences of not learning the material. Hence, the students would be highly engaged in the task. This is all the more true when the assignment is a test. However, all of the responses generated by the students indicate that, in their view, teachers launch directly into tasks without any introductions only in fairly unusual circumstances. It is possible that the section of the interview that preceeded this question (paired comparisons) led the students to believe that introductions to tasks are normal and routine. Thus, the nature of the students' responses to this question may have been, in part, a function of where this question was placed in the interview. The results of this study clearly indicate that students' perceptions do mediate teachers' effects. When the results of the present study are juxtaposed with the findings of the Brophy et al. (1983) study, there is clear indication that students are not passive agents in their own socialization. The lack of a systematic relationship between frequency of teachers' use of various statements and students' preferences for the statements also suggests that students 92 mediate teacher effects. The cognitive motivational theorists have underscored the importance of incorporating cognitive processes in the study of motivation. This study lends support to cognitive theorists' notions about motivation. Implications and Future Directions for Research This study focuses on teachers' attempts to socialize students to become motivated to learn (be engaged in academic tasks), and on how teachers' attempts at socializing were perceived by the students. The study thus falls under the general rubric of effective methods of fostering students' "motivation to learn." Research directed toward discovering effective ways to foster 113 "motivation to learn" needs to incorporate within its theoretical framework issues raised by educational psychologists about the applicability of traditional theories of motivation in classroom settings. As Brophy (1983) points out, "Most of the literature on motivation has been developed from the study of free choice behavior in play situations, but school is a work situation in which. students engage in compulsory activities that require primarily mental rather than physical effort. Under these circumstances, although the more overt aspects of task performance can be manipulated through reward and punishment, development of motivation to learn (not merely to meet minimal requirement) will require attention to the more qualitative and cognitive aspects of task engagement" (p. 214). This study was an exploratory study to discover why teachers' positive attempts to foster students "motivation to learn" fail to have the intended effects (lead to high engagement in tasks). Its results indicate that students' perceptions of the teachers' task introduction statements (one way of fostering "motivation to learn") do mediate teacher effects. Since this study was exploratory in nature, further research in the area is needed to establish whether its findings are universal. Clearly, future research could tap more dimensions that might influence the students' perceptions. Previous research has indicated that teachers' attempts to motivate students are often unsystematic and inconsistent (Brophy, 1983). In the Brophy et al. (1983) study , teachers attempted to generate positive task motivation only about one-fourth of the time when introducing tasks to their students, and they were inconsistent in the kinds of things they said about such tasks. Brophy (198D also pointed out that teachers' use of praise to motivate students is unsystematic and inconsistent. It is possible that stronger and more consistent effects on student motivation could be obtained if teachers were trained to 114 routinely introduce tasks with information designed to interest students in the content or skills that task offers.1 The results of the present study would be useful in determining effective ways of introducing tasks. Further research should also be conducted to discover valid and reliable ways of obtaining self-report data from students. The results of this study have indicated that students' perceptions of teacher actions/words Q mediate teacher effects. However, the method used to obtain self-report data from the students imposed some limitations on interpretation of the findings. Research designed to assess the relative effectiveness of different methods of obtaining self report data from students, especially from elementary school students, is needed to make significant progress in the study of student mediating processes. In conclusion, research in the area of student motivation needs to focus on effective ways to foster student engagement ("motivation to learn"). Since effective methods of fostering student engagement are a function of both the teacher's actions and the students' perceptions of those actions, researchers should also focus on methods of obtaining reliable and valid self-report data from the students. here Brophy is planning one such study which will be pilot tested in l985. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, L. M. (1981). Student responses to classroom instruction. Research Series No. 109. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Anderson, L., Evertson, C., 6c Emmer, E. (1980). Dimension of classroom management derived from recent research. Journal of Curriculum Studies. A, 733-750. Appel, Y. H. (1977). Developmental differences in children's perception of maternal socialization behavior. Child Development, 4_8_, 1689-1693. Austin, V.D., Ruble, D. N. dc Trabasso, T. (1977). Recall and order effects as factors in children's moral judgments. Child Development, 4_8_, 470-474. Baird, L. (1973). Teaching styles: An exploratory study of dimensions and effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, g3, 15-21. Baldwin, A. L. (1960). The study of child behavior and development. In P. Mussen(E,d.). Handbook of research methods in child development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Berg-Cross, L. G. (1975). Intentionality, degree of damage, and moral judgment. Child Development, 4_8, 970—974. Berliner, D. C. (1976). Impediments to the study of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, g_7_, 5-13. Berndt, T. J. (1977). The effect of reciprocity norms on moral judgment and causal attribution. Child Development, 4_8, 1322-1330. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Bock, R. D. , at Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement andpredictions of judgment and choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day. Braun, C. (1976). Teacher expectations: Sociopsychological dynamics. Review of Educational Research, i6_, 185-213. Bose, R. C., (1956). Paired comparison designs for testing concordance between judges. Biometrika, 42, 113-121. Box, G.E.P. (19.53). Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika, 49, 318- 335. Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, Zl, 733-750. Brophy, J. (1980). Teachers' cognitive activities and overt behaviors. Occasional Paper No. 39. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. 115 116 Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 5_l, 5-32. Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologistg, No. 3, 200-215. Brophy, J. 6: Good, '1'. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and Consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Brophy, J. E., Rohrkemper, M. M., Rashid, H. 6t Goldberger, M. (1983). Relationships between teachers' presentations of classroom tasks and students' engagement in those tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology. 72, 544-552. Calveric, B.R. (1979). Conceptualizations of others: A developmental investigation. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March. Campbell, D.T. 6t Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Clark, B. M. 6t Creswell, J.L. (1978). Participants and nonparticipants perception of teacher nonverbal behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educatdional Research Association, Toronto, March. Clark, C.M., Gage, N.L., Marx, R. W., Peterson, P. L., Stayrook, N. C., 6: Winne, P.H. (1979). A factorial experiment of teacher structuring, soliciting, and reacting. Journal of Educational Psychology. _7_l_, 534-552. Cobb, J. A. (1972). Academic survival skills and elementary achievement. In E. Meyen,G. Vergason and R. Whelan (Eds.). Strategies for teaching exceptional children. Denver, Colorado: Love. Cooper, H. 6t Good, T. (1984). Pygmalion grows g3. New York: Academic Press. Cox, D. R. (1958). Planning of experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Denham, C. 6: Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (1980). Time to learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition in children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, _5_l, 162-170. Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students' abilities. In P. Peterson and H. Walberg (Eds.). Research on teaching. Berkeley, California: McCutchen. Dunkin, M.J. 6c Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 117 Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., dc Enne, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and 111: An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, fl,268-276. Ebel, R. (1977). A proposed solution to the validity problem. Unpublished manuscript. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University. Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979). Development of children's prosocial moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, Q, 128-137. Emmer, E., Evertson, C., dc Anderson, L. (1980). Effective classroom managementat the beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal, Q, 219-231. Entwisle, D. R. (St Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Toog'eat expectations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P.T., Fry, C.L., Wright, J. W. 6: Jarvis, P. E. (1968). The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: Wiley and Sons. Gage, N. L. (1963). Handbook of Research on Teaching. American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Good, T. L. (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 52-60. Good, T. L. (1983). Classroom research: A decade of progress. Invited address at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April. Good, T. L. dc Beckerman, T. M. (1978). Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 18, 193-201. Good, T. at Brophy, J. (1978). Looking in classrooms (second edition). New Yorszarper and Row. ' Good, T. 6: BrOphy, J. (1980). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Good, T. 6: Dembo, M. (1973). Teacher expectations: Self-report data. School Review, _8_1_, 247-253. Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harter, S. (1967). Mental age, IQ, and motivational factaors in the discriminationlearning set performance of normal and retarded children. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, _5_, 123-141. Harter, S. & Zigler, E. (1974). The assessment of effectance motivation in normal and retarded children. Developmental Psychology, l_0, 169-180. 118 Hoge, R. D. 6: Luce, S. (1979). Predicting academic achievement from classroom behavior. Review of Educational Research, 4_9_, 479-496. Hops, M. 6: Cobb, J. H. (1974). Initial investigation into academic survival skills training, direct instruction, and first grade achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6_6, 548-553. Keasey, C. B. (1977). Young children's attributions of intentionality to themselves and others. Child Development, 48, 261-264. Kendall, M. G. (1955). Further contributions to the theory of paired comparisons. Biometrics, £1, 43-62. Kleinfeld, J. (1972). Instructional style and the intellectual performance of Indian and Eskimo students. Final Report, Project No. 1-J-027, Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Koopman, E. J. 6t Schroeder, N. (1977). Evaluation of a modified Bronfenbrennerquestionnaire assessing children's perceptions of teachers' behaviors. Perceptual Motor Skills, _4_5_, 1247-1251. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kounin, J. S. 6: Doyle, P. H. (1975). Degree of continuity of a lesson's signal system and the task involvement of children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 159-164. Kounin, J. S. (St Gump, F. V. (1974). Signal systems of lessons settings and the task-related behavior of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, g, 554-562. Kounin, J. S. 25: Sherman, L. W. (1979). School environments as behavioral settings. Theory into Practice, 1_8_, 145-151. Kun, A. (1978). Evidence for preschooler's understanding of causal direction in extended causal sequences. Child Development, _4_9_, 218-222. Kurdek, L.A. (1977). Structural components and intellectual correlates of cognitive perspective taking in first through fourth-grade children. Child Development, 4_8, 1503-1511. Kurdek, L.A. (1978). Perspective taking as the cognitive basis of children's moral development: A review of the literature. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2, 3-28. Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, Q, 1-13. Livesley, W. J. 6: Bromley, D.B. (1973). Personperception in childhood and adolescence. London: Wiley and Sons. 119 Marshall, H. H., Weinstein, R. S., Middlestadt, S.E., 6c Brattesani, K.A. (1980). "Everyone is smart in our class": Relationships between classroom characteristics and perceived differential treatment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April. McKeon, J. J. (1960). Some cyclical incomplete paired comparison designs. Report No. 24. Chapel Hill. NC: University of North Carolina Psychometric Laboratory. Mehrens, W. 6: Lehmann, I. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology, second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Meyer, W., Bachmann, M., Biermann, U., Hempelmann, M. Ploger, F., 6: Spiller, H.(1979). The informational value of evaluative behavior: Influences of praise and blame on perceptions of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, A, 259-268. Mischel, W. 6t Mitzner, R. (1962). Preference for delayed reward as a function of age, intelligence and length of delay interval. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 425-431. Morine—Dershimer, G. 6c Fagel, F. (1980). Why do you ask? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April. Morine-Dershimer, G. 6: Galluzzo, G. (1980). Pupil perceptions of teacher praise. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April. Nisan, M. (1974). Exposure to rewards and the delay of gratification. Developmental Psychology, 19, 376-380. Peterson, P.L. (1983). More than the eye can see: Students' thought processes during classroom instruction. Colloquium presented at the Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University, October 20th. Peterson, P. L. 6: Swing, S.R. (1984). Students' cognitions as mediators of the effectiveness of small-group learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Rohrkemper, M. M. (1981). Classroom perspectives study: An investigation of differential student perceptions of classroom events. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Rohrkemper, M. (1984). The functions of inner speech in elementary school students' problem solving strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Rosenshine, B. (1970). Enthusiastic teaching: A research review. School Review, E, 499-511. 120 Rosenshine, B. V. dc Berliner, D. C. (1979). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 3-16. Rosenshine, B. 6: Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria: In B. Smith (Ed.). Research in teacher education: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rosenthal, R. 6c Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and ptgils' intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rusnock, M. 6: Brandler, N. (1979). Time off-task: Implications for learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April. Samuels, S. J. 6t Turnure, J. E. (1974). Attention and reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 29-32. Sarafino, E. P. 6: Stinger, M. A. (1981). Journal of Genetic Psychology, l_3_§, 291-299. Sears, P. 6c Hilgard, E. (1964). The teacher's role in the motivation of the learner. In theories of learning and instruction. Sixty-third Yearbook of the NationalSociety for the Study of Education, Part I. Sedlak, A.J. (1979). Developmental differences in understanding plans and evaluating actors. Child Development, 29, 536-560. Shantz, C.U. (1975). The development of social cognition. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.). Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 5, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, M.C. (1978). Cognizing the behavior stream: The recognition of intentional action. Child Development, 4_9, 736-743. Smyth, W. (1979). An ecological analysis of pupils‘ use of academic learning time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta. Stallings, J. A. 6: Kaskowitz, D. (197(1). Follow through claesroom observation evaluation, 1972-1973. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Stayrook, N.B., Corno,L., 6c Winne, P.H. (1978). Path analysis relating student perceptions of teacher behavior to student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, Q, 51-56. Stipek, D. J. 6: Tannatt, L. M. (1984). Children's judgments of their own and their peers' academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, _7_6_, 1, 75-81;. Thurstone, L.L. (1927a). Psychological analysis. American Journal of Psychology, _3__8_, 368-389. 121 Thurstone, L.L. (1927b). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 3_4, 273-286. Tukey, J. W. (1949). One degree of freedom for non-additivity. Biometrics, 2, 232-242. Van Treese, J .C. (1982). A psychological study of teachers' and school psychologists' perceptions of student reward preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Walberg, M. J. (1976). The psychology of learning environments. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.). Review of research in education. (Vol. 4). Itasca, IL: Peacock. Walls, R. T. (1973). Delay of reinforcement development. Child Development, 44, 689-692. Ware, B. A. (1978). What rewards do students want? Phi Delta Kappan, Jan., 355-356. Weinstein, R.S. (1981). Student perspectives on "Achievement" in varied classroom environments. In P. Blumenfeld (Chair). Student perspectives and the study of the classroom. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. Weinstein, R.S., Marshall, H. H., Brattesani, K.A., on Sharp, L. (1980). Achieving in school: Children's views of causes and consequences. A preliminary report on methodology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, September. Weinstein, R. 6c Middlestadt, S. E. (1979). Student perceptions of teacher inter- actions with male high and low achievers. Journal of Educational Pflchology,_7_l, 421-431. Weinstein, R. S., Middlestadt, S. E., Brattesani, K. A. 6: Marshall, H. H. (1980). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Weisz, J. R. (1978). Choosing problem solving rewards and halloween prizes: Delay of gratification and preference for symbolic reward as a function of development, motivation and personal investment. Developmental Psychology, _lfl, 66-78. Werner, H. (1948). Comparative _psychology of mental develgment. New York: International Universities Press. West, C.K. 6t Anderson, T. H. (1976). The question of preponderant causation in teacher expectancy research. Review of Educational Research, g, 613- 630. 122 Whiteman, M. (1967). Children's conceptions of psychologial causality. Child Development, 18, 143-155. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical pringles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Winne, P. (1977). Aptitude-treatment interactions in an experiment on teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 1_4, 389-409. Winne, P.H. & Marx, R.W. (1977). Reconceptualizing research on teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology. 