Doctoral Study Man Der Son

Walden University COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by Michael Anderson

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

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

Chief Academic Officer Denise DeZolt, Ph.D.

Walden University 2008

ABSTRACT

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary School Students by Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008 M.A., City University, 1996 B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Walden University

Walden University May 2008

ABSTRACT More pressure than ever is placed on standardized test scores. Writing scores are generally the lowest among content areas tested. This correlational mixed-methods study explored the relationship between prompt choices, student engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level students from a suburban elementary school. The study examined whether students (a) are more motivated when provided with choices, (b) perform at a higher level when more engaged or provided with choices, and 9c) what role gender plays in both writing scores and engagement variables associated with writing. The researcher used concurrent triangulation strategy for data collection on student perceptions of engagement when provided varied levels of options during writing tests. The study integrated data from student surveys, interviews, and writing test scores conducted over a three-month period. Only 24 of the 73-student population met the criteria for participation in the study. Due to the small sample size, and based on recommendations from the doctoral study committee members, the researcher used randomized test-retest measures. The measure of effect was determined using the Pearson correlation while ANOVA provided for the analysis of means and engagement levels. The study indicated relationships between writing prompts, student achievement, and perceived levels of engagement, which added new information for social change by illuminating characteristics important to student engagement for the promotion of lifelong learning across both genders. Improved test scores positively impact the community, school, and student. Increased student engagement reinforces the development of life long learning. Studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency.

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary School Students by Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008 M.A., City University, 1996 B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Walden University

Walden University MAY 2008

DEDICATION This is dedicated to Sandra Anderson. She encouraged the pursuit of this venture, helped edit along the way, and she is the only person who can understand what it took to complete this study

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY…………................................……...1 Introduction………………………………………………………........................………..1 Problem Statement…………………………………………........................……………...2 Nature of the Study………………………………………………........................………..3 Research Questions..............................................................................................................3 Purpose Statement…………………………………………….......................………….…4 Social Change......................................................................................................................5 Assumptions.........................................................................................................................5 Limitations...........................................................................................................................5 Delimitations……………………........................................................................................6 Validity................................................................................................................................6 Summary and Transition......................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………..……..……….......................…..9 Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments…………..…………..............…..9 Introduction………………………………………………..…………..................…....9 Standardized Writing Tests ...........................................................................................9 Gender…………………………………………………………..................…..……..12 Theories of Motivation………………………………………………..........…...……….15 Introduction………………………………………………………...............…...........15 Behavioral Views of Motivation…………………………………......................…....16 Social Learning Theory ……………………………………................……....…..….19 Cognitive Views of Motivation . ……………............................................................21 Humanistic Views of Motivation ………………………………….................……...25 The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation..................................................32 Other People’s Expectations …...................................................................................34 Introduction of Roles………………………………………….……...............….…..35 Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment………………..……...............….…..36 Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity…................…..…...36 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................39 Introduction: Quantitative and Qualitative Design ……………...…………...........….…39 Setting..........................................................................................................................40 Sample..........................................................................................................................41 Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................43 Research Question One................................................................................................43 Question One Hypotheses............................................................................................43 Research Question Two...............................................................................................44 Question Two Hypotheses...........................................................................................44 Research Question Three.............................................................................................45 Question Three Hypotheses.........................................................................................45

ii

Data Collection............................................................................................................45 Data Analysis...............................................................................................................47 Qualitative Design.............................................................................................................47 Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................49 Purpose.........................................................................................................................49 Method.........................................................................................................................50 Data Collection............................................................................................................50 Data Analysis...............................................................................................................51 Summary............................................................................................................................51 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA......................................52 Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................52 Research Question One................................................................................................54 Research Question Two...............................................................................................56 Research Question Three.............................................................................................59 Summary......................................................................................................................61 Qualitative design..............................................................................................................62 Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................62 Qualitative Data Analysis............................................................................................64 Summary......................................................................................................................66 Triangulation......................................................................................................................68 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............70 Introduction........................................................................................................................70 Conclusions........................................................................................................................71 No-Choice Writing Prompts........................................................................................72 Multiple-Choice Writing Prompts...............................................................................72 Open-Choice Writing Prompts....................................................................................72 Recommendations..............................................................................................................73 Summary............................................................................................................................75 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….…..……...78 APPENDIX A: LETTER...................................................................................................83 APPENDIX B: SURVEY PERMISSION.........................................................................84 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PERMISSION...................................................................86 APPENDIX D: SURVEY..................................................................................................88 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.....................................................................90 APPENDIX F: ORAL CONSENT....................................................................................92

iii

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW ASSENT...........................................................................93 APPENDIX H: SURVEY ASSENT..................................................................................95 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT....................................................................97 CURRICULUM VITAE..................................................................................................120

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. ANOVA Results Between Writing Prompts and Engagement Levels................59 Table 2. ANOVA Results Between Prompt Choices and Gender-Based Engagement Levels ................................................................................................................................61 Table 3. Comparison of Commonality Between Two Established Qualitative Analysis Approaches .......................................................................................................................65 Table 4. Categorical Interviewee Responses.....................................................................67

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement during writing prompts of different levels of choice.................................................................................57 Figure 2. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement when matched with gender during writing prompts of different levels of choice.............................................60

vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction

This is a day and age where a student’s test scores influence the perception of an educator’s professional competence. If a teacher has a group who score well on the writing, reading, and mathematical portions of a state test, the teacher receives commendation for having done a good job with the students assigned to them. If a group of students fails to meet the established standard, the teacher or school responsible for the students receives repercussions from the community, administrators, or the state board of education because the students have not performed in an acceptable manner. High-stakes, standardized test scores are even having a direct impact on property values. Hevesi (2004) stated, “There is no question that property values are directly correlated with schools' test scores” (p.1). According to Dougherty, Harrelson, Maloney, Murphy, Smith, Snow, and Zannoni, D. (2007), Our findings indicate that elementary school test scores are significantly and positively correlated with single-family home prices, controlling for house characteristics and neighborhood effects. For homes located in geographically similar neighborhoods and very close to school attendance boundaries, a 12 percentage point increase (or one standard deviation) in the number of fourthgraders meeting the state achievement test goal is associated with a 2.81% (or $5,065 increase) in the price of an average home. (p. 2) Often test standards escalate each year, based on the previous year’s group scores. This practice does not take the specific needs of the current group into consideration, nor does it factor in any unusual circumstances, such as the implementation of a new curriculum or changes in the staffing at a school. Regardless, accountability for student performance on standardized tests ultimately falls on the teacher and the school.

2

With the increased pressure to produce a class of students who can perform well on the state’s standardized test, states, districts, and local schools have spent many hours reviewing how the students have done in the past, what has worked, and what has not. Marzano (2003) stated that there is a clear connection between a student’s engagement and her or his level of achievement; and that if a student is engaged in his or her learning, that student will have a greater likelihood of content mastery (p. 144). Stiggins (2001) stated, “We cannot separate affect and achievement from one another in the classroom” (p. 328). Hawley and Rollie (2001) agree that the engaged student has a better chance of being successful; and propose that a teacher can help facilitate a high degree of motivation by utilizing a student’s knowledge base (previous knowledge based on learning or experiences), things that the student perceives as interesting, and choices made by the student (p. 17). Chapter two of this document examines standardized testing and theories of motivation in detail.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in elementary schools across the United States related to intermediate-level students consistently scoring lower on standardized writing tests than in other academic areas (National Center, 2002). According to Connell and Guzelmann (2004), the average intermediate level student is two years behind the standard in the academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) for Washington state published results for 2005-2006 stating that 57.7% of fourth-grade students met the writing proficiency standard, compared to 62.1% who met the math standard, and 82.4% who met the reading standard.

3

Nature of the Study

This mixed-methods study used a concurrent triangulation strategy to collect data on student perceptions of engaged writing, when the students were provided with varying levels of options during writing prompts, and compared these data to the standardized test scores of the same students. The study integrated data from student surveys, interviews, and writing test scores conducted concurrently over a three-month period. The use of the Pearson correlation coefficient established whether there is a relationship between level of choice and level of student engagement. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) provided for the analysis of group means and attitude levels between male and female students when the participants received varying levels of prompt options or choices on writing assignments. ANOVA also provided for the analysis between writing-test scores when compared to levels of student engagement. The data collected from the interviews was coded, synthesized, and triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and writing assessments. Research questions 1. Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate-level students in suburban elementary schools (quantitative)? 2. Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content (quantitative)?

4

3. Is there a difference in the student’s perceived level of engagement between intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content (quantitative)? 4. What variables do students associate with favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences (qualitative)? 5. How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences compare between boys and girls (qualitative)?

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this mixed-methods correlational study was to explore the relationship among choice, motivation/engagement, student perceptions, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school. A mixed-methods approach allowed for the collection of qualitative data that supported the statistical data while adding new perspectives to the area of study. One mixedmethods approach is the concurrent triangulation strategy. A concurrent triangulation strategy provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data collected during this study. Additionally, this methodology was superior due to the limited range of time the study ran. These strengths led to the selection of a mixed-methods approach. According to Creswell (2003), concurrent triangulation strategy “can result in wellvalidated and substantiated findings. In addition, the concurrent data collection results in a shorter data collection time period as compared to one of the sequential approaches” (p. 217).

5

Social Change

This study influenced social change through improved student writing test scores and defined factors for raising student motivation for male and female students. Improved test scores positively impact the community, school, and student. Increased student engagement on school related activities reinforce the development of life long learning of the student. Additionally, studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences, contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency.

Assumptions The researcher made certain assumptions about the data collection and authenticity of the results of the study. First was the assumption that students would answer survey and interview questions honestly. There was concern due to a prior working relationship with the participants of the study. The researcher was a classroom teacher in the grade-level and school where the study took place. The specific concern was that the prior relationship carried potential bias, leading to students answering survey questions based on the perception of wanting to please the researcher or their classroom teacher. Limitations Limiting factors of this study included the size of the population and sample group, in addition to the length of the study. With such a small group and with data collected over a three-month period, clear trends could have been difficult to identify. Sampling based on convenience decreases the generalizability of findings (Creswell,

6

2003). Another limitation of this study arrived by the creation of the surveys. Because the surveys have no history of prior usage, the validity has yet to be established. Moreover, there were potential limitations based on unforeseeable events outside the researcher’s control. These events might have included, but were not limited to, the participants’ home life (sleep habits, dietary factors, conflicts within the home, etc.), and unrelated life events. Delimitations Initially, this study gathered data on student perspectives about choice, engagement, and writing assignments at the intermediate level of a suburban elementary school. As the study progressed, the scope was expanded to include statistical data obtained via standardized writing tests completed by a smaller sample group. Validity One quality control method was peer debriefing. Peer debriefing can, according to Creswell (2003), “enhance the accuracy of the account” (p. 196). Throughout the study, the researcher reviewed the ongoing process with a team of preselected peers. This method began with a prestudy conference in an effort to control the quality of the study through a question-and-answer session with peers who were also in the field of education, but who had no vested interest in this study. These meetings occurred periodically to check for consistency in both methods and results. The first peer debriefing was an opportunity to present the components of the proposed study. At this stage, the group reviewed the data collection materials, including surveys, writing prompts, and interview questions. A second collaborative meeting occurred after completion of the surveys to review the group’s perception of the effectiveness and validity of the survey results. The

7

interviews required two more discussions. The first concerned a review of interview protocol, content, and participant eligibility. The second involved a post-interview review. The next peer debriefing occurred after the transcribing and codification of the interviews. Its purpose was to insure accuracy of the reporting. The final peer gathering took place after the data analysis was complete, as a last check for any irregularities or threats to the validity of the study. Concurrent triangulation The use of concurrent triangulation strategy also provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data. Concurrent triangulation strategy took place throughout the data analysis stage. Concurrent triangulation strategy can result in wellvalidated and substantiated findings, and is preferred when a study has a limited range of time (Creswell, 2003). Member checking Member checking provided an additional quality-control method. Member checks involved the researcher checking findings, interpretations, and conclusions with the participants of the study. Member checks transpired with the participants after the transcription and coding of the interviews. According to Creswell (1998), the member check method is a means to check the credibility of a researcher’s findings and interpretations (p. 202). Hatch (2002) lists both triangulation and member-checking as methods for verifying or extending data collected during a qualitative study (p. 92). In addition, triangulation in conjunction with member checking is the recommended approach to establishing the validity of a study (Creswell, 1998, p. 216).

8

Summary and Transition

There has been pressure for students to perform well on standardized writing tests. The pressure is at the national, state, local community, and individual student levels. There has also been a disparity among the writing test scores of males and female students. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among choice, engagement, student perceptions, and standardized writing test scores of intermediatelevel elementary school students. The second chapter of this document contains further references to relevant scholarly professional literature. Chapter three identifies, defines, and defends methodology and research design used for this study. The researcher reports the study’s findings in chapter four and based on the data in chapter four, conclusions are drawn and research-based recommendations are presented in chapter five.

9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments Introduction Chapter one established the importance of standardized test scores beyond the basic implications of the No Child Left Behind legislation. How well students perform on standardized tests may impact a large number of people and businesses. An entire community may experience a reaction to the published scores. Many researchers have stated that the level of student motivation or engagement on school related assignments and activities directly relate to the students’ performance on school related assessments. Chapter two of this document outlines current research in the areas of standardized writing test scores and theories on motivation. The researcher gathered literature pertaining to research findings in the areas of standardized writing tests, issues involved with standardized writing assessments, and student motivation through exhaustive database searches. Standardized Writing Tests

The arguments for and against standardized testing have been voiced for years. One stance is that standardized testing provides a way to hold students and teachers accountable for student learning and improvement. The other side of the argument is concerned with potential negative impacting on students and educational systems. In the mid 1970s, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) called for discontinuing standardized testing in elementary schools. Their position paper led to a nationwide debate over potential adverse effects of standardized testing. During that

10

period educators began looking for alternatives to standardized testing that were adaptable to student needs and open to student creativity and choice (Perrone, 1991). In 1983, the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education published the report, A Nation at Risk, which expressed concern about the educational performance of public schools in America. The release of this document led to a refocusing of attention on implementing and maintaining standardized tests (Perrone, 1991). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 created legal mandate to measure student achievement via standardized testing at the state level. The NCLB Act sets deadlines for states to develop and implement student testing, revamp accountability systems, and insure that every teacher is highly qualified in the subject area the teacher teaches. NCLB also requires annual demonstration of progress in raising the percentage of students meeting proficiency standards in reading and math (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Both sides of the argument for and against standardized writing tests proclaim their primary focus is improving student learning and wellbeing in the academic arena.

