Statement of the Problem - LaGrange College



EXTRINSIC LEARNERS BECOME INTRINSIC THROUGH MOTIVATION, GOAL SETTING, AND LEARNING STYLES

A thesis submitted

by

Lisa Hicks-Howard

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 17, 2011

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to find the connection between goal setting, learning styles, and motivation in helping students change from extrinsic learners to intrinsic learners. Subjects included students from a sixth grade classroom in a Title I school in Fulton County, Georgia. Some students participated in goal setting activities to help increase self motivation as well as having exposure to positive motivational techniques. All students created a profile online in order to obtain their individual learning styles. Significant differences were found in scores for subjects that set goals, both short-term and long-term, along with motivational and learning style implementations that increase a student’s intrinsic learning process. Further research would be needed to further confirm the above results.

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Tables iv

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

Statement of the Problem 5

Significance of the Problem 5

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks 6

Focus Questions 8

Overview of Methodology 9

Human as Researcher 9

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 11

Goal Setting, Learning Styles, and Motivation 11

Subject Outcomes 15

Subjects’ Feelings 16

Chapter 3: Methodology 19

Research Design 19

Setting 20

Subjects and Participants 20

Procedures and Data Collection Methods 21

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias 25

Analysis of Data 28

Chapter 4: Results 32

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results 44

Analysis 44

Discussion 47 Implications 48

Impact on Student Learning 49

Recommendations for Future Research 50

References 52

Appendixes 54

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

1. Data Shell……………………………………………………………..…… 22

1. Dependent Test Results for the Pre-tests for Goals and No Goals…………36

2. Independent Test Results for the Post-test for Goals and No Goals……....37

4.3 Dependent Test Results for the Pre and Post tests for Goals ……………...38

4.4 Dependent Test Results for the Pre and Post tests for No Goals…………..39

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

In a teacher-centered classroom setting, students tend to be passive learners and do not take ownership of their own learning. This study compares constructivist to traditional styles of teaching and whether or not these techniques show a significant difference in building more intrinsic learners. How do students benefit from kinesthetic learning versus traditional learning techniques? Do they take ownership of their education more if they are primarily in a hands-on based classroom? There are many roadblocks in the learning process for middle school learners, especially for those who are in low socio-economic positions. Mickelson stated that African Americans in poverty tend to believe that their personal future will not be affected by their educational benefits (as cited in Phalet, Andriessen, & Lens, 2004). Setting long-term goals in the middle school years helps the process of establishing the importance and relevance of education (Byman & Kansanen, 2008). Learning about what motivates them in order to maintain the goals and to become intrinsic learners in spite of these barriers was a primary goal in this process. The purpose of this study was to determine which teaching techniques provided the best results for low socio-economic students’ taking ownership of their own education.

Significance of Problem

Unfortunately in today’s society, children’s minds need to be more stimulated in order to maintain their attention, including within the classroom setting. Their motivation coincides with the level of interest in gaining their attention (Clayton, Blumberg, & Auld, 2009). If a teacher cannot grab student attention, he will not be able to reel students in to reach the intrinsic level of learning. Too often teachers tend to lean on the traditional style of teaching, which includes boring worksheets, taking notes, and listening to bland lectures. Changing the classroom setting from teacher oriented to student oriented will enhance classroom discussions, instructional variety as well as choices made by the students (Sturm & Bogner, 2008). The comfort zone needs to expand to include hands-on activities and stimulating technology. Students who are interacting with their peers while simultaneously learning are less likely to lose interest and become bored. Students fail to see the connection between what they are doing in the classroom everyday and their long-term goals. Students might acquire additional skills working in group settings as opposed to working completely isolated (Aldridge, 1971).

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study revolves around the complexities of constructivism, goal setting and intrinsic learners. Constructivism maintains that “the focus of concern is the construction of human knowledge in general (Phillips, 1995). As stated in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism, Phillips (1995) points out that there are many dimensions to constructivism. The dimension that most directly coincides with this study is the third dimension, which states that “the construction of knowledge is an active process, but the activity can be described in terms of individual cognition or else in terms of social and political processes (or, of course, in terms of both). Furthermore, this activity can either be physical or mental, or again both” (Phillips, 1995, p.9). This correlates with the process of goal-setting, which can be either personally, actively, set through their own cognition, or it can be a guided, almost politically, through the teacher and socially by the pressure of peers.

Domain three of the Six Domains of the Georgia Framework for Teaching found in LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework completely embodies the nature of this study by stating that “teachers create learning environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation” (p. 11). Creating environments that allow for a safe and nurturing environment in which a student feels confident and able to set forth goals and maintain them, is one of the primary goals of a teacher. Once the foundation of that environment is established, the active engagement, positive interactions and motivation perpetuates itself.

Tenet two in the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework states “exemplary professional teaching practices” (p.5). An exemplary teacher “draws from multiple resources in order to teach in diverse classrooms” (p. 5), in order to create a well-rounded learning environment. Such teachers also don’t limit their teaching techniques, but rather “try to be attentive to the purposes of instruction” (p. 5). This tenet also includes the importance of students making “deep, meaningful personal connections” (p. 5), when cultures and individuality is concerned. It also links “race, ethnicity, gender, and social class “(p.5) within the classroom setting. This connects with the study due to the large percentage of African American and Latino students that participated.

On a national level, Propositions two and three of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards coincide with tenet two and with the study. In LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework, the second National standard indicates that “teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students” (p.12). The third NBPT standard states that “teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning” (p.12). The two standards are connected in the sense that once you thoroughly know your content, you can move forward to better manage the classroom as well as the learning that takes place. As a teacher, the concentration won’t be on the content so much as it will be on the processes of the learning. By expanding in this way we can further explore the different ways in which learners learn, which is unique to each learner. By facilitating group activities, differentiation can be utilized. Using such techniques as peer teaching, presentations, discussion and reflection, can allow for a deeper level of understanding to occur.