6_9, 668-678. Winne, P. (St Marx, R. W. (1980). Teachers' and students' views of cognitive processes for learning from teaching. Burnaby, British Columbia: Instructional Psychology Research Group;, Simon Fraser University. West, C. K. 6c Anderson, T. M. (1976). The question of preponderant causation in teacher expectancy research. Review of Educational Research, 46, 613-630. Yamamoto, K. (1979). Children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences. Developmental Psychology, g, 581-582. Yarrow, L. J. (1960). Interviewing children. In P. M. Mussen (Ed.). Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York: Wiley and Sons. APPENDICES 123 Appendices . Parental Permission Form . Information to Principals . Teacher Consent Form DOC-'1)- . Ranking of Students Teacher Statements Used in Paired Comparisons Open-ended Interview Questions Frequency of Use Survey :p-nrn . Training Sessions for Interviewers 1. Interview Evaluation J. Introduction and Warm-up for Interviews K. Printed Statements for Students L. Coding System for Statement Preferences M. Coding System for Part II and Part III N. Directions for Coding Student Interviews 124 A: Parental Permission Form Dear Parent: 1 am presently preparing to do my dissertation under the direction of Professor Jere Brophy at the College of Education at Michigan State University. In my study, I will look at what children think when teachers introduce new tasks or give assignments. I am particularly interested in children's reactions when tasks or assignments are presented in different ways by the teacher. For example, when giving an assignment, a teacher might say: "Do the problems on page 35. If you worked hard last week you should not have any problems today." or The—teacher might say: "Do the problems on page 35 and let's see if we can all do well." I am mainly interested in finding out whether different kinds of statements have different effects on the children. I would appreciate your consent to ask the children about their reactions to teacher statements similar to the examples given above. The children will be asked some questions to see if different kinds of introductions to assignments produce different reactions in children. This would be the extent of the children's involvement. All responses will, of course, be kept confidential, and no names will be used in any research reports on these interviews. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please feel free to call me at 353-9177 or 353-6470 between 8:00 AM. and 5:00 PM. Monday through Friday. Sincerely, 7/144, 24X, WC flu” Neelam Kher Institute for Research on Teaching NK:js .1 PLEASE SEND THIS FORM BACK WITH YOUR CHILD TO HIS OR HER TEACHER I have read the above statement and agree to allow my child to participate. I prefer that my child not participate in the study. PARENT SIGNATURE ---—DATE 125 B. Information to Principals This study is concerned with student perceptions to teacher task introduction. The study complements the Student Motivation Study directed by Dr. Jere Brophy from 1980 to present. In one part of the Student Motivation Study, observers recorded verbatim teacher expressions of belief, attitude or expectation about tasks made in an attempt to motivate or prepare students before beginning tasks. These observations were rated for the type of student expectation about the task that they were likely to engender (positive, negative, both, or neutral). During the task, the observers rated students' task engagement (clearly engaged, probably engaged, or clearly not engaged). The researchers had expected to find a direct relationship between positive task introductions and high student engagement. However, the results of data analysis were contrary to the researchers' expectations. Results indicate that negative task introductions fl result in lower student engagement, _b_L£ that positive task introductions had either no effect on student engagement or actually lowered student engagement in some cases. All data from the Student Motivation Study have not yet been analyzed, so some of the puzzling findings may be explained when that process is completed. However, the Student Motivation Study did not include information on how students perceive teachers' task introductions. This present study attempts to gather information about students' reactions to these task introductions. In the study, selected students from second, fourth, and sixth grades will be individually interviewed about their reactions to 12 teacher task introduction statements. They will also be asked to choose between pairs of task introductions and then explain reasons for their choice. My main interest is in finding out: 1) do children at different grade levels perceive the statements differently? 2) Do children who are high or low achieving differ in their reactions to the statements? 3) Do boys and girls differ in their reactions to the statements? The students‘ responses will be examined for general trends and unique patterns of perception among students. Selection of the students from the grade levels of interest will be based on teachers' ranking of the students' achievement level. Students who fall at the extremes of the rank ordering will be interviewed, provided that their parents agree to their participation in the study. These students will be interviewed by me or other trained graduate assistants who work under the supervision of Dr. Jere Brophy. All interviewers will be unaware of students' rankings. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me. Neelam Kher Institute for Research on Teaching 218 Erickson Hall Michigan State University Phone: 353-9177 or 353-6470 Hours: 8:00 - 5:00, Monday through Friday 126 C. Teacher Consent Form I understand that this study by Neelam Kher, under the direction of Professor Jere Brophy from the Institute of Research on Teaching at Michigan State University, is an attempt to gather information about students' reactions to teacher task introduction statements. I understand that my involvement will be limited to rank-ordering the students on the basis of their achievement level in mathematics, their liking for mathematics, and how hard they try in mathematics, and helping to arrange for some of my students to be interviewed. I understand that the information I provide will be held in confidence and reported without mention of the names of participating teachers or students. I also know that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time, and that I will be given a report of the findings of the study when it becomes available. SIGNATURE DATE ““7 127 D. Ranking of Students Dear In this study I would like to learn about what children think and how they react when they hear teachers introduce new tasks or assignments in different ways. Students will be presented with various statements that teachers might make when introducing math tasks. They will then be asked how they would react to each of these statements. In order to get a better understanding of students' reactions, I would like you to rank order your students' relative achievement in math, their feelings toward the subject matter, and how hard they try in math. Provided below is the information I need and the procedures to use in rank ordering. 1. Go through your class roster and rank order the children by their achievement level in mathematics, with #1 indicating the highest achiever. Use test data, performance on assignments, classroom observation, and whatever other information you may have, in order to make your best estimate of the students' relative achievement levels in mathematics. 2. Go through your class roster and rank order the students by how much they like mathematics, with #1 indicating the mos___t_ liking for math. This rank ordering should be independent of your rank ordering by achievement level (i. e., some high math achievers may not especially like math, and some low math achievers may nevertheless enjoy it). 3. Go through your class roster and rank order the students by _how hard they try in mathematies, with #1 indicating most effort in math. This rank ordering should be independent of your rank ordering of achievement level an_d liking for math (again, high effort does not necessarily go with high achievement or with liking for math) Suggestions to Help in Rank Ordering 1. Identify the students who are at the t_op and at the bottom of the class. Then identify the student you think is in the middle. Then, fill in the rest of the ranks. 01" Group students in piles of high, middle, or low. Rank order each of the groups separately and then put them together. (NOTE: These are some suggestions to make the rank ordering process easier. If you find another way of ranking more convenient, please feel free to use it.) 128 2. If you cannot differentiate between two or more children, assign those children the same rank number. For example, you may have the following sets of rank: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, etc. Please minimize your use of multiple ranks, however. 3. Do each ranking without using information from the other ranking so that each ranking is independent of the others. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. I will be in touch with you to set up interviews with your students at a time convenient for you. Sincerely, mcgtk-W" Kid/v” Neelam Kher Institute for Research on Teaching 218 Ericleon Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (353-9177 or 353-6470) NK:js 10. 11. 12. 