Newkirk (2002) made a strong point for those who believe that society is doing more harm than good in its attempt to make students focus their reading, writing, mathematic, and content areas skills in an attempt to meet state standards, instead of learning for the joy of knowledge. Newkirk asserted that being a lifelong learner requires more than following writing prompts and grading work according to rubrics. In addition, the topics students are writing about tend to be restricted to our current system of expectations. An example of an exemplary practice that Newkirk takes from Educational

11

Leadership magazine (2000, p. 39) is a lesson done with kindergarteners that involved scoring according to a rubric. In the lesson, the teacher directed students to draw a picture of what they see outside the classroom window. Afterwards she identifies the things she sees outside and then drew a picture that represents those things. Next, the students’ helped the teacher assign a numbered score of 1-4 to the student samples. The numbered score represented the scale of “same” things the student samples contained that the teacher also drew. Newkirk (2002) said that he finds it difficult to imagine a more developmentally inappropriate task. “At an age where the children’s art is wonderfully idiosyncratic, this instruction pushes them into a conventionalized, schematic, pattern” (p. 188). Hillocks (2002) drew a similar conclusion as Newkirk (2002), however Hillocks’ (2002) research was limited to a focus on standardized writing tests. After a study that involved K-12 writing assessments in five states Hillock (2002) concludes, “Not only do most standardized tests fail to improve writing, they actually have harmful implications” (p.5). It was Hillock’s observation that when presented with high-stakes standardized writing tests, teachers and/or schools tend to “teach to the test.” According to Hillock (2002), teaching to the test “encourages the learning of vacuous thinking, thinking without substance” (p.6). Harwayne (2001) took a different approach when it comes to standardized writing tests. While acknowledging the impact scores from standardized tests have, Harwayne (2001) encourages an outlook that incorporates both choice and non-choice options in writing instruction.

12

Today, with so many high-stakes pressures surrounding them, teachers need to maintain their sense of ownership and creativity and not become swallowed up by outsiders’ agendas. Yes, we must prepare our children to do the kind of writing that helps them pass the required standardized tests, but we must maintain control of the amount of time we devote to such preparations, never allowing test preparations to become the mainstay of out teaching lives. We cannot allow the movement toward standardization of teaching to eliminate energizing possibilities. Then too, when standardized testing requires specific genres, we must hold to the theory that when life gives you lemons you make lemonade. (p. 286) Bowers (1989) suggested the use of performance-based assessment, such as portfolios or a cumulative collection of work samples, as an alternative to standardized testing. Bowers (1989) stated that alternatives to standardized writing tests should be sought because, “When tests are constructed in this [standardized] manner, active skills, such as creative writing, speaking, acting, drawing, constructing, repairing, and thinking creatively are automatically relegated to a second-class status” (p.1). Due to the nature of this study, the researcher will collect writing test data from both standardized and nonstandardized writing assessments. Gender According to both Woolfolk (1987) and Forsyth et al. (1993), there are no overall differences between the scores of elementary aged girls and boys on standardized tests designed to measure general intelligence. However, during the test design stage, developers insure gender-neutrality. This might mean eliminating an item that seems to favor one gender over the other, or it might mean adding items that favor the other gender in an attempt to balance the assessment. On the other hand, though there is not a significant difference in IQ, there does tend to be a gap in the types of questions on which girls and boys excel. In particular, girls test better when the item relates to verbal ability

13

and boys tend to favor the items that have to do with visual and special tasks (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). It is possible that there are biologically based gender differences in specific mental abilities (Woolfolk, 1987). Connell and Guzelmann (2004) state that research has shown a significant difference in the way boys and girls use the different hemispheres of their brains: In short, many girls have an advantage by being able to use their left-hemisphere strengths in the early grades by speaking, reading, and writing. The righthemisphere strengths of girls enable them to feel empathy and to better understand and reflect the feelings of their teachers and peers. On the other hand, boys tend to have an advantage in their left-hemisphere by being able to recall facts and rules and categories. Their right-brain strengths encompass visualspatial and visual-motor skills, which enable boys to excel in topics like geography, science, and math. (p. 2) This indicates there is a biological factor that influences how boys and girls score on standardized tests. There are those, however, who believe this gap is more closely related to society’s influence on gender identities and sex-role stereotypes than it is to actual biological ability (Huston, 1983). These influences include cultural stereotypes and influences that children experience while growing up. Though it is clear that a child’s primary caregiver(s) and peers play a direct role in how that child perceives his or her gender-based expectations there have been studies that suggest the gender gap is due, at least in part, to gender roles portrayed in movies, video game, music, books, and on television. Virtually every study of the content of television programs in particular has found disparity between the genders and that roles and behavior are stereotyped (Huston, 1983). Even toy commercials reinforce gender differences and expectations. “High levels of inanimate action, frequent changes to new scenes, rapid cuts, sound effects, and loud

14

lively music typify boys’ ads. Moderate levels of action, few scene changes, fades, dissolves, and soft tinkle music typify girls’ ads” (Huston, 1983, p.1). Research has indicated that most elementary-school curriculum emphasizes the left-brained skills of reading, writing, and speaking, which tends to develop at a slower rate with boys than with girls, and that often boys are expected to be successful on standards that favor girls (Connell and Guzelmann, 2004). “Boys are expected to sit still, speak articulately, write legibly, work in groups, color between the lines, and be neat and organized” (p. 2). According to Pollack (1999), society has placed a code of expectations upon boys concerning how they act, how they display their emotions, and how they learn. This code, reinforced by peers, parents, and teachers, requires that boys do not show their true feelings, and act cool. The way most of our school culture is established leads to problems for boys who feel pressured to follow this code. It makes it very difficult for them to seek help if they need it, especially if it is in a content area and they are having trouble comprehending the subject matter. Instead of asking their teacher for help, they become frustrated, distracted, restless, and eventually end up getting reprimanded (Pollack, 1999). Over time, and with repeated instances, boys who follow this unwritten code begin to believe that they cannot be successful, and that school is not a fun and enriching place. Many of these boys become depressed and develop a low self-esteem before they even have a chance to realize their strong points. This could lead to a continued pattern of failure (Pollack, 1999). Another problem that occurs involves inequities of teacher attention. According to Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (1998), teacher’s generally view girls as having good behavior and a desire to please their teacher, which can lead to less

15

one-on-one teacher-student contact time. On the other hand, boys received more attention than girls did on average, because teachers considered boys more likely to have discipline problems or poor work habits (p. 46-47). Newkirk (2002) said that this additional attention from the teacher is counter-productive for boys. He makes the claim that it reinforces negative behavior and that the results is a rewarding of the “troublemaker or clown” by providing them with an audience (p.33). Based on this information it looks as if educators are expecting quite a bit of conformity from the boys in the classroom, while not necessarily meeting their gender specific needs. Moreover, in some cases the system may even be perpetuating a cycle of poor performance, behavior, and a lack of drive for school related success. Theories of Motivation Introduction Many factors influence whether students in a classroom will or will not be motivated to learn. It is clear that no single theory or interpretation of motivation explains all characteristics of student motivation or engagement. Different theories, however, present understanding as to why some students, in a given learning situation, are more likely to want to learn than other students are in the same environment. Similarly, each theory presented in this section may add to an overall understanding of motivating students in the classroom. The typical definition of motivation is something that initiates, invigorates, or directs an individual’s behavior towards action (Weber, 1984). Because this definition is so general, researchers have focused on three basic questions. First, what is it that causes

16

a person to initiate action? Second, what causes a person to progress toward a specific goal? Third, what causes a person to continue their attempts to achieve a given goal? There are two main schools of thought when it comes to explaining the questions as to how or why people are motivated. The first general category argues that motivation comes from extrinsic forces (those outside a person); typically meaning external consequences, incentives, or rewards. The second school of thought proposes that the source of motivation for a person is intrinsic, or comes from within. These two broad schools of thought, pertaining to motivation, fall into one of three classifications that are more specific: behavioral, cognitive, and humanistic views of motivation (Woolfolk, 1987). Behavioral Views of Motivation According to the behavioral view, learning is an observable change in behavior that is relatively permanent (Forsyth, Hansen, Schickedanz & Schickedanz, 1993). These changes are generally believed to take place through four different learning processes: contiguity (learning through simple associations), classical conditioning (automatic responses to stimuli), operant conditioning (controlling the consequences of behavior), and observational learning (learning through observing others). These four learning processes involve varying degrees of stimuli, from simple associations and observations to positive and negative reinforcements, in an attempt to produce a desired action, reaction, or behavioral outcome. The behaviorist’s theory, based on the concept that people have basic physiological needs that motivate us, asserts that learning occurs best with the use of extrinsic rewards and/or consequences. Two main branches stem from the category of behaviorism; classical and operant conditioning (Forsyth, et al., 1993).

17

Classical conditioning. Classical Conditioning is a type of learning made famous by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). Through a series of experiments with canines, Pavlov showed that under certain circumstances these animals could learn to provide a desired response to external stimuli. The gist of the experiment is this: Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response. Then he began ringing a bell just before presenting the food to the dogs. After repeating this process numerous times, the dogs began to salivate when the bell sounded, even if the food was not present. In this regard, the subjects learned to associate the sound of the bell with the presentation of the food and this manifested the same physiological responses as if the food had in fact been present (Forsyth, et al., 1993). The result of this form of conditioning is that responses associated with certain stimuli can be used to direct behavior. According to Corpus and Wilson (2001), applications of classical conditioning can involve making activities fun, so that students associate learning experiences with positive responses. However, in contrast to the positive potential, the authors point out that if the student becomes conditioned to associate negative experiences with school related activities, it can lead to the developing of fears or phobias for that student. If a student perceives that a given activity or environment is producing undesirable stimuli they will be inclined to evoke a negative response. An example of this phenomenon may be a student who develops chronic stomachaches during test taking. Regardless of his or her ability or skill level in a given area, the student may perceive the discomfort based upon previous negative experiences associated with testing or increased levels of stress. Operant conditioning. Skinner (1953) believed that the principles of classical conditioning could only account for a certain amount of learned behaviors. For example,

18

classical conditioning may describe how existing behaviors is paired with new stimuli, but not how new behaviors are learned. It was Skinner’s observation that many behaviors are not simply responses to stimuli; but in fact were deliberate actions. What this means is that while Pavlov and classical conditioning is concerned with stimuli that occurred before the behavior, Skinner researched the possibility that sometimes the stimuli that occurs after the behavior is the influencing factor. Operant conditioning involves control of the consequences of, as opposed to controlling the stimuli leading up to, the behavior. During his studies, Skinner observed that consequences brought on by a specific behavior could be pleasant (positive reinforcement) or negative (negative reinforcement). The application of these reinforcements provided incentive to either increase a desired behavior, or decrease an undesired behavior. This process of reinforcing behaviors based on desired outcomes is shaping (Forsyth et al., 1993). Many behavioral learning theorists developed methods of behavior modification under the theory that students are motivated to complete tasks based on the promise of a reward (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). Some examples of different rewards include grades, tokens, and special privileges. In the classroom setting, the teacher may use this system of motivation to condition students to exhibit specific behaviors by reinforcing those desired behaviors with rewards. This might involve a certificate of achievement, free choice time after the completion of a designated assignment, or even the acquiring of points used toward the receiving of a larger reward, like a pizza party or lunch with the teacher. Some researchers are saying that the problem with operant conditioning is when a person is conditioned to respond to external stimuli in one area, that same person may not

19

respond as desired in other areas, unless similar rewards are offered (Corpus & Wilson, 2001; Johnson, 1999; Woolfolk, 1987). For example, though this does not apply to every situation, if a student is consistently reinforced with money, praise, or privileges for doing well in sports, but receives little or no recognition for their academic work, the student will likely put more effort into his or her pursuit of playing sports than that student will apply towards schoolwork. Every individual circumstance may involve multiple factors that play a role in effecting the student’s motivation. Motivation based on external rewards, that have little or nothing to do with the learning process itself, are considered extrinsic in nature. This is not to imply that the behavioral view of motivation only focuses on reinforcement and consequences. The work of Bandura (1977, 1986) and social learning theorists broadened the traditional view of behavioral motivation to include some flexibility for cognitive factors. Some examples of these include such cognitive influences as avoidance, self-efficacy, and personal expectations (Corpus & Wilson, 2001; Hawley, 2002; Woolfolk, 1997). This change in views led to the development of the social learning theory. Social Learning Theory Bandura (1977, 1986) called attention to the importance of observation, imitation, and the expectation of reinforcement, which a person receives when that person sees someone else receiving rewards for a particular behavior. While studying the way people self manage, Bandura developed the theory of social learning and self-efficacy (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). This theory suggested that there are several basic sources of motivation. Additionally, one factor in determining the motivational level of an individual toward a

20

given task is bias on the part of the subject as to whether or not they can be successful at completing said task. Hawley (2002) supports this theory by stating, “The students’ beliefs about their ability to achieve some goal or execute some task-related activity are at least as influential in learning outcomes as their actual abilities” (p. 17). Another source of motivation, according to Bandura (1993), is personal goalsetting. The goals that people set become their standards for assessing personal abilities. This relates to self-efficacy, which plays a role in determining the goals that a person will attempt to reach. As a person progresses toward achieving a goal, he or she may envision the positive outcomes of completion, or the negative outcomes of failure. Whether or not the individual achieves their envisioned goal causes them to adjust their perception of their abilities in a given area. This leads to a circular system where by a person’s perceptions of their abilities affect their goal-setting, and in turn, a person’s outcome with their attempts to achieve their goals affect their perception of their abilities, and the cycle repeats. Woolfolk (1987) adds an important point to this by stating that, “Goals that are specific, moderately difficult, and likely to be reached in the near future tend to enhance motivation and persistence” (p. 314). Finally, social learning theory states that a person might be motivated to achieve based upon admiration and respect for someone held in high regard. In addition, a person who observes other people (older siblings, classmates, or friends) obtaining benefits or rewards for behaving in a certain way may be motivated to imitate those actions to receive a similar reinforcement. Likewise, a person may feel a sense of discouragement or disdain by observing the success of others, if the person is unable to be successful. Ames (1992) pointed out that both vicarious reinforcement and direct reinforcement can