129 E. Teacher Statements Used in Paired Comparisons It's important that you know these skills. You'll need them for math next year. I like these kinds of problems and I think you will enjoy them too. Page 37 should be no trouble at all but the ones on page 39 are harder. You'll have to think before you do them. If you do a really good paper, I will put it up on the bulletin board. It's important that you know these skills. You'll need them when you go grocery shopping or to the bank. If you do a really good paper, then later on I'll let you play some games. Some of these problems are really tricky. I like tricky problems because they make me think hard, but then I really feel good when I get them right. I never knew how important these skills were when I was your age but I found out when I started writing checks and had to take care of my money. Problems like these will be on your next test, so work carefully. You have only 20 miutes to finish, so work quickly. If you don't get at least ten of them right, you'll have to do another page. Let's see how many of you can get them all correct. _“AF' 130 F. Open—Ended Interview Questions Part II. 1. We have just talked about the many different ways teachers give assignments. But sometimes, they might not use any of those different ways of giving assignments. They might just say "Do the problems on pages thirty-seven and thirtj-nine" and not say anything else. I want you to think for a minute and tell me when would your teacher say "Do the problems on pages thirty-seven and thirty-nine" and nothing more. Let's make a list of those times and I'll write them down. Probe. When are the other times s/he might say "Do the problems on pages thirty-seven and thirty-nine." and not say anything else? Probe. (If the student indicates that those are the only times their teacher says it) Think of all the other teachers you've had. When would they say "Do the problems on pages thirty-seven and thirty-nine" and nothing more? 131 Part III 1. We've talked about the different ways teachers could give ma_th assignments. Sometimes when giving 933 assignments your teacher might say things that make M feel like working really hard. At other times, she might say things that make you feel like go; working hard. What kinds of things could your teacher say when s/he's giving assignments that would make ypg feel like working really hard in math? 2. Of all the ways your teacher could give you a math assignment, what could 5/ he say to make 3111 feel like working really hard in math? 3. What kinds of things could your teacher say when giving a math assignment that would make you feel like working really hard? After each of these alternatives, state: Could you make a list of these for me and I'll write them down. Pr_ob_e: Why don't you think some more. I think you can think of some more. M: Pretend you are in math class now. What could your teacher say before s/he gives you an assignment that would really make you want to dive in and work gaLly hard? _Pr_ope_. (If, student lists similar things, say: You told me about different (rewards, threats, etc.). Tell me some 93E things your teacher could say that would make you feel like working hard? 132 G. Frequency of Use Survey Instructions: Presented below are some statements teachers make while giving math assignments. For each statement given below, please indicate how frequently you would use it. The assignment in each of the statements presented below is pages 37 and 39 of the math book. For each of the statements, use the following scale and circle the appropriate number on the scale. 1. Ngygr use this statement. 2. Rarely use this statement. 3. Sometimes use this statement. 4. Frequently use this statement. 5. Very frequently use this statement. 1. Let's see how many of you can get them all correct. 1 2 3 4 5 2. It's important that you know these skills. You'll need them for math next year. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Ilike these kinds of problems, and I think you'll enjoy them too. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Problems like these will be on the next test, so do them carefully. I 2 3 4 5 5. Do the problems on pages 37 and 39. Page 37 should be no trouble at all, but the ones on page 39 are harder, you'll have to think before you do them. 1 2 3 4 5 133 6. If you do a really good paper, I'll put it up on the bulletin board. l 2 3 4 5 7. Work carefully--if you don't get at least 10 of them Light, you'll have to do another page. 1 2 3 4 5 8. You only have 20 minutes to finish, so work quickly. 1 2 3 4 5 9. It's important that you know these skills. You‘ll need them when you go grocery shopping or to the bank. 1 2 3 4 5 10. If you do well on them, then later on, I'll let you play some games. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Some of these problems are really tricky. I_li_l_§ tricky problems, because they make me think h_a_r_d, but then I really feel good when I get them right. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I never knew how important these skills were when I was your age, but I found out when I started writing checks and had to take care of my money. 1 2 3 4 5 134 H. Training Sessions for Interviewers Session I: Context of the Interview The interview is conducted in a very specified setting, i.e., the school setting. In order to conduct the interview, the students will have to be taken to a relatively quiet area away from their classrooms. In order to be able to interview, we need the cooperation of a number of people such as: the principal, the administrative staff at the school, the teachers, and the students who are to be interviewed (this is in addition to the cooperation of the parents who give permission to interview the children). The following guidelines are provided to minimize negative interactions with people whose cooperation is sought. 1. School etiquette. a. Inform principal of your arrival when you enter the school premises, also inform him/her of your departure. b. Make arrangements for the interview room in advance with the school secretary. c. Check the teacher's schedule so that students are interviewed at times most suitable for the teacher. d. Inform the teacher of the times you will be coming to interview and of any change in plans. e. Get the teacher's approval for the specific student to leave the classroom at a particular time. 2. Interactions with teachers. a. Be pleasant and friendly but maintain a professional stance. 1 35 b. Remember that the teachers' schedules and lesson plans take priority over the interviews. Make sure that the teacher's convenience is of utmost concern to you. c. If you encounter situations where a teacher questions you about the nature of the study (over and above the information provided to the teachers) communicate to the teacher that the interviewers are blind to the purposes of the study so you do not have any information. d. If a teacher gives you information about a student you are going to interview, communicate with the teacher (firmly but pleasantly) that you really should not hear that information for fear of biasing the interview. e. If a teacher questions you about a specific student's response, communicate to the teacher that each student's response is completely confidential. f. Teachers' schedules or plans could change unexpectedly, so be prepared to accept such changes in the interviewing schedule and take them in stride. 3. Interactions with the student a. Remember that you are a stranger to the student and in order to obtain the student's cooperation you will need to build rapport with the student. This can be accomplished through an informal chat as you walk to the interviewing room or in the process of introducing yourself and the task to the students. b. In your introduction, make sure you include the following points: i. Your name and what you do (research at Michigan State). ii. Goals of the interview (what kids think about things that go on in the classroom) 136 iii. Why the student's contribution is important (since you go to school all day, you know a lot about things that go on in the classroom) iv. Confidentiality of the interview (what you say to me will be a secret. I won't tell your teacher or your parents or the other kids) v. There are no right or wrong answers (we want to know what ygg think and feel about these questions. There are no right or wrong answers) The interview introduction should be brief and delivered in a friendly and genuine manner. c. Remain in control of the interviewing situation at all times. Do not let the student control the flow of the interview. d. Once you start the process of the interview, remain on task and use the student's attention optimally. Dress Code 1. Dress such that you have a low key appearance. 2. Certain outfits are intimidating (e.g., suits) 3. Certain accessories may be distracting (large earrings or flashy belt buckle, an unusual pendant) The Study The following issues are discussed about the study. 1. The objectives of the study. 2. Development of the interview instrument. Discussion about the Interview Instrument l. Demonstration of the delivery of each statement. 137 2. Point out which words in the sentence are to be stressed, appropriate speed of delivery for each statement, etc. 3. Practice session where each interviewer tries out the entire interview. Other members of the group provide feedback. Assignment for the Day 1. Write out an introduction that you will use with the students. Keep in mind the salient points that need to be covered in the introduction. 2. Tape yourself delivering the introduction (bring the tape to next training session). 3. Review and familiarize yourself with the interview instrument. Session II 1. Discussion of assignment given at the previous session. 2. Listen to the tape of each interviewer introducing him/herself. Provide feedback about the introduction. 3. Deal with any concerns about the interview instrument. Answer questions. Incorporate changes in the instrument (if necessary). 4. Role play situation: Each interviewer conducted the interview with one of the trainees role playing the student. Certain characteristics of students that might present a problem to the interviewers were highlighted by the person who role played the part of the "students" (fidgeting, not maintaining eye contact, being non-verbal, etc.). After each role play situation, feedback is provided to the interviewer and there is a discussion of possible ways of dealing with the "problem student." 138 5. Important student cues student? A. Silence/pause. Is the student thinking about the response or did s/he not understand the question? If the student is thinking, allow 10-15 second pause. Repetitio . When is it necessary to repeat the question to the a) when student requests it b) when student's answer bears no relation to the question c) when silence is accompanied by a blank look/ vacant stare. 6. Probing. When is it necessary to probe? a) when student paraphases the choice made b) when the student makes an inference based on the statement c) when student mentions motivation components of teacher statement such as: it will be fun, easy, hard, tricky, positive affect, negative affect. d) when student generate list (Pt. II, 111, V) say, "Why don't you think of some more." 7. Checking comprehension. Does the student understand the choice s/he made, e.g., if the student says: "I like the first one" check comprehension by asking "What does the teacher say in the first one?: 8. Moving to the next question. It is time to move on to the next question when: a) probing has provided you with a full response b) probing is ineffective: the student merely reiterates previous response c) on being asked to produce more responses, the student says: "I can't think of any more." NOTE: If the student being asked the question initially says: I can't 139 think of anything," the appropriate interviewer response would be, "Why don't you try to think." or "Take a guess.") 9. Things to avoid while interviewirg. --using excessive verbiage will detract from the interview because the student will miss salient cues due to verbal overload. Use words that students can understand. Some "adult words" and correspondent "student words" are given below. _A_dufi Student/Child preference like variation something different teacher statements things teachers say research learn about/ study make-believe pretend explanation tell me more about it Again, anything that will hamper students' understanding needs to be avoided (cognitive overload, adult word)) - deviating from the script. We would like any differences that emerge to be due to differences in students' responses and n_ot interviewer differences. - supplying the student with words to speed up the interview process or guide the student . This might bias the results. 10. Problem students and ways to deal with them The student who looks away or does not maintain eye contact: Say: I can't hear you too well if you talk with your face turned the other way or it's hard to get your voice on the tape if you look the other way. The student who says "I don't know" to everything you ask: Say: Why don't you take a guess, or why don't you think about it some more and then tell me, I know it's hard to answer these questions but why don't you think a little bit and tell me. . . 140 The student who is very verbal but does not answer the question: Say: Yes, but fly do you like this one or I‘m not sure I understand why you like that one better. Constantly focus this student's attention to the question. The student who is distracted or fidgety: With the hyperactive kind of student, physical contact sometimes helps. If the student is fidgety, putting your hand on the student's knee may calm him/her down. With the distracted student, say: I need you to think very carefully about these questions because what you say is really important for this research. The student who tries to figure out the "right" answer. This student might look to you for approval after answering the question or say something like "Is that right?". Make sure you respond evenly to all responses. Make sure the non-verbal cues (nodding) do not seem conditional to the student. If the student asks you if the answer is right, say: There are really no right or wrong answers, we just want to know what you think. 141 Assignment for the Day Interviewers are provided with a tape of an interview conducted by the trainer and a transcribed version of the taped interview. They are also given the transcript of another interview. The assignment involves: a) reading and evaluating the transcript based on the guidelines provided; b) listening and evaluating the taped interview according to the guidelines provided. 142 Guidelines for Assignment: Session II Things to note when listening to tape 1. Keep copy of interview with you and follow along as you listen to the tape. 2. Note if the interviewer deviates from script. 3. Note if interviewer appears uncomfortable with silence (behavioral indicators: quick interjection when there is silence) 4. Note if interviewer cues a student's response. 5. Note if the interviewer is more enthusiastic about some student responses. 6. Note if interviewer is asking questions at a fast pace. 7. Note if student's response indicates lack of understanding. 8. Note whether comprehension checks are made systematically. 9. Note if student requests repetitions. 10. Note if question is not adequately probed. 11. Note general tone, delivery of interview and comfort level of interviewer. Things to Note when Reading Transcripts 1. Note number of repetitions required. 2. Note adequately probed questions. 3. If question not probed adequately, write down what probes you might use to get a more adequate response. 4. Note words that the interview uses which might not be understood by the student. 5. Note if interviewer probes after the student has responded adequately. 6. Note g_<_>o_d probes used by the interviewer. 7. Note good student responses. 143 Session III 1. Discussion of assignment given at the end of Session 1. Appropriate way of dealing with the "mistakes" in the interviews (given for the assignemnt) are discussed. 2. Observe an "expert" interviewer interviewirm a student. One of the trainers interviewed a student and the interviewers observed the interview through a one-way mirror. Guidelines for observing the interviewer were provided and are listed below. Guidelines for Observing Interviewer a. Is the interviewer comfortable? b. Is the student at ease? c. Does the interviewer follow the script? (1. Does the interviewer respond evenly to all student responses? e. What non-verbal cues does the interviewer emit? f. Does the interviewer make systematic comprehension checks? g. Does the interviewer probe systematically? h. How does the interviewer deal with any problems presented by the student? i. What non-verbal cues does the student give the interviewer? j. Is the interviewer in control of the interview? 3. Discussion of the interview process using the guidelines provided to the interviewers (presented above). 4. Discussion of Murphy's Law and its application in field research. Each interviewer is provided with a list of things to check before interviewing. This is to minimize the applicability of Murphy's Law in this study. 144 Checklist for Interviewers Information each interviewer should have before interviewing: 1. Student to be interviewed by the interviewer. 2. ID. associated with each student to be interviewed. 3. Interview form associated with each student. 4. The teacher to contact for each student to be interviewed. Prior to Interview, check the following: 1. Room is comfortable and quiet. 2. There is an electrical outlet. 3. Seating arrangement is such that both the interviewer's and the interviewee's voice is picked up on tape. 4. Seating arrangement such that it minimizes distractions (not facing window, door, etc.) 5. Proper interview form for student is available. 6. Recording sheets are in order 7. Recording sheets have student's ID. number. After the Interview 1. Check tape recording 2. Rewind tape 3.. Label tape with student's ID. number (no names) 4. Label recording sheets and student rating scales (if not previously done) 5. At the end of each day, return med tapes and recording sheets, evaluations to June or Neelam. 145 Things to Remember When InterviewingStudents 1. Use words that students understand. 2. Use brevity in communicating. Excess verbiage will distract students from focusing on the task. 3. React evenly to a! student responses (avoid words such as: That's good, that's right, etc.). 4. Students have limited attention spans. Use their attention maximally. 5. Probe until you get an adequate response. 6. Avoid making judgments about the student's ability to answer all the questions Mpg the process of the interview. 7. Allow for 15-20 second silence if student appears to be thinking about a response. 8. Make sure the student understands each statement. Check for comprehension (e.g., Which way was that). 9. Phrase any questions, probes, etc. such there are no E or E answers. Thus, instead of saying, "Can you tell me more about it?" say, "Tell me more about it." 10. The tasks are not easy for the student. They may never have done this before. Probes for Part I of Student Interviews 1. Attention. Did student understand both statements/ Check: Do you want me to repeat the two statements? 2. Choice: Did student make a clear choice? 146 Probe 1: Which one do you like a little bit better? Probe 2: If you had to hear just gig of these, which one would you like? 3. Rationale: Does the student give an adequate reason for his/ her choice? L55: Why do you like (student's preferred statement) Probe 1: (if student paraphrases the preferred statement) You told me am one you like. I need to know w_hy you like that one. QR I'd like you to tell me w_hy you like that one. Probe 2: Tell me more about it. OR Tell me that again. Probe 3: (If student rambles and deviates from question), Yes, but I would like you to tell me why you like the one about (student's preferred statement) REMEMBER Attention _Choice Rationale End 147 Session IV 1. Discussion of interviewers experience with interviewing. Feedback on the interviews by the trainers. 2. Summary of all the relevant issues related to interviewing children. 3. Interviewers are provided with all materials necessary to conduct interviews. 4. Last minute questions or concerns addressed. 5. Review of appropriate conduct. Assignment for the Dy Interview one student in the school setting so that interviewers have practice in environmental conditions similar to the actual interviews. Feedback provided to the interviewers individually by the trainers. 148 I. Interview Evaluation E15. figgative. Neutral Positive 1. Principal/secretary contact 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Teacher contact Epmments: O l 2 3 4 5 3. Room comfort 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 4. Student comfort 1 2 3 4 5 99mments: 5. Interviewer comfort 1 2 3 4 5 EEEEEEEEF 6. Student's classroom environment 1 2 3 4 5 EEEEEEHEE‘ 7. Introduction (general) 1 2 3 4 5 Eggments 8. Part I 1 2 3 4 5 2021313159 9. Part II 1 2 3 4 5 pommengg: 10. Part III 1 2 3 4 5 Egpments: 11. Part IV 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 149 _ELA 'Negative .