21

raise or lower an individual’s sense of self-efficacy in regards to a specific task or area, which in turn leads to a higher or lower degree of motivation. Cognitive Views of Motivation Cognitive views emphasize that the way people think about themselves and their environment influences their behavior. Stipek (1988) suggested that the behavioral choices a person makes fall into one of four categories: a person’s beliefs concerning the nature of cognitive ability, the need to create an ordered and reasonable knowledge base, a person’s expectations for success at a given task, and the factors that a person believes will account for success, or failure. One of the central beliefs in the cognitive view of motivation is that people do not only behave in response to external and physical stimuli, but that individuals also behave based on personal perception of the stimuli. For example, the individual's thought process is a factor in determining the level of motivation and the goals that a person sets. This is in contrast to the behavioral point of view because it proposes that there are intrinsic (internal) factors in a person’s motivation. Some examples of these intrinsic forces are curiosity, the satisfaction of learning for learning’s sake, and a person’s sense of accomplishment. This leads to a theory of behavior based on intrinsic motivation, in order to search out understanding, causes, and balance in the perceived environment of the individual, even if the course of action results in the forgoing of physical needs or desires, such as hunger or sex. Some cognitive theorists propose that people have a basic need to understand their environment. This leads to the intrinsic drive to be competent when coping with said environment (Woolfolk, 1987). The inherent desire for proficiency in an environment relates to Piaget’s (1969) theory of equilibration, which stated that people are motivated

22

by a desire for balance between new knowledge and established perceptions. Piaget proposed that a person might reach this balance either by a process of assimilation, relating a new experience to an existing scheme, or by accommodation, modifying an existing scheme to adjust for the new experience (Forsyth et al., 2005). Along similar lines, Festiner (1957) developed his theory of cognitive dissonance, which stated that if a person has a conflict between two schemes, beliefs, or actions, the individual will be motivated to resolve the clash or inconsistency. What this implies is that if there is an appropriate amount of disequilibrium a person will be motivated to change something due to their need for maintaining balance within his or her environment. Another cognitive model, or approach, is expectancy theory (Huitt, 2001). This theory uses the following formula: Motivation equals expectancy multiplied by instrumentality multiplied by value. Expectancy is a persons’ perceived probability of success; instrumentality is when the person has perceived connection between success and reward; and value (or valance) is the worth the individual places on obtaining a goal. Because these factors multiply with each other to arrive at common product, this theory proposes that a low integer in one area will result in a lower level of motivation. Consequently, all three factors must be present for motivation to occur. In other words, if a person believes that he or she cannot be successful in a course of action, or if the person does not perceive a connection between action and success, or if the person does not perceive a value resulting from successful completion of the activity, then the persons’ motivation to engage in the given task is diminished. Likewise, according to this theory, in order to have a high level of motivation on a given task, all three values must be present for the individual. The individual therefore must perceive the possibility of

23

success, the connection between their actions and the potential successful outcome, and a value to the assignment to have a high level of motivation. A teacher can accomplish this by helping students choose goals that are of value to the student, clearly stated, and have a reasonable chance of being successfully completed. In addition to this, students should experience being successful on a regular basis in order for them to maintain the perception that they can be successful learners. A different cognitive theory that deals with motivation is that of attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Attribution theory describes how a person’s excuses, justifications, and explanations influence motivation. This theory proposes that everyone tries to explain causes for success or failure using certain attributions. These attributions are internal or external, and either under the person’s control, or not under personal control. For example, innate ability is an internal cause that is uncontrollable. Effort is an internal cause that an individual can control, whereas the difficulty of a given task has an external locus of control and is an uncontrollable cause of success or failure for the individual. According to Woolfolk (1987), people will usually try to justify their failures or their success to themselves. This may mean that a person attributes the cause of their failure to either internal or external factors; and people who attribute their failures to a lack of effort usually focus on building strategies for future success. Ames (1985) drew the same conclusion and adds to it that, “This is a positive, adaptive response, one likely to lead to achievement, pride, and a greater sense of control” (p. 268). The potential for problems arise, however, when people attribute failure to internal and uncontrollable causes. This can lead to the person believing that he or she is incapable of being successful in a given area or on a specific task. If this course of action continues, the

24

person can even develop a learned helplessness. This is the sense that nothing the individual does will matter, and is destined to fail in achieving personal goals (Ames, 1985). When applying the attribution theory of motivation to the classroom Huitt (2001) stated: In a teaching/learning environment, it is important to assist the learner to develop a self-attribution explanation of effort (internal, control). If the person has an attribution of ability (internal, no control) as soon as the individual has trouble in the learning process, he or she will decrease appropriate learning behavior. If the person has an external attribution, then nothing the person can do will help that individual in a learning situation. In this case, there is nothing to be done by the individual when learning problems occur. (p. 4)

Because the notion of individual perception is at the heart of attribution theory, it is important to help people believe that they can be successful. When people believe that they can successfully complete a given task, even if they do not have the ability to do so, people will act on that belief. On the other hand, if a person believes that he or she cannot be successful, the person will have little or no motivation to try at an attempt toward goal completion. According to Woolfolk (1987) there is no substitute for continuing success, and that in order to keep making attempts towards the successful completion of difficult goals, a person must be successful a good portion of the time. In addition to the reward of succeeding, an individual needs to be able to attribute some of that success to his or her own efforts (p. 317). One strategy that helps some people with their motivational needs on certain tasks involves emphasizing a persons’ progress to date on a specific task or in a particular area. For example, even if a student has not achieved his or her end goal of memorizing multiplication tables to a certain point, a teacher may have the student reflect upon the facts the student has memorized. Doing this, while stressing the connections

25

between past efforts and past accomplishments, presents that student with examples of previous successes in order to help the student set goals for new challenges. During this process, the student has the opportunity to reflect upon successes, even if the main goals have not yet been met (Woolfolk, 1987). Humanistic Views of Motivation Humanism is a broad category of philosophies that avow the worth of people, based on the capacity to determine right and wrong by appeal to reason (Weber, 1984). The humanistic views of motivation stress personal freedom, self-determination, and choice. As with the cognitive views of motivation, the humanistic models emphasis intrinsic motivation. Many humanistic theorists stress the role of needs as being central to a persons’ motivation. According to Kolesnik (1978) a need is defined as “any type of deficiency in the human organism or the absence of anything the person requires, or thinks he requires, for his overall well-being” (p. 149). From this perspective, people are always moving towards goals that they perceive as being helpful in meeting their needs. The individualistic nature of these needs provides the opportunity for the constructivist approach in the classroom. Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge, skills, needs, and desires that the individual learner bring to the learning environment. Constructivism is the theory that the construction of new learning is a combination of new information, prior knowledge, and the readiness of the individual. According to the constructivist approach, the individual student chooses what new learning to accept and how the new ideas will fit into their established view of the world (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).

26

Maslow (1968) referred to need gratification as the most important factor in determining a persons’ motivation. Maslow stated, “The single, holistic principle that binds together the multiplicity of human motives is the tendency for a new and higher need to emerge as the lower need fulfills itself by being sufficiently gratified” (p. 55). Maslow added to his conclusion by developing a hierarchy of needs that consists of five levels. In this list, the needs at the bottom are more crucial for a persons’ survival and an individual will meet them first. A person will only move onto higher-level needs after meeting the lower-level needs. If a person is not meeting the most basic needs for survival, there will not be motivation to address needs that are less crucial. According to this theory, the individual is in a continuing state of flux in an attempt to find a balance or equilibrium. If at any point a lower need ceases to be satisfied, a person will abandon the higher needs and adjust efforts towards satisfying the lower one. The first four needs in ascending order are physiological, safety, love, and belonging. Maslow referred to these needs as deficiency needs, because a person is only motivated to satisfy them when the needs are unmet to some degree. Self-actualization (self-fulfillment) is the fifth need in this theory. By contrast, Maslow (1968) considered self-actualization a growth need, because people are constantly trying to satisfy it. In addition to the five basic needs, Maslow (1968) contends that there are cognitive (the need to learn and understand) and aesthetic (the need for order or accord) needs which play a critical role in satisfying the needs of the hierarchy. He emphasizes this point by stressing that such environmental conditions as the freedom to learn, fairness, consistency, and order are crucial because their deficiency makes satisfying the five basic needs more difficult (Maslow, 1968).

27

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory has significant implications for motivation in the educational setting. According to Maslow’s theory, if a student comes to school sick, hungry, or hurt that the student is less likely to be motivated towards learning, than if the student comes to school having had those needs met. Maslow’s theory also stresses that if the student finds the classroom to be a fearful and unpredictable place the student is more likely to be more concerned with safely and security than with education. In addition, Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy can offer insight into the choices a student makes. Their drive to satisfy low-level needs may come into conflict with their teachers’ expectations. Woolfolk (1987) said that one way to cope with this is to “consider the factors that influence motivation at different times in the learning process itself” (p. 319). Wlodkowski (1981) suggested that by asking questions prior to beginning any learning activity a teacher can plan to meet the students’ needs. Questions, such as how can I foster a positive attitude towards learning during this activity; or what special needs do my students have at this time, can help facilitate a learning environment that meets students’ needs and cuts down on conflicts related to expectations. Fetterman & Rohrkemper (1986) suggested that teachers can “create a psychologically safer class environment where wrong answers and mistakes can become occasions for learning, for probing the thinking behind the answers, instead of simply occasions for criticism” (p. 2). Achievement motivation theory. Atkinson (1964) was one of the first theorists to concentrate on the study of why some people are motivated to achieve for the purpose of achievement itself. Atkinson noted that people have two drives (motivating forces) in the area of achievement, and that these two drives are always at odds with one another. These opposing areas are, the endeavor to be successful and the fear (or avoidance) of failure.

28

Because these factors are always competing, a person’s behavior or course of action can differ from one situation to the next. For example, if an individuals’ need to achieve in a particular activity is greater than the need to avoid failure, the resultant motivation will be to take risks in an attempt to be successful at the activity. On the other hand, if the individuals’ need to avoid failure is greater, the activity becomes threatening, which results in behavior (motivation) to avoid the activity. According to Atkinson (1964), people who have a high need for achievement expect to be successful with a more consistent rate that those who are failure avoidant. Most of these (high-need) people expect, or anticipate, a feeling of satisfaction in achievement prior to having completed a task. When given a choice, these people with a high-need for achievement, will pursue reasonably challenging tasks as those types of tasks present a sense of balance between challenge and the expectation of success. In contrast, the person who has a low-need for achievement will avoid those tasks that are moderately challenging because fear of failure offsets the expectation of success. Failure-avoidant people choose tasks that either offer a high likelihood of success, due to a low level of challenge, or are difficult enough that there is very little probability for success. For these people the goal itself is an intimidating factor. According to Huitt (2001), achievement motivation theory involves three separate types of goal-based theories. He referred to them as mastery, performance, and social goals. Mastery goals are learning goals that apply to a persons’ motivation to improve proficiency in a given area. Mastery goals can also describe an individual’s drive to master new knowledge or skills. Performance goals (also called ego-involvement goals) apply to a persons’ motivation to achieve, or be successful at, standards-based activities.

29

This might manifest as a competitive nature or as a drive to do better than others might. Social goals are those tasks where people are motivated to focus on relationships with other people (p. 6). People who are motivated by a mastery goal orientation are usually successful and see themselves as capable. These people fall into the high-need for achievement category, and typically take risks or choose relatively challenging goals (Woolfolk, 1987). Huitt (2001) said, “In the context of school learning, which involves operating in a relatively structured environment, students with mastery goals outperform students with either performance or social goals” (p. 6). However, Huitt made the point that it is “important for people to have a balance of all three types of goals if they are to be highly successful in life” (p. 7). In contrast, performance goals are ones where the purpose is to achieve or demonstrate one’s proficiency or ability on a task or in a given area. The person who is motivated towards performance goals defines their success based upon comparing the results of their achievement against that of their peers. In this regard, people will avoid tasks that give them too great a challenge because they are motivated to appear more competent than their comparison group. This can eventually lead to academic struggles and failure avoidance (Ames, 1992). Social goals represent a person's perceptions about the social factors for trying (or not trying) to achieve a task. According to Ames (1992), people strive to be successful in a given task in order to be a productive member of society; bring pride and honor to their family unit, or gain the approval (respect) of peers or people the individual respects. Thus, the focus of social goals can vary from person to person. In addition to this, the

30

result of an individual’s effort or ability might not correlate with their degree of success due to the external nature of the determining factors’ locus of control. Control theory and locus of control. Most classroom management systems indicate that the control over how and what students learn stems from the classroom teacher (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). In these settings, the teacher attempts to control the students and the learning process. Recent studies have shown, however, that student motivation and achievement increases when students have choices or options as a way to meet their educational needs (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Glasser, 1990; Corpus & Wilson, 2001).

Glasser (1986) contended that intrinsic stimuli cause a person’s behavior. His theory (choice theory) stated that the motivation behind a person’s behavior is the wants or needs of the individual at any given time. Glasser (1990) added to the theory by stating that if we are to “understand what motivation actually is, it is necessary first to understand that control theory contends that all human beings are born with five basic needs built into their genetic structure: survival, love, power, fun, and freedom” (p. 43). Glasser (1990) stressed that no matter what extrinsic motivators are used, some people will exercise their need for power or control and may lack motivation if those people do not agree with the value of the given goal. When a person perceives to be in control over their learning, it increases their belief in their own ability to be successful. In this regard, the focal point, or locus of control, is the motivating factor for a person. If the individual perceives that the motivating force is intrinsic, the person might believe that they were successful or failed due to his or her effort or ability. If a student perceives the force

31

behind the motivation as external, the person might believe that any success or failure experienced was not due to his or her effort or ability, but to some outside force (Glasser, 1990).

The important factor here is the perceptions of the cause for success or failure. Stiggins (2001) suggested that this aspect of motivation is “a sufficiently important part of academic success to justify considering separately” (p. 328). According to this theory, one way to assist a person with the level of motivation is to work with the individual in a noncoercive manner. Glasser (1990) referred to this as being a lead-manager as opposed to being a boss when attempting to direct a person’s course of action. He proposes that the lead-manager type of motivator assists by helping the individual see the connection between efforts and level of success. In contrast to this is the boss-manager motivator who relies on external stimuli in an attempt to motivate or coerce others into taking a desired action. Corpus and Wilson (2001), said that while many people still use external stimuli in an attempt to motivate, the result is usually “a short term positive effect with possible long-term negative results” (p. 3). However, the argument many current researchers are making is that those people who perceive themselves as being in control of their own outcomes, are more inclined to be successful (Glasser, 1990; Schlechty, 2002; Stiggins, 2001). According to this theory, when individuals are appropriately challenged, view a goal as worthwhile, believe that they have a choice in the setting of the goal, and perceive that their efforts will have a direct influence on the outcome, they will have increased intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and confidence that they can be successful.

32

The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation Cooperative grouping is a model where by people put effort towards accomplishing shared goals. In this situation, what is beneficial for one person in the group is beneficial for the whole, and vice versa. Cooperative arrangements lead people to utilize effort and cooperation as the primary focus of motivation. In a cooperative atmosphere, people are motivated out of a sense of obligation to the group with whom they are working. This leads to a system of motivation characterized by positive interdependence due to the outcome for the individual being the same as, and dependent upon, the outcome for the other members of the group. According to Glasser (1990), motivation and achievement tend to be highest for activities that require a team effort. A problem that can arise when using cooperative grouping is that it can lead to competitive motivation between groups. Johnson and Johnson (1995) drew the conclusions that competitive goal arrangements can result in a situation of negative interdependence. Situations where people are motivated to accomplish something at the expense of someone else, characterize the problem. Typically, this occurs when people view the failure of other people as the successful outcome to a task. These perceptions may lead some people toward a failure avoidance approach when working in competitive groups (Ames, 1985). One way to counteract the negative effects of cooperative competition, according to Linnenbrink (2005), is to focus goals “around relative improvements between groups rather than relative performance” (p. 16). A strategy to accomplish this involves the utilization of tasks that have multiple solutions, which grant competitive groups a sense of autonomy. In this regard, cooperative groups are not

33

benefiting from another group’s failure, and the success or failure of their group is independent of the accomplishments of other groups. Another problematic situation that has potential to occur with cooperative grouping is that of inequity amongst the group members that might occur in two distinct areas. The first is the potential problem that involves equality of effort. The perception that some group members are putting forth greater effort than other group members can lead to resentments within the group and or a decrease in effort on the part of those who felt they were working harder. The second problem is that, even though a group can be successful as a whole, it does not mean that every member of the group benefits equally (Woolfolk, 1987). This stems from the individualistic nature of the learners in any given learning situation. There are precautions, however, that teachers can take in an effort to counteract these potential issues. An attempt to remedy the first condition by preassigning sub-tasks within the group has been a solution offered by some researchers (Woolfolk, 1987). Another way to assist group members in this area is to monitor their progress and levels of individual effort to make sure that each person is contributing equally. Finally, if the individuals within the collaborative grouping have separate but interconnected learning goals, a person can benefit based upon their own needs. Slavin (1995) developed a system called Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) that addresses both of these issues. STAD is a system based on predefined teams with a mix of abilities, gender, and background experiences. Within this system, a motivator calculates a score for each individual in the group, based on their ability and expected level of participation towards the group’s achievement goal. This is similar to a tiered system where group members have differing levels of expectations (or goals) even

34

though the group’s final goal is cooperative in nature. In this way, those members with less ability can still be successful members of the team; and goes toward addressing the inequities listed above, as well as the issue of individual benefit. As long as the approach to cooperative grouping involves a system where the individual members still have a perception of choice and appropriate goals that can be achieved, the value for the individual has the potential to remain intrinsic. Other People’s Expectations Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted landmark research pertaining to the study of causal relationships between teacher expectations and student achievement. For this study, the researchers selected students at random and created nonfactual learning profiles for the students that either said the student would do well or poorly on their schoolwork. Teachers, not having had any prior experience with the individual students, where then presented with this biased information. The breakthrough discovery was, that if teachers believed students would make significant academic gains, then the students had an increased potential for doing so. This led to the presentation of data that suggested a nature of self-fulfilling actions, based upon the teacher’s predefined expectations. One of the problems with a causal relationship of this nature is that it may, or may not, be based upon a person’s actual ability. According to Woolfolk (1987), this means, “a teacher’s incorrect beliefs about students’ abilities or behaviors in some way bring the very behaviors the teacher expects” (p. 331). Brophy (1998) suggested that there are two types of expectation, which have an effect upon a person’s motivation. The first one is the self-fulfilling expectation mentioned above, where the bias of expectation may be incorrect. The other is the

35

expectation drawn after sufficient assessment pertaining to the individual and the situation has occurred. This second type has a greater chance of accurately assessing an individual’s abilities, and needs. One potential problem can occur when the person forming the expectations has not maintained pace with the individual’s actual progress. For a teacher this could mean that a student’s goals are no longer appropriate. Brophy (1998) stresses that this inconsistency in evaluation has the potential to lead back to maintaining an inaccurate expectation, which can become self-fulfilling. Introduction of Roles Motivation is the inner drive, arousal, selection, intention, or direction that moves a person towards action or causes them to act in a certain way. When using these criteria to judge whether a student is motivated one needs to remember that as long as a student sets goals and puts forth a measurable amount of effort towards achieving those goals, that the student is, by definition, motivated. The problem arises when the mental image a student’s teacher has of how that motivation should look, and in which direction the action should be taking place, is different from the choices made by the student. This means that in a given situation a student may not be motivated to behave the way the teacher would prefer. Because educators are encouraged to promote motivation that is intrinsic in nature, the teacher in the above situation cannot directly control the student’s motivation. What the teacher can do, with the help of the various motivational theories covered in this paper, is to develop a purposeful plan with the intention of influencing the student. Ultimately, the teacher must attempt to guide the student’s actions towards a desirable result. This is similar to the way a rudder works on a sailboat. The wind provides the

36

force (the power to move toward action) and the rudder helps by steering the boat in the desired direction. Some ways a teacher can accomplish this is by creating an atmosphere that fosters curiosity, student choice, and cooperation, by helping students set their own goals that they perceive as both attainable and valuable, and by providing clear expectations related to the individual needs of the student. Both teachers (Ames, 1992) and researchers (Corpus and Wilson, 2001) advocate that motivating students toward appropriate goals is one of the most important and critical roles of a teacher. Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment Many decisions a teacher makes may have an effect on student motivation. For example, the method a teacher uses for grading can motivate students to try harder or to give up (Woolfolk, 1987). Choices the students make and groupings that allow students to work collaboratively at various times throughout the day may have an effect. Even the classroom materials, chosen with student interest and ability in mind, may help motivate students to learn. Hawley (2002) said that, “Students are driven or motivated by their deep-seated interests” (p. 17). This would imply that the environment the teacher creates and the relationship the teacher has with the student, are crucial in determining which factors characterize the force behind a student’s drive toward learning. Glasser (1990) said, “If we attempt to manage people without taking their needs into account, we will ask them to do things without considering whether or not those things are need-satisfying either now or later” (p. 48). Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity Effective educators attempt to create a learning environment that relates to the interests of the students (Hawley, 2002; Glasser, 1990; Woolfolk, 1987). Granted there

37

will be times when students need to master basic skills or complete tasks that hold no intrinsic interest for them. Not every student will be motivated by the same activity or influencing stimuli. On the other hand, Woolfolk (1987) pointed out that, “If a teacher knows what students’ interests are, these can be part of many teaching strategies” (p. 324). One way to do this is to provide students with choices. Hawley (2002) made the statement that “teachers should acknowledge students’ goals and interests and cultivate an academic climate that is supportive and encouraging of students’ individual interests and goals to the extent that students’ goals further the desired instructional goals” (p. 17). In addition to this he stresses that “Student choice and self-determination can also enhance motivation” (p. 17). A teacher can provide students with choices at the onset of almost any given task or assignment simply by allowing them to have a voice in how the students would choose to prove subject mastery. This might mean giving options for a final project, or even choices pertaining to procedural steps during the activity. Schlechty (2001) stated that, “Individuals who have choice are empowered. Empowerment increases the likelihood of commitment” (p. 125). Schlechty (2002) adds a new dimension to the perspective that motivation and engagement increase when an individual receives choices, by asserting that student engagement is scalable. The assessment rubric for this scale covers five descriptions of engagement. These categories include Engaged, Strategically Compliant, Ritually Compliant, Retreatism, and Rebellion (Schlechty, 2002, p.12). According to Schlechty, student learning stems from the efforts of the student, while the “level and type of engagement” a task produces, determine a student’s effort (p. 38). Schlechty’s scale will be the standard for measuring the

38

engagement of the participants in this study. Section three of this document will detail the scale at greater length.

39

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction: Quantitative and qualitative design

Intermediate-level students are consistently scoring lower on standardized writing tests than in other academic areas (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002). According to Connell and Guzelmann, (2004) the average intermediate level student is two years behind the standard in the academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction for Washington State published results for 20042005. The results from statewide testing showed a mean 57.7% of fourth-grade students meeting the writing proficiency standard. The 57.7% passing rate for the state writing assessment was the lowest percentage of passing students compared to 60.8% that meet the math standard and 79.5% that meet the reading standard that same year (OSPI, 2006).

This mixed-methods correlational study explored a potential relationship between choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school. The study integrated quantitative (surveys and writing test scores) with qualitative (interviews and observations) data. The priority between the methods was equal. Integration of the two types of data occurred at two stages in the research process. The first integration occurred during data collection; the participants addressed open-ended and closed-ended questions via a survey. The second stage where integration of data from both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study took place for comparison, and analysis happened during the interpretation phase.

40

The researcher selected the mixed-methods approach for its strengths in this type of study. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies offer unique answers to research questions. According to Reichardt and Cook (1979), there are three reasons to use quantitative and qualitative data together; for multiple purposes, to use each type of method to build on the other, and for triangulation of data. Whereas quantitative research answers the what questions, qualitative research addresses how and why questions. It is due to this separate nature of both methodologies that the mixed-method approach was selected for this study. Concurrent triangulation strategy provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data that is superior due to the limited range of time the study ran. According to Creswell (2003), Concurrent triangulation strategy “can result in wellvalidated and substantiated findings. In addition, the concurrent data collection results in a shorter data collection time period as compared to one of the sequential approaches” (p. 217). Setting This study ran for three months. All three fifth-grade classrooms from a single elementary school, serving a lower-middle class neighborhood, participated in this study. A different teacher taught each of the three classes. All of the participants completed surveys pertaining to their perceptions on choice, writing, and engagement. A smaller group of students participated in interviews and three writing tests. The interviewees were selected according to established criteria. The sample for this study consisted of students who returned signed permission slips and assented to participating in the study. The students were enrolled in a suburban

41

elementary school in southwest Washington State. The neighborhood that the school resides in was a middle to lower-middle class suburb of a city with a population of 157, 493 (City Data, 2006). According to OSPI (2006) the school served approximately 552 students; with roughly 250 students falling into the intermediate (3rd – 5th) grade-level population. The three fifth-grade classrooms were comprised of 73 students in all. Statistically, 51.6% of the student body were male and 48.4% were female. The ethnicity of school comprised a student body that was 81.3% white, 7.8% Hispanic, 3.8% Asian, 3.8% Black, and 0.7% Native American/Alaskan Native. There were 36 classroom teachers, 61.1% of which had at least a Master’s degree and an average of 12.8 years of teaching experience at the school. The total number of teachers who teach core academic classes was 27 and the total number of core academic classes taught was 70. One hundred percent of the teachers at the school where the data collection occurred met the NCLB highly qualified teacher definition. 44.8% of the student body received free or reducedprice meals, 7.4% of the student body was transitional bilingual, and 12.7% of the student body qualified for special education. The unexcused absence rate at the school was 0.1% for the 2006 school year. Sample The sampling for the surveys was single-staged and based on convenience. The target group consisted of 62 fifth-grade students, which provided for a 95% confidence level for a total population of 73 (Pearson Assessments, 2006). The participants who met the established criteria completed surveys based upon their level of engagement while participating in writing assignments with prompts of varied levels of content choice. The

42

sample group was dependent upon the number of students willing to participate in the study and required both student assent and a signed parental permission form (Appendix B). The measure of effect was determined using the Pearson correlation. Gravetter & Wallnau (2005) stated that the Pearson correlation is the most commonly used correlation in behavioral science statistics and that the Pearson correlation, “measures the degree and direction of the linear relationship between two variables” (p. 415). The sampling for the interviews was multi-staged and involved six randomly selected participants from the larger survey sample group. The justification for this approach was that it provided greater opportunity for testing methods and data collection in a limited amount of time (Creswell, 2003). The sample size was based on one participant each (high, medium, and low academic achievement students) representing both boys and girls. The classroom teachers selected students based on the academic criteria and student willingness to participate. The researcher mailed a recruitment letter (Appendix A) with an included consent form (Appendix C) to the homes of the fifth-grade students selected by the teachers. The researcher provided a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate the return mailing of the forms. At that time, the researcher was available to answer questions about the study, and a two-week deadline for returning the consent forms began. As students returned their consent forms, they received a coded identification, based on the conversion of the letters of their first and last name. The coded names protected the identity of the participants and insured confidentiality of the interviewees (Mills, 2003, p. 64). Only 24 of the 73-student population met the above criteria by returning all permission and assent signed by both them and a parent or guardian. This provided a

43

sample group of n = 22 with a reliability score close to 1.0. Due to the small sample size, the researcher used randomized test-retest measures. Quantitative design Research Question One Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in suburban elementary schools? The review of literature in chapter two indicated that current research suggested students who are more engaged in an activity would perform better on the activity. However, there is a lack of literature pertaining to studies involving student engagement and writing assessments for intermediate level students. Surveys were used to measure the independent variable of student engagement level while students participated in writing assessments. The dependent variable was writing test scores of the students who completed surveys. The controlled variables included standardized writing prompts, the setting for the writing tests, the surveys, and administration of both the tests and the surveys. Question One Hypotheses Null: There is not a significant relationship between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school. Alternative: There is a significant relationship between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school.

44

Research Question Two Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content? The review of literature presented documentation of a correlation between choice and engagement in activities, but there is a lack of evidence indicating a connection between choices of writing content and engagement. Writing assignments with varying levels of prompt options or choices provided for the independent variable. The dependent variable for question two was participant levels of engagement, as reflected by the students on survey answers. The controlled variables included the setting for the writing tests, the surveys, and the administration of the surveys and the writing tests. Question Two Hypotheses Null: There is not a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school. Alternative: There is a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school. Research Question Three Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content? The review of literature provided evidence of gender differences and similarities. Some of the reported discrepancies between the genders are social and some are academic. Gender based writing scores have been studied

45

for years (Connell & Guzelmann, 2004; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Pollack, 1999). An area not addressed is gender-based motivation when facing differing degrees of choice on writing prompts. Gender and writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content were the independent variables. The dependent variables were participant selfperceived levels of engagement as recorded on surveys during the various writing prompts. Question Three Hypotheses Null: There is not a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement for male and female intermediate level students when presented with different writing prompt choices. Alternative: There is a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement of male and female intermediate level students when presented with different writing prompt choices. Data collection The data collection occurred over a three-month period. Each participant completed a survey based on their perception of themselves as students, the writing process, and varying degrees of choice on writing assignments. The survey process took place inside the school. The researcher chose this method of collection in order to ensure internal consistency. This way of examining reliability required the researcher to test the variable multiple times with each participant. If the measures were reliable, a pattern of scores would be consistent across the assessments (Wadsworth, 2006). The purpose was to document the participants’ perceived level of engagement, while experiencing varying writing prompt formats, for comparison with the writing test scores. The writing prompt

46

format variables consisted of writing prompts with no choice or option allowed and prompts that were open and allowed the participant to write about whatever they chose in an expository mode. The researcher conducted concurrent interviews during the writing prompt stage of the study. Details of the interviews are located in the qualitative section of this document. The researcher used a survey based on a combination of the Likert scale and a rubric of engagement developed by Schlechty (2002) for the quantitative method portion of this study, (Appendix D). The engagement-level rubric covered five descriptions of engagement. The levels of engagement for the rubric, based on the work of Schlechty, were engaged, strategically compliant, ritually compliant, retreatism, and rebellion. According to Schlechty (2002), Merton (1968) supported the ideas for the varying degrees of engagement levels, including many of the terms used in the rubric. Furthermore, the members of the peer-debriefing group agreed upon the validity of the engagement-level rubric during the prestudy component check meeting. The Likert scale addressed participant engagement towards varying levels of writing-prompt options, and general academic attitudes ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The purpose of the surveys was to document the participants’ level of engagement when provided with choices and no choices on writing prompts. The researcher facilitated the distribution and collection of the survey materials. The participants returned the completed surveys as soon as they finished the assigned writing prompt. Afterwards, the participants continued normal classroom activities.