“ Neutral Positive -.—.— 12. Part V 1 2 3 4 5 ggmments: 13. Interviewer general affect 1 2 3 4 5 EEEEEEEE: 14. Describe activity the class/student was engaged in when called out for interview. Note any unusual interactions, etc., in class. 15. General comments: (Anything noteworthy, unusual, that we should know about). 150 J. Introduction and Warm-Up for Interviews General Introduction I do research there. In our research we try to find out what goes on in schools and what makes teachers super. This way when people come to Michigan State to learn how to be teacher we can do a better job of training them. But maybe you never realized that teachers, your teacher, went to Michigan State. Do you know where that is? In East Lansing. Did you realize that teachers were trained how to do their job by going to a college like Michigan State? We consider you to be an expert that can tell us all about school. It's been a long time since we've been at school. And since you've lived almost your whole life by going to school, we think that you are the expert. And so we've interviewed a lot of children and most of them think it's kind of fun to answer our questions. I want you to know that there are no right or wrong answers to any of our questions. We are interested in knowing what w think when you hear these questions. And also that we won't be telling any one about what we talk about here. We won't tell your folks or we won't tell your classmates or even your teacher. So I want you to feel free to tell me exactly what you think. Exactly how you feel about our questions. And this will really help us with our research. Do you have any questions about what I've just said? Before we start, I'd like to tell you what sometimes happens when I talk to kids. Sometimes _I_ may not understand what you're saying. When that happens, I will repeat the question to you. Since you may never have thought of some of our questions, it's just fine if you don't understand them the first time. If at some time you're not sure of what I'm asking, please feel free to ask me to repeat the ques tion. 151 Somtimes you may think we're asking you the same question twice. However, although some of the questions are similar, each one is a little bit different, so we want you to £11113 carefully about each question. O.K.. Let's see if the tape recorder's picking up your voice and mine, so, I'm going to say "testing one, two, three," and then I want you to say "testing one, two, three." O.K. Testing one, two, three. .---~-——--—-- _.~‘.. .~ 152 Student Interviews Warm-Up Let's pretend you're in math class and your teacher wants you to do page 35 of your math book. S/he M just say, "Do the problems on page 35. . ." or she might say something else, too. S/ he might say, "Do the problems on page 35 and let's see if we can all do well. If we can, we'll move on to something different." OR s/he might say, "Do the problems on page 35. You'll be ming the skills you learned last week. If you worked hard last week, you shouldn't have any trouble today." PART I Introduction: So we know that teachers have different ways of giving the same assignment. Let's pretend that your teacher wants you to do page 37 and 39 of your math book. I'd like you to listen to two statements at a time and tell me which one you think your teacher should say. 153 .cmm> yxmc gyms new Easy was: HH_2 so» .mHH_xm mmmzw gocx 30> Hazy wcmvuoqe_ w_w_ .Homccoo HHm Emcw «mm see 30% +0 >cmE so: mmm w_wmb mucmwsum MOM wucwEmumuiml menswpm .M 154 .>HH:+mLmo Emcy ow ow .«mmw wxmc cjo> so me HH_; mmmcw mx_H mEoHnoca .oow .Emzw >0ficm HH_; 30> xc_;w _ 3cm 1mEmHnocq Co mnc_x mwmzw mx_H _ 155 .tcmon c_w0>H30 mcw :0 03 P_ w3e HH_: _ .Lmama 000m >HHO0L m 00 30> %_ .5004 00 30> 0c0+00 xc_cw 0y 0>0c H>_z 30> .mecmc 0L0 mm 000m :0 00:0 05H baa 133m 0a @333010 0: ma assoem am mama 156 .0050@ 0500 >003 30> 000 00_2 _ 1:0 00000 0010 .5020 :0 000; 00 30> 0_ .xcmg 0:0 00 00 m:_000;0 >c00003 om 30> 00:; E000 000: 00_; 30> .000_xm 000:0 20:3 30> 0000 0ca0toae_ 0.0. .>0x0_33 000; 00 00_0_+ 00 00030_E om 0>00 >000 30> 157 .0000 0000000 00 00 0>00 00_; 30> .00o_0 E000 +0 000 00000 00 00m 0_000 30> 0_ u>00300000 000; .00m_0 E000 00m _ 0002 000m 0000 >00000 _ 0000 030 00000 x0_00 0E 000E >000 0030000 .0E000000 >00_00 00_0 _ .>00_00 >00000 000 0E000000 00000 00 0E00 158 .>000E >E 00 0000 0x00 00 000 000 000000 00_0_00 0000000 _ 000; 030 00300 _ 030 0000 030> 00; _ 000; 000; 000_x0 00000 0000000E_ 300V300x 00>00 0 159 L.Coding System for Statement Preferences A. Preference 0. Not preferred. 1. Preferred because of negative qualities of the 23339 statement. 2. Preferred because of positive qualities of the preferred statement. 3. Both 1 and 2.. 4. Student makes no choice. B. Reasons for Preference 0. None/not applicable. The student does not offer a reason for the preferred selection. 1. Statement sounds better/teacher being nice. Code here when the student indicates that the statement sounds better. Example: "I just like the way it sounds," or when the student mentions that the teacher is being nice, "The teacher is being nice--she's saying it in a kind way." 2. Feel good/proud about good work. Coded in this section will be statements indicating that the student made the selection because of positive affect about high quality work. Example: "It makes me feel good inside when I see my paper on the bulletin board with a star on it." 3. Likes easy problems. Student statements referring to making the selection because. . . Example: "I like easy problems" or "It's fun to do easy problems." are coded here. 4. Likes hard/tricky/challerging problems. The student makes the selection because s/he prefers difficult, tricky, or challenging problems. Example: "I think tricky problems are fun to do." or "The harder the problems are, the more I like them." 160 5. Likes enjoying problems. Code here when the student indicates that he/she likes to do problems that are enjoyable. Example: "I like to do problems that I enjoy." 6. Likes plajirg games. Coded in this section are statements that inicate the student likes to play games. Example: "Playing games is fun," or "I like to play games." 7. Need skills for real life/ future/ school. This section will be coded when the student indicates that he/she made the preference because it had practical application for real life, future, or school. Example: "I w need to know this when I grow up." or "When I go to the next grade in school, I'll need these skills." 8. Math easier in future. Code here when the student's response indicates that the preferred statement conveys that math will be easier in the future. Example: "It 5 important because math won't be hard next year." or "Math will be a lot easier next year if you work hard now." 9. Be a better student/get a better grade. Code here when the student selection was based on the feeling that s/he would get a better grade or become a better student. Examples: "If I work carefully, I'll get a better grade on my test." or "Doing tricky problems will make me a better student." 10. Important to learn/do hard problems/can learn more/think harder/be challenged. The importance of difficult tasks, and learning, thinking hard, being challenged are coded here. Here the importance of this type task is distinguished from student affect which is coded in B4, and also is different from B1 and B8 because there is no indication that the student feels s/he will need these skills for the future or that math will be easier in the future. 161 ll. Warning/information about task or time. Code here when the selection was made because the student feels the teacher is warning the students or giving them needed information about the task at hand or about time limits. Example: "She's telling us we only have 20 minutes to finish and I like that because it's kind of like a warning." or "I like her to tell me the problems are tricky because I'll know what to expect." 12., Student can pace him/herself/has choice. Here the reason for making the selection centers around the student feeling he has some control over the situation at hand. S/he can choose which page to do first or how to manage time. Example: "I'd do the harder problems on page 39 first, and save the easier problems on page 37 for later." The student can pace him/herself, "I like to know there are 20 minutes left, because then I'll know how fast I'll have to work to finish on time." 13. Problems might be easy. Code here when the selection was made because the student infers that the problems on the present task will be easy. Example: " l4. Concern for accurate work. Here the student expresses the desire to be correct or get the problems right. Example: "I will get at least ten of the problems right, so I won't have to do another page." 15. Teacher shows concern for student. Coded here are statements indicating the teacher is showing concern for the students. Example: "When the teacher says that it means she cares about us--she wants us to know that when we grow up." 16. Teacher challenging/testing/encouraging students to think hard. Statements indicating the teacher motive for making the statement is that the teacher is testing and challenging or encouraging the students to 162 think hard are coded in this section. Example: "She said that because she wants us to feel like we're sort of in a contest to see if we can all do it well." or "She's testing us to see if we can really do them." 17. Might be rewarded for good work/effort. Coded here are statements that indicate the student feels s/he may be rewarded for good work or trying. Example: "She'll let me play games if I do a really good paper." or "If I work hard, she'll put my paper on the bulletin board." 18. Good to get a break from work. Here the emphasis is on getting a break from work rather than liking to play games (coded in B6). Example: "It's good to play games because we can use some time off from working all day long." 19. Try harder to avoid negative consequences. Here the student finds it motivating to try to avoid the negative consequences of the statement. Example: "I'd work hard so I wouldn't have to do another page." or "I'd really learn that stuff so I wouldn't mess up at the grocery store or get short changed at the bank." 20. Fun to do another page. Code here any reference that student preferred the statement because s/he would like to do another page. Example: "I wouldn't mind doing another page of math at all." 21. Teacher likes themJ you will too. Students who indicate that they trust the teacher's opinion and that if the teacher says s/he likes the problems, the student believes s/he will enjoy the problems too. 22. Teacher personalizing is motivating. Code here when the student selection was based on finding the teacher's personal comments motivating. Example: "I like to know what the teacher did when s/he was my age." 163 23. Peer recognition/praise. Statements referring to making the selection because of what peers would say or think are coded here. Example: "If my paper was on the bulletin board, all my classmate would think I'm really smart." 24. Incentives for other students. Here students feel their good work would motivate other students to do good work also. Example: "If my friends saw my paper on the bulletin board, they'd want theirs up there too." 25. Parents proud/can see good work. Indication that the statement was selected because the student's parents would be pleased and may even see his/her work is coded in this category. Example: "My dad would be happy to see my paper up at conferences." 26. Other relevant-specify. Code here any respome that does not fit into one of the categories above. These responses must seem relevant to make logical sense given the question. Specify. 27. Other irrelevant-specify. Statements that are irrelevant, and indicate that the student may not have understood the task or the statement are coded here. Specify. C. Reasons for Non-Preference 0. None/ not applicable. 1. Doesn't like hard/tricky problems. Code here when the student indicates he would not choose the statement because he does not like hard or tricky problems. 2. Has nothing to do with math/sounds silly/not enough information. Code here when the student does not prefer the statement because it is irrelevant, either s/he feels the statement has nothing to do with math, 164 the statement may sound silly to the student, or s/he may say that the statement does not contain enough information. Example: "This doesn't have anything to do with math." or "This one doesn't say very much." 3. Consequences not important/unappealing. Here the student reasons that s/he does not find the consequences of the statement important or appealing. Example: "I wouldn't pick this one because I don't want to do another page." or "It doesn't matter to me if I get my paper on the bulletin board." 4. Statement is pressuring. Code here if the student says s/he would not prefer the statement because it sounds pressuring or puts pressure on him/her. Example: "I feel under pressure when the teacher says page 39 is hard." 5. Fear of failure. Code here when the statement is rejected because the student feel s/he would not be successful at the task. Example: "I don't think I could get 10 of them right." or "I'm afraid I won't get the tricky ones." 6. Relevance in remote future. The statement was not selected because there is no immediate practical application. The statement has relevance only in the remote future. Example: "I won't have to write checks or go to the grocery store until I'm older." 7. Don't learn much from easy problems. Code here when the student rejects the statement because s/he has inferred that the problems will be easy and therefore, not much will be learned. Example: "If the teacher enjoys the problems, they'll be easy. You never learn from easy problems." 8. We'll be learning them again/later. Code here when the student does not prefer the statement because s/he thinks there will be other 165 opportunities to learn this skill. Example: "If we're going to have this in math next year, I can just learn it then." or "My older brother is learning that stuff now. I'll learn it‘when I'm in his grade." 9. Should learn instead of playing games. Here the student rejects the statement because s/he feels school is not for playing games, but for learning. Example: "It's more important to learn than to play games." 10. Students might rush/be careless/not do as well as possible. The statement is rejected because the student feels compelled to rush or be careless and not do as well as s/he is capable. Example: "When the teacher says that, it makes me feel like I have to hurry and I can't do my best when I hurry." 11. Teacher doesn't mean it. Code here when the student rejects the statement because s/he is skeptical of the teacher's credibility. The student does not believe the teacher. Example: "The teacher is just saying that. I don't believe her/him." 12. Teacher is bribing you/ trying to get you to work. Code here when the student dismisses the statement because s/he feels the teacher's motive is to get students to work. The student feels the teacher is bribing him/her. Example: The teacher is just saying that to get you to work." 13. Teacher shows no concern for accurate work. The student rejects the statement because s/he feels the teacher is not showing concern for accurate work. Example: "When she says that, she just wants it done fast, she doesn't care if we get them right." 14. Students don't like what teacher likes. Code here when the statement is rejected because the student feels s/he likes different things from what the teacher likes. Example: "Just because the teacher likes it doesn't mean I'm going to like it." 166 15. Teacher not fair/mean. The statement is rejected because the student does not feel the teacher is being fair or that the teacher is not being nice. Example: "He's being mean or unfair when he says that." 16. Statement not grade appropriate. Code here when the student feels the statement would be more appropriate for a grade higher or lower than his/her grade. Example: "A teacher would say that if she were talking to first or second graders, not fourth graders." 17. Other relevant-specify. 18. Other irrelevant-specify. D. Response Classification Classify the student's reason for preference/non-preference in general terms using the following categories. Code as many as apply. 0. Can't rate. 1. Affective. The student likes/dislikes the statement because it sounds better/ silly, makes him/her feel good/bad, excited/ bored. 2. Relevance/logical appeal. The student likes/dislikes the statement because of the information it conveys regarding the importance of learning math, its utilities in the future, etc. 3. Task difficulty information. The student likes/dislikes the statement because the statement provides information about the task, e.g., "I like/dislike this statement because the assignment will be easy/hard, challenging, etc. 4. Reference to teacher motives/goals/actions. The student's response indicates that s/he is making inferences about the teacher's motives/goals from the statement. Example: "I like this one because I know the teacher will grade it easy." 167 5. Rewards and punishments. The student's statement indicates that s/he is focusing on the potential rewards or punishments that the statement conveys. Note: Code here if the student's response focuses on the reward/punishment, not merely because the statement itself refers to a reward or punishment. 6. Reaction to the teacher. The student's response indicates that s/he dislikes the statement as a reaction to his/her teacher, not the statement per se. 7. Other-specify. E. First Response Classifications If the student's response is multiply classified in D, what was the student's first response? 0. Not applicable/can't rate. 1. Affective 2. Relevance/logical appeal 3. Task difficulty information 4. Reference to teacher motives/ goal s/ actions 5. Rewards and punishments 6. Reaction to teacher 7. Other. Specify F. Does the Student Make Inferences? Does the student's response indicate that s/he is making inferences about task difficulty/ relevance/ teacher concern, etc. (e.g., if the teacher says this, it must be because the assignment is hard.) 1. No. 2. Yes. 168 G. Interviewer Repetitions How many times does the interviewer repeat the question before the student makes an initial response? (Code actual number here.) H. Interviewer Probes How many times does the interviewer probe to get a complete response? Count the number of probes after the student's initial response. NOTE: For the following two codes (I and J), consider all the instances in which each statement appears. I. Congruency of Response Does the student contradict him/herself when a statement is repeated in the same presentation (e.g., when teacher allows students to play games, it's a bribe (non-preferred); later student says: I like it when the teacher lets us play games because it's relaxing)? 0. No/can't rate. 1. Yes. Statement No. 1 Statement No. 5 Statement No. 9 2 6 10 3 7 11 11 8 12 J. Statement confusing/subject to many interpretations For each statement, rate on a 3-point scale the degree of confusion in the student as indicated by his response to multiple presentations of the statement. Indications of confusion in the student include: response that bears no relation to the statement, unique interpretation of the 169 statement, response that indicates a clear misunderstanding of the statement, etc. 1 2 3 Very Somewhat Very Confused Confused Clear Statement No. 1 Statement No. 5 Statement No. 9 2 '6 10 3 7 11 4 8 12 170 K. General Themes 0. None/can't rate. 1. Importance of acceptance/peer acceptance. Code here when a prevailing theme of student's responses is being accepted by peers. Indications that s/ he would make selections because peer could see hi s/ her work, or peers would be impressed or like him/her better if he did well are coded here. 2. Importance of parental recognition. Code here if there is a general trend toward making choices because parents would be proud of them or parents might praise or reward them for good work. 3. Importance of learning/doing well/pride in good work. Here the student's theme is more personal and internally derived. The students express a personal pride in doing well, or stress the importance of learning. 