47

Participants, who missed a surveyed writing prompt, received time to make up the writing assessment and follow-up survey, when they returned to school. Data analysis The researcher used Pearson correlation coefficient to establish whether there is a relationship between level of choice, level of student engagement, and standardized writing-test scores. The researcher used two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the analysis of group means and attitude levels when the participants received varying levels of prompt options or choices on writing assignments. The data collected from the interviews was coded, synthesized, and triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and writing assessments. Qualitative design For the qualitative portion of this study, the researcher followed the semistructured interview approach. The researcher used a tape-recorder to record responses to open-ended interview questions. The interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes each, and took place inside the school. Interview questions were topical to previous writing experiences of the interviewee. According to Creswell (2003), case studies are the strategies “in which the researcher explores in depth a program, an event, an activity a process, on one or more individuals” (p. 15). The qualitative approach of interviewing is useful for investigating topics involving perceptions of events. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “the depth, detail, and richness sought in interviews, are rooted in the interviewees’ first-hand experiences,

48

and form the material that researchers gather and synthesize” (p. 13). Hatch (2002), stated that “interviewers enter interview settings with questions in mind but generate questions during the interview in response to informants’ responses, the social contexts being discussed, and the degree of rapport established” (p. 23). Rubin and Rubin elaborate on the questions interviewers enter the interview setting with, by proposing that in order to reach a significant level of depth and focus, interviewers approach topical interviews with three specific levels of questions in mind; “main questions, probes, and follow-ups” (p. 13). Main questions start the interview process in the desired direction, with appropriate contextual focus. The interviewer, to gather a greater level of detail, depth, or breadth from the interviewee’s responses, uses probing and follow-up questions. Probing questions are standardized questions, used for gaining greater depth and detail from the interviewee’s response. Follow-up questions provide a prompt for the interviewee to elaborate on responses that the interviewer felt was relevant to the topic, in an attempt for a response that has greater breadth (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 13). The challenges of the interview approach may involve respondents who dominate the conversation and fail to remain on topic, shy interviewees who provide inadequate data, technical difficulty with recording devices, and uncomfortable interview settings (Creswell, 1998). Creswell (1998) suggested that developing and maintaining an interview protocol would address most of the potential difficulties presented by the interview approach (p. 124). According to Creswell (1998), protocols provide the researcher with a form for planning the interview setting, recording responses from the interviewee, and remaining on topic (p. 126). Though using protocols may address the

49

topical, technical, and setting challenges, it does not insure adequate responses from the interviewees. Wool (1994) rectified a specific situation involving a student who was reticent to speak by removing the interviewee from the participant group, and adding a new interviewee from the larger pool of candidates meeting the established criteria (p. 58). The key to conducting good interviews is remaining at least partially flexible and being a good listener (Creswell, 1998; Hatch, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Qualitative Research Questions 1: What variables do intermediate-level students perceive as relating to favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences? 2: How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences compare between intermediate-level boys and girls? Purpose The purpose of the qualitative portion of this study was to document the participants’ perception of past engagement while experiencing varying writing prompt formats. The research data documented the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of the participants toward past school related writing experiences that the students remembered as favorable. Method The researcher created an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix E), for use during the interviews. The questions covered aspects of how the participants perceived themselves as students, their perceived effort, and their perceptions of former writing experiences. The interviews occurred throughout the course of the study with a sample group selected by the individual classroom teachers based on the following criteria:

50

•

Three girls: one each of high, medium, and low academic achievement; three boys: one each of high, medium, and low academic achievement

•

Willingness of the student to participate

•

Willingness of the student to talk to interviewer

•

Signed and returned parental consent form

Data collection The interviews ran concurrently with the surveys and writing assessments. The researcher conducted, tape recorded, and transcribed the interviews. The focus of the interviews was to document with more depth and detail how the participants responded to choices when participating in writing assessments and to look for correlations or patterns in favored past writing experiences. Participant agreement was by verbal response to a statement read by the interviewer (Appendix F). Data analysis By utilizing quantitative and qualitative design methods, the researcher investigated the correlation between levels of student engagement, writing scores, and perceptions of favorable writing experiences when presented with distinct levels of choice on writing prompts. The researcher analyzed similarities, differences, and themes by logical induction. The researcher also used data reduction and display. The data collected from the interviews triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and writing assessments. Conclusions were drawn.

51

Summary This three-month, correlational, mixed-methods study explored the relationship between choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school. The researcher utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis due to the strength of the mixed-methods approach. All of the participants completed surveys that addressed their self-perceived level of engagement when presented with writing prompts of varying option-level degrees. A subsample of students participated in interviews. The semi-structured tape-recorded interviews covered the participants’ perceptions of past favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. Triangulation between the quantitative and qualitative measures provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data.

52

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Quantitative design This study used statistical and qualitative analysis. The researcher examined, correlated, and analyzed the data from the surveys, interviews, and observations. The data collected from the surveys showed the varied levels of engagement when participants encountered the previously identified options for writing prompts. The researcher compared the collected data to the participant test scores to explore possible correlations between both choice options and assessment scores, and choice option and perceived levels of participant engagement. Pearson correlation coefficient established whether there was a relationship between level of choice and level of student engagement (Fink, 2006). One-way ANOVA allowed for the analysis of group means and attitude levels between participant groups when the participants received varying levels of prompt options or choices on writing assignments. Randomized test-retest measures allowed for combined reliability estimates from two surveys completed by each participant in the sample group for each of the different writing prompt variables that provided a composite reliability score. While the survey tool remained the same for all measures, different writing prompts were used for each of the three choice levels to avoid violating the assumption of independent cases. The researcher checked to ensure both conclusive and internal validity. The nature of the study called for two distinct approaches to addressing the study’s validity. One of the primary questions involved conclusion validity: Does having a choice on writing prompts/topics increase student motivation and engagement? The second research

53

question dealt with internal validity by asking if there is a causal relationship between levels of motivation/engagement and test scores: Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content? In 2007, 24 fifth-grade students from three fifth-grade classrooms in a suburban elementary school participated in completing surveys as they finished writing assessments. The surveys addressed the level of engagement in the activity, as perceived by the participants. When compared to the writing scores received on the assignments, the data pertaining to three distinct types of writing prompt variables, used as independent variables, tested the hypotheses concerning a relationship between degree of choice, levels of engagement, and writing-test scores for the participants. In addition to the surveys, the researcher conducted interviews and observations for the purpose of triangulation with the data gathered via the surveys. The interviews and observations ran concurrent with the surveys during the three-month period of the study. Only 22 of the 24 participants produced reliable survey results. This provided a sample group of n = 22 with a reliability score close to 1.0. Due to the small sample size, the researcher administered the writing test prompt types and response survey twice, in a random order, with 6 weeks in between the first and second set of tests. By utilizing the test-retest approach, the sample group data doubled, providing for participant data of n = 44. The following data represent a low rate of return, as the sample for the survey and writing tests are substantially smaller than the target group proposed for the study.

54

Research Question One Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in suburban elementary schools? Independent variable: Level of student engagement, while participating in writing assessments. Dependent variable: Standardized writing test scores. Question one hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students. Question one data analysis. The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of 6.7 with a standard deviation of 1.34 on the writing prompt with the no-choice variable. The mean for the sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.5 with a standard deviation of .506. The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the no-choice variable (r = .309) is greater than the critical value level of .296 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 95% confidence level. This indicates that there is significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for no-choice writing prompts to reject the null hypothesis. The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of 7.25 with a standard deviation of 1.22 on the writing prompt with the multiple-choice variable. The mean for the sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.73 with a standard deviation of

55

.451. The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the multiple-choice variable (r = .445) is greater than the critical value level of .250 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 99% confidence level. The data indicates that there is significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for multiple-choice writing prompts to reject the null hypothesis. The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of 7.0 with a standard deviation of 1.51 on the writing prompt with the open-choice variable. The mean for the sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.5 with a standard deviation of .591. The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the multiple-choice variable (r = .026) is less than the critical value level of .296 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 95% confidence level. This indicates that there is not significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for open choice writing prompts to reject the null hypothesis. For two out of three measures, the data indicated a significant relationship between the participants’ perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores. There was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis for the first research question in regard to no choice and multiple-choice writing prompts. However, there was not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis where open or free choice writing prompts are concerned. The variance between the writing prompt options also appears in and correlates with the qualitative data presented later in the study. Research question one conclusion. There is not a significant relationship between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school.

56

Research Question Two Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content? Independent variable: Writing assignments with varying levels of prompt options or choices. Dependent variable: Participant attitudes toward self-perceived levels of motivation and engagement when presented with varying levels of choice in writing prompts. Question two hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students. Question two data analysis. The researcher ran a frequency distribution to obtain basic descriptive statistics for the variables degree of writing prompt options and the subject’s perceived level of engagement. The data showed that the frequency of the level of engagement for the subjects, when presented with no options for their writing prompt, has a normal distribution. The mean level of engagement for the subject, when presented with no options for their writing prompt was 4.5, with an equal distribution of reported perceived levels of engagement falling at four or five out of five. For perceived level of engagement during the no-choice writing prompts the standard deviation equaled 0.506 for the sample group (n = 44). The frequency distribution for levels of engagement pertaining to the multiple-choice writing prompt indicated a level of engagement mean of 4.73, a standard deviation of 0.451, and a negatively skewed distribution. The mode

57

average for the participant perceived engagement levels during the multiple-choice writing prompts was level five out of five. The frequency distribution for levels of engagement pertaining to the open choice writing prompt indicated a level of engagement mean of 4.5, a standard deviation equal to 0.591, and a negatively skewed distribution. The mode average for the participant perceived engagement levels during the no-choice writing prompts was also level five out of five. The graph below represents the reported frequency (Y-axis) of participant engagement levels (X-axis) given the three writing prompt scenarios.

35 30 25 20

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

15 10 5 0 No-choice

Multiple-choice

Open-choice

Figure 1. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement during writing prompts of different levels of choice. The variable concerning the level of student choice in regards to the writing prompt that received the highest mean in regard to student perception of engagement levels was the multiple choices writing prompt option. Both of the other writing prompt scenarios shared a mean of 4.5, but varied in their distributions. The participants indicated an equal split between engagement level four and engagement level five when

58

provided with the no choice writing prompt. Both treatments that included a level of choice had a mode average of five, indicating more students perceived themselves as more engaged on writing assignments when provided with choices. The open choice treatment was the only scenario where students responded with a self-perceived engagement level less than four. The distribution across the larger range accounted for the mean score of 4.5 during the open choice writing prompt. The data presented above matches the qualitative data presented later in this document, indicating a connection between multiple choice prompts and levels of engagement for a majority of the participants. As treatments moved away from the central multiple-choice variable, participant opinions became stronger in their opinions concerning preferences for open or no-choice prompt scenarios. To find out if the correlation between degree of writing prompt option and perceived level of engagement is significant enough to void the null hypothesis, the researcher ran comparison tests. When comparing the data from the three test variables using a One-way ANOVA, the data comparing the three test variables with the sample group mean at an F distribution of F (2,41) = 1.629 does not exceed the critical value of 3.22 at a 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the data indicate there was not significant difference between writing prompt choices and perceived levels of engagement to reject the null hypothesis.

59

Table 1 ANOVA Results Between Writing Prompts and Engagement Levels

_____Sum of Squares Between Groups

df

Mean Square

.810

2

.405

Within Groups

10.190

41

.249

Total

11.000

43

F 1.629

Sig._______ .209

Next, the researcher used the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to measure the strength of the association between the variables (Wadsworth, 2006). The sample correlation r = 0.128 is less than the critical value level of 0.304 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 95% confidence level. This also indicates that there was not significant correlation between choices in writing prompts and subject’s perceived level of engagement to reject the null hypothesis. With this information, the researcher finds that the data indicate there is not significance evidence to reject the null hypothesis for the second research question. Research question two conclusion. There is not a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a low socio-economic public elementary school. Research Question Three Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content? Independent variables: Gender and writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content.

60

Dependent variables: Participant attitudes toward self-perceived levels of engagement. Question three hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement for male and female intermediate level students when presented with different writing prompt choices. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement of male and female intermediate level students when presented with different writing prompt choices. Question three data analysis. The male and female participants reported equal levels of engagement during the no choice writing prompt treatment. Both genders averaged a mean 4.5 self-perceived level of engagement. In both scenarios, when presented with choices, the female participants averaged higher self-perceived level of engagement means than the male participants did.

5 4.8 4.6 Males Females

4.4 4.2 4 3.8 No Choice

Multiple Choice

Open Choice

Figure 2. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement when matched with gender during writing prompts of different levels of choice.

61

The data compared using a One-way ANOVA with the sample group mean at an F distribution of F (1,42) = 8.286 exceeds the critical value of 4.07 at a 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the data indicate there was significant correlation between gender-based perceived levels of engagement and writing prompt options to reject the null hypothesis for the treatment. Table 2 ANOVA Results Between Prompt Choices and Gender-Based Engagement Levels _____ Sum of Squares Between Groups

df

Mean Square

2.048

1

2.048

10.383

42

.247

Total ____________12.432

43

Within Groups

F 8.286

Sig.___ .006

_________

Research question three conclusion. There is a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement of male and female intermediate level students in a low socio-economic public elementary school, when presented with different writing prompt choices. Summary For two out of three measures of the first question, Is there a relationship between level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school?, the data collected from the participant surveys indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The data collected from the participant surveys also indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis for the third research question, Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of

62

varied degrees of choice pertaining to content?. Conversely, the data collected for the second research question, Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content?, indicated that though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in writing content it is not a significant relationship. Both of the treatments that involved a level of choice above the no choice option showed an increase in level-five engagement levels, but using a One-way ANOVA and the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed that there is not a significant relationship between levels of student engagement and degrees of writing prompt choice to void the null hypothesis. Qualitative design Qualitative Research Questions •

What variables do students perceive as relating to favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences?

•

How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences compare between boys and girls? The participant selection was multi-staged; based on convenience, the academic

achievement level of the student, and gender. The justification for an approach to selection based on convenience was that it provided greater opportunity for testing methods and data collection in a limited amount of time (Creswell, 2003). Academic achievement levels and gender diversity provided for potential data correlation between low, medium, and high scoring students; and boys and girls. The criteria for selection involved current enrollment as a fifth-grade student, regular participation in classroombased writing assignments, a history of earning low, moderate, or high scores on writing

63

assignments, participation in the quantitative portion of the study, and a willingness to participate in an interview. The researcher sent a cover letter and a parental permission form home to one boy and one girl from each academic level who met the above criteria; providing for a sample group of six interviewees. The researcher arranged a time during the participants’ school day for the interviews to take place that would not interfere with the students’ regular learning time. The tape-recorded interviews took place in the schools’ computer lab. The computer lab provided a secure and private location in an area that is viewable by passing people. After securing written and verbal assent, the researcher conducted a semistructured interview with each of the six participants. The researcher utilized open-ended questions from the questionnaire (Appendix E). The questions covered aspects of how the participants perceived former writing experiences. The interviews ranged from 7 to 12 minutes, depending on the conciseness of the participant. Interview questions were topical to previous writing experiences of the interviewee. The qualitative approach of interviewing is useful for investigating topics involving perceptions of events. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “the depth, detail, and richness sought in interviews, are rooted in the interviewees’ first-hand experiences, and form the material that researchers gather and synthesize” (p. 13). Hatch (2002), stated that “interviewers enter interview settings with questions in mind but generate questions during the interview in response to informants’ responses, the social contexts being discussed, and the degree of rapport established” (p. 23). Rubin and Rubin (2005) elaborate on the questions interviewers enter the interview setting with, by proposing that in order to reach a significant level of depth and focus, interviewers approach topical

64

interviews with three specific levels of questions in mind; “main questions, probes, and follow-ups” (p. 13). The focus of the interviews was to document with more depth and detail how participants responded to choices when participating in writing assessments and to look for correlations or patterns in favorable and unfavorable writing experiences. To reach this end, the researcher transcribed and coded the tape-recorded interviews (Appendix I). Qualitative Data Analysis According to Mills (2003), “data analysis is an attempt by the teacher researcher to summarize the data that have been collected in a dependable, accurate, reliable, and correct manner” (p. 104). The researcher used interpretive analysis, as described by Hatch (2002) to analyze the data collected during the interview. Hatch stated, “Data analysis is a systematic search for meaning” (p. 148). The Interpretive Analysis strategy presented by Hatch, involved a process that allows for the interpretation of participantconstructed data (p. 189). The qualitative question for the study focused on the perceptions and views of the student participant. In that way, the interviewee constructed the meaning. The researcher collected and analyzed the data in an attempt to find patterns and discover meaning. Interpretive Analysis worked within the confines of the Data Analysis Spiral, as presented by Creswell (1998).

65

Table 3 Comparison of Commonality Between Two Established Qualitative Analysis Approaches Interpretive Analysis

Data Analysis Spiral___________

Read the data for a sense of the whole

Data managing

Review impressions previously recorded in research journals and record in memos

Reading and memoing

Read the data, identify impressions, and record impressions in memos

Reading, memoing, and describing

Study memos for salient interpretations

Classifying

Reread data, code where interpretations are supported or challenged

Interpreting

Write a draft summary

Representing

Review interpretations with participants

Member checking

Write a revised summary and identify Representation and visualization excerpts that support interpretations__________________________________________ (Creswell, 1998, p. 148. and Hatch, 2002, p. 181.) The research question, interview questions, and interviewee responses factored into the codes developed for these interview transcripts. The researcher used member checking to ensure the validity of the researcher’s interpretation during the code development process. The codes cover the components of the study while incorporating the unique nature of qualitative interview responses. For example, the researcher purposefully asked questions pertaining to the impact scoring had, or did not have, on the interviewee’s perceived level of engagement, so the researcher developed codes to indicate various responses to prompts related to scoring. On the other hand, a few ideas, like setting paraphernalia (e.g., writing desk or journal) potentially influencing a student’s

66

level of engagement, came to light if an interviewee introduced the concept during a response to an interview question. These were unanticipated factors, and the researcher modified the codes to include these types of variables when introduced during the interview process.

After coding the transcripts, the researcher arranged the data according to categories. This process provided the basis for a summarization of the content. Multiple sorting identified trends and themes between the gender and academic achievement level of the interviewees. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “Weighing and combining help you synthesize different version of the same event or separate explanations of the same concept or theme, allowing you to pull together different events into a single descriptive narrative” (p. 227).

Summary

The data collected from the interview presented a number of recurring themes. The table below shows the positive (+), negative (-), and neutral (0) responses the interviewees provided during the interviews. The table arrangement shows correlations, trends, and patterns between the gender and reading level of the participants. Multiple responses are recorded when the participant expressed contradictory opinions during the interview. For example, three out of six participants indicated that score both had and did not have an impact on their level of engagement. To ensure validity, in addition to using member checks during code development, the researcher used member checks a second

67

time during the development of the post qualitative summary. The following codes were developed based on the interview transcripts:

I.

Mode a. ME: Expository b. MNR: Realistic narrative c. MNF: Fantasy narrative II. Setting a. SL: Location b. SF: Furniture c. SP: paraphernalia III. Choice a. CL: Limited b. CU: Unlimited c. CSL: Semi-limited (multiple choice) IV. Knowledge base a. KBA: Awareness or prior knowledge of context b. KBN: No prior knowledge V. SC: Score, grade, or recognition

Table 4 Categorical Interviewee Responses ME

MNR

FL

+

FM

+

FH

-

ML

+

MM

+

MH

+

MNF

-

SL

CL

CU

+

-

+

+/-

-

+

+

0

-

+

+/-

+/0

+

-

+

0

+

+

+

-

-

+/0

+

+

+

-

+

+

SF

+

SP

+

+ +/-

+

+

+

+

+

+

CSL

KBA

KBN

SC

+

-

+/0

The data indicate a perception of a correlation between realistic narrative writing semi-limited choices, and setting location with higher levels of student engagement. The difference in choice and mode preference almost divided equally between the two genders. Whereas two out of three males preferred expository writing and limited

68

choices, the female participants associated limited choices with nonfavorable writing experiences across the board and the one female to mention expository writing did so in a negative inclination. All of the females indicated higher levels of engagement when choices where unlimited and writing realistic narratives. Four out of six interviewees consistently reported preferring writing stories where anything could happen compared to writing essays that address a set prompt. One participant made connections with semilimited choice as having a relation to both favorable and nonfavorable writing. Four participants noted semi-limited choices as favorable. All participants mentioned the location of the setting when discussing favorable writing environments. The settings varied from the classroom to the bedroom. Only one participant addressed the issue of knowledge base where writing engagement is concerned. In this case, knowledge of the writing topic seemed to be the biggest factor for the interviewees’ perceived level of engagement. Triangulation The interview participants spilt based on gender, concerning the no-choice writing prompt scenario. The data collected from the surveys indicated an equal perception between males and females when presented with no-choice writing prompts. According to the survey data, 4.5 was the mean level of engagement for both genders. The interview data does not match the data collected via the surveys in regard to perceived levels of engagement and writing preferences during the no-choice writing prompts. For the multiple-choice writing prompt option, five out of six interview participants associated multiple choice writing prompts with writing experiences. Likewise, the survey and test data support these statements. The mean perceived level of

69

engagement was 4.73 out of five. Both genders reported increased levels engagement on multiple choice writing prompts and during the interviews. The interview data triangulates with the data collected by the surveys. Four out of six interviewees reported preferring open writing prompts to no-choice prompts. All of the females interviewed stated higher levels of engagement when choices where open. One out of three males indicated a preference to open choice writing prompts during the interviews. On the surveys, the open choice writing prompt had the largest gender-based gap between male and female perceptions of engagement. The survey data showed the lowest level of engagement for the males (4.25), the females reported their second highest level (4.8), when presented with open choice writing prompts.

70

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTARY Introduction This mixed-methods correlational study explored a potential relationship among choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school. The study integrated quantitative (surveys and writing test scores) with qualitative (interviews and observations) data. The priority between the methods was equal. The interviews ran concurrently with the surveys and writing assessments. By employing quantitative and qualitative design methods, the researcher investigated the correlation between levels of student engagement, writing scores when presented with distinct levels of choice on writing prompts, and perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. The data collected from the interviews triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and writing assessments. The researcher analyzed similarities, differences, and themes by logical induction. The researcher also used data reduction and display. Integration of the two types of data occurred at two stages in the research process. The first integration occurred during data collection; the participants addressed open-ended and closed-ended questions via a survey. The second integration of data from both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study took place for comparison, analysis, and triangulation during the interpretation phase. The mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, offered unique connections to the research questions.

71

Conclusions For two out of three measures of the first and the third quantitative research questions, Is there a relationship between level of engagement and standardized writingtest scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school? and Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content?, the data collected from the participant surveys indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis. However, one out of the three treatments for research question one, Is there a relationship between level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school?, did not indicate a significant relationship between the variables, but instead provided mixed results based on the level of choice. Since the dividing line between significant and insignificant relationships falls along the type of writing prompt, the researcher has outlined the outcomes based on prompt options below. For the second research question, Are students more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content?, the data collected indicated that though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in writing content, it is not a significant relationship. Even though both of the treatments that involved a level of choice above the no choice option showed an increase in level five engagement levels, there was not a significant relationship between levels of student engagement levels and degrees of writing prompt choice.

72

No-Choice Writing Prompts Some students prefer the scenarios where a second party tells them what to write about. Two of the six interviewees clearly stated a preference for no-choice writing prompts. The Pearson correlation indicated that there is a significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for no-choice writing prompts at a 95% confidence level. However, the no-choice writing prompt, along with the open choice writing prompt, scored the lowest level of perceived engagement (4.5), as reported on the surveys. Additionally, with a mean writing test score of 6.7 out of 10, the no-choice variable also received the lowest test score average among the three writing prompt variables. Multiple-Choice Writing Prompts The mean writing test score during the multiple-choice writing prompt was the highest of the three scenarios at 7.25 out of 10. The multiple-choice prompts also produced the highest engagement-level mean (4.73 out of 5). Pearson correlation (r = .445) greater than critical value .250 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 99% confidence level. In addition, five out of six interview participants associated multiple choice writing prompts with writing experiences. This indicates that there is a significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for multiple-choice writing prompts. Open-Choice Writing Prompts Though the open-choice writing prompt, where students could explain or describe anything they wanted in an expository mode, generated the second highest writing test score mean (7 out of 10), the option showed the largest disparity between the perceived

73

level of engagement for the students. Likewise, comments in favor of or against unlimited choice were prevalent in all six of the interviews. Students either preferred or dreaded freedom of choice at this level, associating open choice writing options with both favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. The research showed that while the total number of participants responding with level-five engagement levels increased, there was also an increase in the lower level-three responses. As a whole, the sample group reported a mean engagement level of 4.5, the same as the no-choice engagement mean. The largest correlation appears to be along gender lines. The survey data produced the lowest level of engagement for the males (4.25), while the females reported their second highest level (4.8), when presented with open choice writing prompts. However, a Pearson correlation of less than the critical value level at a 95% confidence level indicates that there is not a significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for open choice writing prompts. Recommendations Based on the data, the researcher recommends the use of multiple-choice writing prompts whenever increased levels of student engagement or increased writing scores are sought. In both areas of engagement and test scores, and across genders, students scored the highest mean on writing test scores and perceived engagement levels when presented with multiple choice writing prompts. A note of interest to the researcher is that the writing prompt with the most difference in gender-based self-perceived levels of engagement (open choice) was the treatment that failed to indicate a significant relationship between writing prompt scores and levels of engagement as presented in the

74

data analysis for research question one. The connection may be coincidental, or there is the possibility that a connection exists, requiring further research for substantiating evidence. There was a disparity between the reported perceived level of engagement for nochoice writing prompts during the interviews and during the writing tests. It is possible that the difference between verbally stated preferences and the preferences recorded on the survey during the writing test could be due to the sample size of the interview subjects. The issue could also be the age of the participants. A follow-up study should address the research questions with an older group of students. There is the potential that fifth graders have a limited enough background with the various prompt levels to make an experiential statement invalid or inconsistent. As with the first and third research questions, research questions two and three shared an equal balance between levels of engagement (four and five) and gender-based level of engagement means (4.5) for the nochoice writing prompt treatment. The connections may be coincidental or substantial, requiring further research for substantiating evidence. Along with the disparity mentioned above, the research noticed a disproportionate number of participants scoring four or five for their self-perceived level in all three choice-level writing prompt scenarios. Only during the open-choice situation were scores as low as three reported. Never in the course of the study did any of the participants rate their perceived level of engagement as low as one or two. The researcher recommends further study to address these phenomena. Third party observations of the participants could add evidence either substantiating or challenging the self-recorded levels. It is

75

possible that intermediate-level students do not have sufficient background experience to relate well concerning the question of engagement on classroom based assignments. Two additional factors came to light during the interviews. Both the level of emphasis the interviewees placed on narrative writing, and the lack of weight the interviewees gave to writing scores and/or grades surprised the researcher. There is the possibility that a greater relationship lays with writing mode and engagement levels than lies with level of choice and engagement. Again, the introduction of these factors could also be age related. An older group of participants could potentially value grades and or scores at a higher level or they may have a different perception regarding writing modes and choices. Likewise, a larger sample group would potentially support or challenge the findings of this study. Social Change The data collected during this study indicating relationships between multiplechoice writing prompts and both increased student achievement and student-perceived levels of engagement on writing prompts, which added new information for social change by illuminating characteristics important to student engagement for the promotion of lifelong learning across both genders. Improved test scores positively impact the community, school, and student. Increased student engagement on school related activities reinforce the development of life long learning of the student. Additionally, studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences, contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency. The researcher will share the results of this study with fellow educators and cohorts within the author’s sphere of influence. This study will be significant for teachers

76

who are working with students in the intermediate grade level (grades 3-6). The findings will also be beneficial to teachers attempting to raise writing scores or student engagement levels. Summary This three-month correlational mixed-methods study exploring the relationship between choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of male and female intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school produced mixed results. For two out of three measures of the first and the third research questions, the data collected from the participant surveys indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The data collected for the second research question indicated that though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in writing content, it is not a significant relationship. Both of the treatments that involved a level of choice above the no choice option showed increased reports of level five engagement. However, using a One-way ANOVA and the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed that there is not a significant relationship between levels of student engagement and degrees of writing prompt choice to void the null hypothesis for the second research question. The qualitative data indicated a perception of correlation between realistic narrative writing, semi-limited choices, and setting location with higher levels of student engagement. The difference in choice and mode preference divided between males and females. Two out of three males preferred expository writing and limited choices, whereas the female participants associated limited choices with nonfavorable writing

77

experiences across the board. However, all of the females interviewed indicated higher levels of engagement when choices where unlimited and writing realistic narratives.