4. Dislike math. This section is coded when it becomes evident that the student's selections were based on a dislike for math. The student may frequently mention "Math isn't really my favorite subject, so I'll pick this one." 5. Likes easy work/ high success. When a student frequently suggests that s/he likes easy work or that high success is a priority, this section is coded. 6. Dislikes being pressured. Students frequently mention that pressure from teachers make them uncomfortable or that they are unable to do their best under pressure will be coded here. 7. Importance of rewards. Code here when the student frequently mentions rewards in his/her response. 171 8. Teacher manipulative/untrustworthy. When it is repeatedly mentioned by the student that the teacher cannot be trusted, or that the teacher has motives that are suspect, code this section. 9. Concern with future skills. When the general theme of the responses is that the student will need the skills for the future or that s/he is concerned about the future and how s/he will perform, this section is coded. 10. Likes challenge/hard problems. When the student makes selections because s/he enjoys a challenge or difficult problems, this section is coded. ll Likes to work/get more work. Code here when selections are based on the student's desire for more work or because s/ he enjoys the work. 12. Other. Specify. 172 M. Coding System for Part II Part 11 When would the teacher just say do the problems on page 37 and 39 and not say anything else? A. Reasons 1. It's a review. Students have worked on similar problems before, they know how to do it or its been explained before and may not need any further explanations. 2. It's a test. Since it is a test, the teacher is not allowed to help anyone, therefore, the teacher gives the problems without explanation. 3. Testing students. Teacher is trying to see if students can handle the problems without any explanations. 4. Teacher is busy/needs to go somewhere. The teacher has other things to do or has to leave the classroom for some reason (e.g., grading papers, taking care of student, see the principal, etc.) so s/he just gives the assignment. 5. Teacher is wet/class noisy/inattentive. The teacher may be in a bad mood either due to events in the class (e.g., class noisy/inattentive) or some unrelated reasons. 6. 93E. Specify 7. Can't rate. No information. B. Interviewer Repetitions. How many times does the interviewer repeat the question before the student makes an initial response? (Code actual number here) C. Interviewer Probes How many times does the interviewer probe to get a complete response? Count the number of probes after student's initial response. 173 Coding System for Part III What kinds of things could your teacher say that would make you feel like working hard in math? D. Offer Rewards The student indicates that s/he feels like working hard in math when the teacher offers a reward for completion/good work. Code the types of rewards mentioned by the student. 0. 5.9.93.- No rewards mentioned. I. Symbolic rewards. Gold stars, name on the board, hanging good work on the bulletin board. 2. Material rewards. Food, drink, money, toys, prizes and other treats. 3. Special privileges. Free time, opportunity to be in leadership roles, choice of activities, opportunity to use desired equipment. 4. Reduce work. Time off from math, fewer problems, etc. 5. Other. Specify. E. Punis hments/ Threats The student indicates that s/he feels like working hard in math when the teacher threatens him/her with negative consequences if work is not done. 0. None. No threats/punishments mentioned. 1. Loss of privileges. Student will miss recess, gym, or other activities if work is not completed or done correctly. 2. Extra time/requirements. Student will have to stay after school or otherwise spend time doing the work as a punishment or the student will have to do extra work as a punishment (extra page, more problems) if the assignment is not completed. 174 3. Long term negative consequences. Student will work hard if the teacher communicates long term negative consequences (e.g., you'll flunk, you'll be held back). 4. Other. Specify. F. Motivational Statements/ Activities 0. None. 1. It's enjoyable. Student will work hard if teacher communicates that the assignment will be fun and easy. 2. It's challenging. Student will work hard if the teacher communicates that the assignment will be hard, challenging, or tricky. 3. It's important to learn. Students will work hard if the teacher communicates that the assignment is really important for the future (It'll be on the test, need it for next year, etc.). 4. Rewards. NOTE: These two are broken down in previous coding categories. 5. Punishments. NOTE: These two are broken down in previous coding categories. 6. Math games/competition. Teacher gives students an opportunity to play math games or engages them in math competitions. This makes the student work hard. 7. Time limits/constraints. Students will work hard if teacher states a time limit or imposes time constraints for complete/accurate work. 8. Gives easy work. Teacher gives the student easy/familiar work. This makes the student work hard. 9. Teacher personal appeal. Students will work hard if the teacher makes a personal appeal (e.g., "Do this for me" or "I will be very happy if you do well," etc). The students work hard in an effort to please the teacher. 175 10. Build self concept. Students will work hard if the teacher tries to build their self concept by identifying, calling attention to, and building on strengths and successes. 11. Other relevant-specify. 12. Other irrelevant-specify. G. Rewards/ Punishment for Accuracy, Completion or Effort? When the student mentions reward/punishment, does s/he indicate whether the rewards/punishments are for completion of work, accuracy, or effort? 0. Can't rate. 1. Completion. 2. Accuracy/quality of work. 3. Effort/ hard work. H. Interviewer Repetitions How many times does the interviewer repeat the question before the student makes an initial response? I. Interviewer Probes How many times does the interviewer probe to get a complete response? 176 N. Directions for Coding Student Interviews 1. You will be coding two statements simultaneously. 2. Coding sheets for Student Preferences (Part I) consist of three sections. The first section is for codes that are specific to each pair (Codes A- H). The second section is for coding statement specific codes (Codes I-J). When coding categories in the second section, consider all instances in which a given statement appears as part of the pair. The third section (Code K) should be coded on the basis of the student's entire response to Part I (Students' preferences and rationales). 3. When entering codes on the sheets, please make sure that codes related to the two statements in each paired comparison are entered in the appropriate columns. Since two adjacent columns are used to enter codes, there is a possibility of accidentally moving the codes to another column. PLEASE BE CAREFUL. 4. Since the students may focus on only one statement of any given pair, the other statement in the pair may get coded 0 on most of the categories. However, for Category A, both statements get coded (e.g., if Statements 3 and 8 are paired and the student prefers 3, then 3 gets coded A1 or A2 and 8 gets coded A0). 5. Each time a statement appears as part of a comparison, code all parts pertaining to that statement. 6. IMPORTANT. Start coding responses associated with each comparison after reading the subject's entire response to that pair. 7. The cover sheet has an abridged version of the coding system. This sheet should be used only after you are completely familiar with the detailed description of each category. 177 Coding of the Open Ended Questions. (Parts II, III) 1. The cover sheet should be med only after you are thoroughly familiar with the detailed description of each category. 2. In the description of each category, there are examples of some typical responses that would get coded in the category, However, when coding a subject's response, make sure that the codes are consistent with the intent and meanings built into the ‘coding system. Thus, an unmual response that nevertheless embodies the key concept of defining a category should be coded in it, but a response which contains a seemingly relevant word or phrase but does not really embody the key concept should not be coded in that category. DIRECTIONS FOR RESOLVING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CODERS 1. Each coder should code the transcripts independently. 2. Mark the codes clearly on the transcripts. Since most of the coding categories are low inference categories it should be easy to mark the parts of a student's response that reflect a certain code. 3. When coding high inference categories or those categories that require rater judgments, make sure you have a clear rationale. This rationale is important when explaining this code to the other coder and helpful in resolving differences. If possible, mark sections of the response that jmtify your codes. 4. Do not discuss your coding with the other coders while you are in the process of initial coding. 5. When resolving, make sure both coders' codes are marked on a new coding sheet. This sheet should identify codes of both the coders. If there is complete agreement on any of the categories, then enter only one set of codes. 178 6. Where codes are different, each coder should explain why they coded the transcript a particular way. Through the process of discussion, come to a consensm on what codes are to be final. In each category, circle the final codes. 7. If consensm cannot be reached on particular codes, ask a third person who is familiar with the coding system to break the tie. 8. After final codes are determined for all the categories, note down the final codes on a new coding sheet. This should be done in the following way: One coder reads the codes and the other coders writes them down. This is to insure that there are no errors in the process of transferring the codes from one sheet to another. Having final codes on a new sheet also minimizes errors when the data are later transferred to computer sheets. HICHI 3 G 9N STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1293106503844