REFERENCES Ames, C. (1985). Attributions and cognition in motivation theory. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 39-52. Atkinson, John W. (1964). An Introduction to motivation. New York: D.Van Nostrand Company. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill. Cook, T. D. & Reichardt, C. S. (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Connell, D. & Guzelmann, B. (2004). The new gender gap. Instructor, 133(6), 14-18. Corpus, D. & Wilson, L. (2001). The effects of reward systems on academic performance. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www.nmsa.org/research/res_articles_sept2001.htm Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dougherty, J., Harrelson, J., Maloney, L., Murphy, D., Smith, R., Snow, M., and Zannoni, D. (2007). School choice in suburbia: Public school testing and private real estate markets. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/CSS/research/SchChoiceSuburb_AERA2007. pdf.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fetterman, N., & Rohrkemper, M. (1986). The utilization of failure: A look at one social/instructional environment. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association. Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Forsyth, P., Hansen, K., Schickedanz, D. & Schickedanz, J. (1993). Understanding children. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Gender Gaps: Where schools still fail our children (1998). Washington, DC: The American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper & Row. Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning. Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing through childhood: Rethinking process and product. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hawley, W., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hevesi, D. (2004, December 12). Finding a neighborhood and a school. New York Times, Section 11, p. 1. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Huitt, W. (2001). Motivation to learn. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Huston, A.C. & Wright, J.C. (1983). Children’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolesnik, W. (1978). Motivation: Understanding and influencing human behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Linnenbrink, E. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197-204. Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Harper & Row. Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card (2003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Nation’s report card [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/. Newkirk, Thomas (2002). Misreading masculinity. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Washington state report card [OnLine]. Available: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ Pearson Assessments (2006). Sample size calculator [On-Line]. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonncs.com Perrone, V. (1991). On standardized testing. Childhood Education, 67, 132-142. Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield & Adams. Pollack, W. (1999). Real boys. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schlechty, P. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stiggins, R. (2001). Student centered classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved October 19, 2006 from, http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html US Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved October, 15, 2006 from, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Wadsworth (2006). Reliability and validity [On-Line]. Retrieved from http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/workshop s/res_methd/reli_vali/reli_vali_09.html. Washington State: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Retrieved October 03, 2006, from http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ Weber, C. (Ed.). (1984) Webster’s new world dictionary (2nd ed.). Chicago: Webster Press. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573. Wool, P. A. (1994). Writing and talking in the social studies classroom: A way to foster learning. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Woolfolk, A. (1987). Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wlodkowski, R. (1981). Making sense out of motivation: A systematic model to consolidate motivational constructs across theories. Educational Psychologist, 16, 101-110.

APPENDIX A: LETTER Dear fifth graders (and parents),

There is a study starting in a few weeks. It will collect data on student views and writing. This study is only open to 5th graders. Participants will take a short survey. Six students will also be asked to take part in an interview. This study is voluntary. It will not take away from class learning time. Choosing to be in the study will not impact grades or class standing. Students will remain anonymous. The data gained may help students and teachers in the future. More information can be found on the attached consent form. I am on hand to answer any questions. Please feel free to contact me. Permission slips should be turned in by the end of next week.

I hope you will consider being a part of the study. Sincerely,

Michael Anderson Email: [email protected]

Phone: 360-604-6875

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PERMISSION Parental Permission for a Minor Child to Participate in a Research Study ___________________________________________________________________ _____ IRB Study # Consent Form Version Date: 1 Title of Study: Engaged in Writing Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson Email Address: [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell Funding Source: Private Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496 Study Contact email: [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Things you should know You are being asked to allow your child to participate in a research study. The results of the study will be used for a doctoral research project. The researcher is a fifthgrade teacher at your child’s school. The study is voluntary. You may also withdraw your permission for any reason. Your child can refuse to be in the study. Withdrawing from the study will not result in a penalty. Refusing to participate will not result in a penalty. Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the future. Your child may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study. Details about the study are below. It is important that you understand the details so that you and your child can make an informed choice. You will be given a signed copy of this form. The purpose of this study The purpose is to research a relationship between writing choices, student engagement, and test scores. Criteria for participation: • Current fifth grade student at Hearthwood • The student is willing to participate • Student returns a signed permission slip How many people will take part in this study?

60 students. How long will it last? The study will last three months. What will happen? Participants will complete a survey. The survey is about their view as writers and students. Students may choose not to answer any question. The survey will not impact grades. Your child’s privacy Names of the participants will be coded. Participants won’t be identified in any report or publication. Will your child receive anything for being in this study? No. Will it cost you anything for your child to be in this study? No. Questions about this study? You and your child have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Anderson. Rights as a research participant? Research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee. That committee works to protect your child’s rights and welfare. If you or your child has questions or concerns you may contact: •

Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 ([email protected])

•

Dr. James Mitchell ( [email protected])

•

Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Parent’s Agreement: I have read the information provided above. I have asked questions I have at this time. I voluntarily give permission to allow my child to participate in this research study. _________________________________________ Printed Name of Research Participant (Child) _________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Parent _________________________________________ Printed Name of Parent

Date

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PERMISSION Parental Permission for a Minor Child to Participate in a Research Study ___________________________________________________________________ _____ IRB Study # Consent Form Version Date: 1 Title of Study: Engaged in Writing Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson Email Address: [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell Funding Source: Private Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496 Study Contact email: [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Things you should know You are being asked to allow your child to be interviewed. The results of the interview will be used for a doctoral research project. The researcher is a fifth-grade teacher at your child’s school. The interview is voluntary. You may also withdraw your permission for any reason. Your child can refuse to be interviewed. Refusing to participate will not result in a penalty. Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the future. Your child may not receive any direct benefit from being in the research study. Details about the study are below. It is important that you understand the details so that you and your child can make an informed choice. You will be given a signed copy of this form. The purpose of this study The purpose is to research a relationship between writing choices, student engagement, and test scores. Criteria for participation: • Current fifth grade student at Hearthwood • The student is willing to participate • Student returns a signed permission slip How many people will take part in this study?

Six students. How long will it last? The study will last three months. What will happen? Six students will be interviewed. The interviews will be tape recorded. The interviews will not last more than 20 minutes. The interview questions cover writing experiences. Students may choose not to answer any question. The interviews will not impact grades. Your child’s privacy Names of the participants will be coded. Participants won’t be identified in any report or publication. Will your child receive anything for being in this study? No. Will it cost you anything for your child to be in this study? No. Questions about this study? You and your child have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Anderson. Rights as a research participant? Research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee. That committee works to protect your child’s rights and welfare. If you or your child has questions or concerns you may contact: •

Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 ([email protected])

•

Dr. James Mitchell ([email protected])

•

Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Parent’s Agreement: I have read the information provided above. I have asked questions I have at this time. I voluntarily give permission to allow my child to participate in this research study. _________________________________________ Printed Name of Research Participant (Child) _________________________________________ _________________ Signature of Parent _________________________________________ Printed Name of Parent

Date

APPENDIX D: SURVEY This survey is voluntary. BY taking this survey, you are giving permission for the results to be used for research. Taking this survey will NOT affect your grade. There will be no penalty for not taking this survey. Do your best to respond honestly. When you have finished, place the survey in the box. Thank you for your participation!

* 1 – 3 select the statement that best describes your level of engagement. 1. Your most recent assignment 5. I did my best because I enjoyed the assignment. 4. I did my best because I want a good grade or credit. 3. I finished the assignment so that I could avoid being in trouble. 2. I did not care if I finished or not. 1. I chose to be off task, distract other students, or did not do the assignment. 2. Most subjects at school 5. I do my best because I enjoy school. 4. I do my best because I want a good grade or credit. 3. I just want to go to recess or avoid being in trouble. 2. I do not care one way or the other about school. 1. I choose to be off task or distract other students. 3. Writing in general 5. I do my best because I enjoy writing. 4. I do my best because I want a good grade or credit. 3. I just want to go to recess or avoid being in trouble. 2. I do not care one way or the other about writing. 1. I choose to be off task or distract other students.

*4-6: Read the statement, then circle your level of agreement. 4. When I am writing, I set high standards for myself. Strongly somewhat neutral somewhat agree agree disagree

strongly disagree

5. When I am writing, I self-evaluate my work. strongly somewhat neutral somewhat agree agree disagree

strongly disagree

6. When I am writing, I set goals for myself. strongly somewhat neutral somewhat agree agree disagree

strongly disagree

*7 -9: Choose an answer for each question. 7. Your gender a. male b. female 8. I would rather write a. poetry b. narratives c. expository 9. I prefer expository writing that has a. a topic given to me b. multiple prompts to choose from c. I can describe or explain anything I choose 10. Explain your choice for question 9:

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Interview Questionnaire 1. Think of a writing assignment that you felt was really engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it so engaging?

2. Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? If so, what was that like? If not, do you think you should have, and if so, what would that have been like?

3. Think about a writing assignment that you really didn’t like doing. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it less engaging?

4. Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? If so, what was that like? If not, do you think you should have, and if so, what would that have been like?

5. Picture yourself writing for fun. What does that look like? (Where are you, who’s around, what is the environment like, what are you writing about?)

APPENDIX F: ORAL CONSENT Hi ______________, I would like to talk to you about writing. This won’t last more than 20 minutes. This will be part of a study. The study is about writing experiences. You can stop at any time. You can stop for any reason. The interview will be recorded. You will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? What does anonymous mean?

I am interested in your opinions. Don’t answer in a way you think I want. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you?

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW ASSENT Assent to Participate in a Research Study (Interview) ___________________________________________________________________ _____ IRB Study # Consent Form Version Date: 1 Title of Study: Engaged in Writing Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson Email Address: [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell Funding Source: Private Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496 Study Contact email: [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Things you should know You are being asked to be part of a research study. I am a student. This study is part of my degree. You may refuse to be in the study. You do not have to participate. You may also pull out for any reason. There will be no penalty for leaving the study. Studies are to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the future. There may not be a direct benefit from being in the study. There are more facts about the study below. It is important you know the details to make an informed choice. You will be given a signed copy of this form. The purpose of this study This study will look at student writing. It will look for a link between choices, motivation, and test scores. Criteria for participation: • Current fifth grade student • Willingness to participate • Returned signed permission slip How many people will take part in this study? The target group for this study is 62 students. How long will it last? The study will last three months.

What will happen? Six students will be asked to interview. The interviews will be taped. They will not last more than 20 minutes. The questions cover the views of students as writers. Students may skip any question they want. The interviews will not impact grades. Privacy The study will not use any student’s name. Will you receive anything for being in this study? No. Will it cost you anything to be in this study? No. Questions about this study? You have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have a question, please contact Mr. Anderson. Rights as a research participant? This study is reviewed by a group. That committee works to protect your rights and welfare. If you or you have question or concerns contact: •

Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 ([email protected])

•

Dr. James Mitchell ([email protected])

•

Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Student Agreement: I have read the above form. I have asked questions I have at this time. I give my permission to be in this study. _________________________________________ Printed Name of Student _________________________________________ Signature of student

______/______/_____ Date

APPENDIX H: SURVEY ASSENT Assent to Participate in a Research Study (Survey) ___________________________________________________________________ _____ IRB Study # Consent Form Version Date: 1 Title of Study: Engaged in Writing Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson Email Address: [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell Funding Source: Private Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496 Study Contact email: [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Things you should know You are being asked to be part of a research study. I am a student. This study is part of my degree. You may refuse to be in the study. You do not have to participate. You may also pull out for any reason. There will be no penalty for leaving the study. Studies are to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the future. There may not be a direct benefit from being in the study. There are more facts about the study below. It is important you know the details to make an informed choice. You will be given a signed copy of this form. The purpose of this study This study will look at student writing. It will look for a link between choices, motivation, and test scores. Criteria for participation: • Current fifth grade student • Willingness to participate • Returned signed permission slip How many people will take part in this study? The target group for this study is 62 students. How long will it last? The study will last three months.

What will happen? Students will complete a short survey. The survey is about their view as writers and students. Students may choose to skip any question. The survey will not impact grades. Privacy The study will not use any student’s name. Will you receive anything for being in this study? No. Will it cost you anything to be in this study? No. Questions about this study? You have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have a question, please contact Mr. Anderson. Rights as a research participant? This study is reviewed by a group. That committee works to protect your rights and welfare. If you or you have question or concerns contact: •

Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 ([email protected])

•

Dr. James Mitchell ([email protected])

•

Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Student Agreement: I have read the above form. I have asked questions I have at this time. I give my permission to be in this study. _________________________________________ Printed Name of Student _________________________________________ Signature of student

______/______/_____ Date

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Student Ja (Female/High) Interview Transcript I: Ja, hello. I am going to talk to you a little bit about your writing. Ja: Okay. I: I am only interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way that you think I want you to answer. I just want you to be honest and truthful and to answer from your perspective. Ja: Okay I: Think of a past writing assignment that you enjoyed; any assignment. This could be an assignment from school. It could be something that you did at home. Just think of a writing experience that you enjoyed and found engaging. I want you to think about what made it enjoyable. Ja: Sam in the Bottle, that I am writing, is very, very, enjoyable. I: Sam in the Bottle? Ja: Yes I: Tell me a little bit about Sam in the Bottle.

Code

Ja: It is basically about a kid who basically has

MNR

nothing. Then he finds an old bottle, and now he’s all rich, and he lives in a house with his best friend. And, he gets this letter from his aunt and he has to go save her; and that’s basically where I’m at now. I: So, instead of focusing on the story, what was it about writing it that has made it enjoyable for you? Ja: I think that being able to have the freedom of

CU

choice in what I am writing makes it enjoyable. I: So, it is important to you to have choice, or freedom of choice, as you put it? J: Yes. Freedom of speech.

CU

I: Do you ever not have choice in your writing? Ja: Sometimes at school, when I have to do like a five-

SL

paragraph essay or something. Sometimes I have to write about something in particular and it has to be

ME

five paragraphs. The only thing you have choice in is

CSL, CL

what you think about it. I: How do those types of writing assignments compare to the one you mentioned, Sam in the Bottle? Ja: I think that the five-paragraph essays I do not like

ME

as much as say narratives.

MNR

I: What do you think it is about the narratives that make them more enjoyable for you? Ja: Because you can make whatever you want, happen.

CU

It can be as realistic or non-realistic as you want. I: Was Sam in the Bottle part of an assignment? Ja: The first part, when I started it last year, the prolog was; but then I decided to go on with it, and that part was not an assignment. It was just something I wanted to do. I: Do you know how you did on the assignment? Ja: I did pretty good. I didn’t do bad and I didn’t do

SC

great, but that was fine. I: Do you think how you did on it had any sort of influence on your feelings toward this piece? Ja: Well, I think that the writing that I’ve done this year, I really like the way that I’ve done it, and that makes me want to go on and write more. I: What is it that you liked about the way you have done it?

MNR

Ja: Because it sounds like something that might actually happen. On a very low basis, but it could happen. I: So it’ more realistic?

MNR

Ja: Realistic fiction. I: Now I want you to think about a writing assignment that you really did not enjoy. Ja: I think that the writing assignment last year about

ME

rules, I didn’t very much enjoy, because it was three rules that you got to choose and I kind of already liked

CSL

the way the school rules are. I’m pretty used to them and So there’s nothing really I wanted to do about them. I think that it wouldn’t take five paragraphs to explain why or why not I liked the school rules. I: So, the prompt was to write about three rules at school that you would change. Is that right? Ja: Either change or just make new rules.

ME, CSL

I: And you didn’t like that, because there was nothing that you felt needed to be changed? Ja: I know that there’s some things, like the fiveparagraphs that you have to do, but don’t really know what to write about. I: Do you think that there was a way that assignment could have been changed to have made it more engaging for you? Ja: Maybe if it was, you could write about what would

MNR

happen if you changed the rules; if it would be a good

CSL

rule or a bad rule. Like, if you could have gum, then probably everyone would be having some. There

MNR

would probably be gum everywhere; in the doors, under the desks, in people’s hair. I: So, I want you to tell me if this is not correct. What I am hearing is that you wouldn’t mind writing about rules, but you would rather do it in kind of a storytelling way. Ja: Yes, because for me, I don’t know about anyone else, but I would rather explain it in a story way rather

SC

than just saying what you think about it. I would rather

SF

have people talking and all that stuff.

MNR

I: Do you know how you did on the assignment? Ja: It was fine. It wasn’t bad and it wasn’t great, but I

SC

did average. Ja: About the same as Sam and the Bottle.

SC

I: So how you did on those two assignments didn’t influence whether you enjoyed them or not? Ja: Yea, but, I would probably like them the same if I did good or bad, but it does influence me a little bit to keep going when I do good on them. I: I want you to picture yourself writing for fun. What does that look like to you in your mind?

SC

Ja: It looks like me sitting at my desk, either watching myself with a pencil trying to think, or writing

SF SL

something down. I: Where is your desk, here at school or at home? Ja: It’s a big desk in my room. I really like to write in SL my room. It’s peaceful, quiet, well usually quiet, and it’s just a great place to work. I: When you picture yourself writing at your desk, what are you writing about? Ja: Sam in the Bottle.

MNR

I: Is there anything else in that setting that helps you enjoy writing there better than other places? Ja: Maybe because it’s my own room. I can picture

SL

things a lot better rather than if I’m in a noisy area

MNR

where it’s hard to think. And, when you’re doing

CU

realistic fiction you can like write about things that SP could happen. If I can picture something I want to happen, I can take it out of something that’s in my room. I: thank you for taking this time. Is there anything else that you can think of that you might want to add? Ja: Nope.

Student Jo (Male/Low) Interview Transcript

Code

I: Hi Jo. I would like to talk to you for a little while about writing. The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study on student writing experiences. You can stop the interview at any time, for any reason. The interview will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? Jo: Yes. I: What does it mean? Jo: Like a, hidden or unknown. I: That is right; hidden or unknown. I am interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you for this study? Jo: Yes. I: I want you to think about a writing assignment that you felt was engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it engaging? Jo: The one we did today, where we wrote about our favorite pet, and I always do my dog. I like writing about my dog. So, that’s what made it engaging.

ME

I: Ok, it was more about the content? Jo: Yes. I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? Jo: Not yet. I: Knowing that you might, do you think that affected your level of engagement on the assignment? Jo: No.

SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not like doing. What do you think made the assignment less engaging? Jo: I couldn’t think of that much to write about. So, I

CU

had to think of more stuff to write. I: Did you receive a grade for the writing assignment you are thinking about right now? Jo: No. I think I probably would have gotten a two out of four. I: You did not feel like you did very well? Jo: No. I: How about today? How do you feel you did on the writing assignment concerning your dog? Jo: Pretty good. I think I would get a two or a three. I: So, you feel you did better than you did on the

SC

one you did not enjoy as much, but not twice as good? Jo: Yea.

SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. What does it look like? Where are you? What are you doing? Who is around? Jo: I am in the classroom. S__ and Z__ are next to me.

SL

H__’s chair is on her desk in front of me. I: What about that environment makes it a fun place to write? Jo: I don’t know. I: Do you ever write for fun outside of school? Jo: No. I: When you are writing for fun, what do you see yourself writing about? Jo: What I usually write about, when I get the chance to write about anything, is my dog. I: Do you have any questions or anything you would like to add? Jo: No.

ME

Student Ka (Male/Medium) Interview Transcript I: Hello Ka. I would like to talk to you for a little while about writing. Ka: Okay. I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study on student writing experiences. You can stop the interview at any time, for any reason. The interview will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? Ka: Yes. I: What does anonymous mean? Ka: It means no one knows who you are. I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you for this study? Ka: Yes. I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it engaging?

Code

Ka: I personally think that if I have a writing prompt I am more engaged. Then I don’t have to be engaged on

CL

trying to find something to write about. I: So you would rather have some options or be told what to write about, but not have to come up with a topic on your own? Is that what I am hearing you saying? Ka: Yes. The last writing assessment on rules.

CL, CSL, ME

I: Do you know if you received a grade for that assignment? Ka: Yes. I: Do you know if it was a good grade or not? Ka: No. I: Did the possibility of receiving a good grade affect your level of engagement? Ka: No.

SC

I: Think about a writing assignment you did not like. What do you think it was about that assignment that made it less engaging than the assignment about rules? Ka: I could not. I had to focus on choosing what I would like to write about and not focusing on just writing it.

CU

I: What was difficult? Ka: Coming up with ideas.

CU

I: Did you receive a grade for that writing assignment? Ka: Yes

SC

I: Do you know what grade you received? Ka: No. I: Would a grade have mattered in your engagement level? Ka: Yes.

SC

I: Why would a grade have mattered? Ka: Because, otherwise, if I did not know I was getting a grade for the assignment I would not know

SC

how to complete writing it. I: Was it more about a grade, or more about expectations that mattered to you on that assignment? Ka: A little of both.

SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be anywhere. You could be writing about anything. This does not need to be something at school. You are just writing and you are having fun. What does that look like to you? Ka: Maybe I would be writing a narrative story. Just a random story that I came up in my head.

MNR

Ka: I just wanted to get it out on paper.

CU

I: Where are you when you are doing this writing? Where do you see yourself? Ka: Usually at the computer typing it.

SL, SF

I: Who is around? Ka: My dad is on his computer. I: Is there anything else about the environment that makes it an enjoyable place to write? Ka: Maybe the fruit bowl on the table.

SP

I: Are you eating fruit out of the fruit bowl? Ka: Yes. I: Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your writing experiences? Ka: I like writing expository writing prompts, but it’s

ME

hard for me to come up with narratives. If someone

CL, CSL

assigns me a paper that is just a narrative where I

MNR, MNF

could write about anything, I have a lot of trouble with

CU

that. I: Do you have any questions, or anything else you would like to add? Ka: No. I: Thank you for taking the time to do this with me today.

Student Zo (Male/High) Interview Transcript I: Hello Zo. Zo: Hi. I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about writing. Zo: Okay. I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study on student writing experiences. You can stop the interview at any time, for any reason. The interview will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? Zo: Yes. I: What does anonymous mean? Zo: You don’t say your name or no one knows who you are. I: Perfect. I am interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you for this study? Zo: Yes.

Code

I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it engaging? Zo: It was a topic that I knew a lot about and I thought

KBA

it was fun. I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? Zo: Yes. I think it was a three out of four.

SC

I: Do you think your grade influenced the enjoyment of the assignment? Zo: Yes.

SC

I: If you would have received a lower grade do you think you would have enjoyed the assignment less? Zo: No.

SC

I: If you would have received a better grade, would you have enjoyed the assignment more? Zo: Yes.

SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not like doing. What do you think made the assignment less engaging? Zo: I didn’t know a lot about the topic and it was not very fun? I: So your knowledge base was more limited?

KBN

Zo: Yes.

KBN

I: That made it more difficult to write about? Zo: Yes.

KBN

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for that assignment? Zo: Yes. I think it was a two out of four.

SC

I: Do you think your grade had an effect on your level of engagement? Zo: Yes.

SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be anywhere. You could be writing about anything. You are just writing and you are having fun. What does that look like to you? Zo: Sometimes at night time I write in my bed.

SL, SF

I: What is the environment like? Zo: My room. I’m just lying on my bed.

SL, SF

I: What are you writing about? Zo: What I did today, what happened, and that kind of stuff. I: Is there anything else you would like to add? Zo: No. I: Thank you for your time.

CU

Student Hi (Female/Low) Interview Transcript I: I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about writing. Hi: Okay. I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study on student writing experiences. You can stop the interview at any time, for any reason. The interview will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? Hi: Yes. I: What does anonymous mean? Hi: No one knows it is actually you. I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you for this study? Hi: Yes. I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it engaging?

Code

Hi: I just liked it because you get to write about what

CU

you want to write about. I: Where were you doing this writing? Hi: The classroom.

SL

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the writing assignment? Hi: Yes, I think so.

SC

I: What was that like? Hi: (Shruggs)

SC

I: Do you know what kind of grade you received? Hi: No.

SC

I: Did receiving a grade influence your level of engagement? Hi: Yes. It makes me want to do it so I can get a better

SC

grade. I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not like doing. What do you think it was about that assignment that made it less engaging? Hi: I was told what to do, and it was hard for me to think about what to say. I didn’t know what to write about. I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for that assignment?

CL

Hi: No.

SC

I: Did that influence your level of engagement? Hi: No.

SC

I: Step away from graded and think about writing for fun. When you picture yourself writing for fun, what does that look like? Where are you? Who is around? What is the environment like? Hi: Last time I wrote for fun was in the classroom

SL

yesterday and most of the people were gone. I was just

MNR

writing. I wrote a story of a town. I really didn’t finish the story. It was just about a town with a bunch of people and their lives. I: Was the story more narrative or expository? Hi: Narrative.

MNR

I: When you usually write for fun, do you tend toward a certain type of writing? Hi: I usually write narratives. I: Those are all the questions I have. do you have anything you would like to add? Hi: No. I: Thank you for your time. Hi: Okay.

MNR

Student Si (Female/Medium) Interview Transcript I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about writing. The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study. The study is about student writing experiences. You can stop the interview at any time. You can stop the interview for any reason. The interview will be taperecorded. You will remain anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means? Si: Yes. I: What does anonymous mean? Si: That you could; that the other people do not know who you are. I: I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you for this study? Si: Yes. I: I want you to think of a writing assignment you thought was engaging. What do you think it was about the assignment that made it engaging?

Code

Si: It was an assignment where we had to write about

MNR

a memory that if we could go back to it we would. I really liked that memory so it was enjoyable to write about. I: Was it a writing prompt?

CSL

Si: Yes. It was a time and a place that you would go back to, to change anything, or just to go back to it. I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? Si: Not yet. I: Do you think a grade or recognition made a difference in how much you enjoyed the writing? Si: No

SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not like doing. What do you think it was about that assignment that made it less engaging? Si: During the WASL (Washing State Assessment of

CL

Student Learning) testing, there was a prompt about

MNF

seeing a principal flying or something like that. I

SL

didn’t like that and it wasn’t something I would write about. I wasn’t really engaged in it. I: Were Both of the experiences you talked about at school?

Si: Yes.

SL, CL

I: What was it about the flying principal experience that you did not like? Si: It was just something that I would not write about

CL

and I didn’t have any ideas for it. I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the flying principal assignment? Si: It was just the WASL score and I passed it.

SC

I: Did your grade or passing have an impact on your engagement level. Si: No.

SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be anywhere. You could be writing about anything. You are just writing and you are having fun. What does that look like to you? Where are you? Who is around? What is the environment like? Si: I am by myself, up in my room, with just paper and

SL

I write about a memory that I’ve had or I think of

MNR

something that I want to do and make up people as my

CU

friends; but I change the names. I: Do you prefer writing narrative stories or writing to explain things? Si: Narratives.

MNR

I: Was the prompt concerning a memory expository, where you explained something, or was it a story? Si: The prompt was a personal narrative.

MNR

I: If you were to write a narrative for fun, would it be realistic or fantasy? Si: Realistic.

MNR

I: Was that part of the problem with the flying principal; that the situation was not realistic? Si: Yes. I: Do you have anything else you would like to add concerning your writing experiences? Si: No I: Do you have any questions? Si: No I: Thank you for your time.

MNR

CURRICULUM VITAE Contact information Michael J. Anderson 2242 NW. 45th Ave. Camas, WA. 98607 telephone: 1-360-606-9496 e-mail: [email protected] Personal information Date of birth: November, 11, 1966 Place of birth: Denver, CO. Citizenship: United States of America Education Walden University, Minneapolis, MN. Ed.D. in teacher leadership (2008) Doctoral study: “The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary School Students” Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell City University, Vancouver, WA. M.A. in teaching (1996) Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID. B.A. in religious education, psychology minor (1990) Teaching experience Shahala Middle School, Vancouver, WA. Eighth grade science (2007 to date) Hearthwood Elementary School, Vancouver, WA. Fifth grade general education (2006–2007) Fourth grade general education (2002–2006) Second grade general education (1997–2002) Washington Elementary School, Vancouver, WA. First grade language arts (1996-1997) Prairie Community Church, Vancouver, WA. Seventh – twelfth grade religious education (1992-1993)

Billings First Church of the Nazarene, Billings, MT. Seventh – twelfth grade religious education (1990-1992) Awards Excellence in Teaching, Partnership with Science and Elementary School Students (2004) Outstanding Teacher, Washington state PTA (2002-2003) Teacher of the year, Hearthwood Elementary School (2002) Professional affiliations Phi Delta Kappan International National Science Teachers Association Evergreen School District Assessment Cadre’ Evergreen School District Math Coach (2004-2005) Lead science teacher, Hearthwood Elementary School (1998-2007)