Related Competency Cluster 2.1: Planning Skills indicates that teachers understand the motivation and behavior and take that into consideration when creating environments. If discussions about goals and motivation takes place, this process would help set up the environments needed, such as tasks that are productive and meaningful to each student. In turn, engagement would take place while being sensitive to cultures and experiences that are unique (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, pp. 6-7).

Focus Questions

One of the questions looked at by this study is what motivates passive students to become intrinsic learners. Once students’ learning styles are realized, techniques can be formed around them. An increase in enthusiasm can lead to motivation and eventually intrinsic learning. Another question is whether or not setting goals makes a difference in the outcome of learning. This study shows that goals are a positive part of students becoming more intrinsic learners. Finally, what stifles motivation for low socio-economic African Americans is another question that needs to be addressed. This is a group of learners that struggles with success in education due to outside restrictions. Realizing the problems that they face and enabling them to see beyond the obstacles can help influence their learning process throughout their educational careers.

Overview of Methodology

The research design for this study was based on action research which compared qualitative and quantitative data from goal setting, motivational, and learning style techniques. The setting for this study was a Title One, middle school in Fulton County. All of the classes were in a sixth grade Language Arts’ classroom. The subjects included both African American and Hispanic sixth grade students that have varied ability levels and are extrinsic learners, with the majority of the learners being lower. Some subjects have IEP’s and one will be an ESOL inclusion students. The procedures and methods for collecting the data in the action research included reflection journals, focus groups, goal setting activities, and learning style implementation. Statistical difference and magnitude was determined through the dependent t-tests and the effect size calculations. Dependability and bias were based on the control of the data collection setting. Dependability and bias will also be derived from the qualitative and quantitative data. For analysis of data the data collected from the instructional plan was analyzed for any dominant theme or emerging themes that were unexpected. For this qualitative analysis, the rationale was that one would be looking for categorical and repeating data that forms patterns of behaviors.

Human as Researcher

Over the three years of teaching, there have been changes in my students simply by telling them that expectations are that every single one of them go to college. The first year, students laughed and told me they weren’t going to college. I told them they were. They were dumbfounded. After explaining to them that if they keep their grades in the A-B range, they could qualify for the Hope scholarship and get a free ride. After talking for awhile, it was obvious that the majority of them were hearing this motivational information for the first time. Some of them were hooked from that moment on and some took a little more motivation. I have never actually used a more regimented goal setting technique or motivational technique and would like to know if they really work. Like many teachers, I am constantly striving to make choices that will be better for my students.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Many works were found that coincide with what was expected in this action research study. The majority of readings agree that not only short term, but long term goals can be effective as long as a student can relate the relevancy back to their circumstances, especially those that come from an African American, low socio-economic status. Understanding the learning styles of individuals helps determine the overall strategy within the classroom which will set the stage for increased intrinsic learning. When the students feel motivated and in an environment conducive to their learning styles, greater gains will be achieved in their education. However, not everyone feels that goals can help extrinsic learners become more intrinsic. Aldridge (2007) goes against setting the highest possible goals for individuals. He talks about pushing students, but not pushing too much, such as setting 90% as the highest expectation. Aldridge also states that goals just happen on their own. When considering low socio-economic students, goals are rarely happening on their own. These students are more likely to be preoccupied with where their next meal is coming from or where they might sleep that night instead of setting goals and aspirations.

Goal Setting, Learning Styles, and Motivation

According to Clayton, et al (2009), there are three types of goals: Achievement, Mastery and Performance. Achievement goals concentrate on the reasons for engaging in tasks. Mastery goals refer to “learners’ desires to increase their knowledge, understanding, competence and appreciation of educational materials” (p. 350), which is the ultimate goal. Performance goals are extrinsically motivated and deal primarily with performing for the benefit of everything. The students who set the Mastery goals are intrinsically motivated, and put forth more effort in their learning. Self-efficacy, which means “students’ perceptions about their ability to complete a specific task” (Clayton, et al., p. 351), is another problem. If they lack self-esteem, then they are less likely to succeed when setting the goals. Metacognition refers to how well they know themselves as learners, which could help during the goal setting process. Also, the results from Renzulli helped with the process of completing the student profiles to find the overall learning style of each class. Ultimately the goal would be for the student to be able to identify the weaknesses in their learning and be able to understand which learning techniques work the best for them personally in order to achieve the maximum benefit from their education. Clayton et al. (2009) states that “motivational beliefs and learning strategies influence academic outcomes” (p. 351).

Alderman (1999) states that “two failure-avoiding strategies are setting unrealistic goals (either too high or too low) and withholding effort” (p. 5). Alderman (1990) also states that “others have cited student work habits, especially lack of effort, as a major motivational problem. Lack of effort was identified as the primary motivational problem by Glasser.” (p. 5).

Byman and Kansanen (2008) feel that there are several ways to encourage intrinsic motivation such as; positive reinforcement, interesting activities, and a caring environment. Required content should be made as attractive as possible. Providing some choice to the student’s is another factor to increase their motivation. However, given too much freedom can cause students to falter. Confusion and self-esteem cause a student to just give up. Byman and Kansanen (2008) also think “teachers who are autonomy-oriented have been shown to have more intrinsically motivated students with higher levels of self-esteem, compared to students of teachers who are control-oriented” (p. 609).

Alderman (1999) states that “task accomplishment is the most powerful source of self-efficacy and an important approach is to use strategies that can strengthen task accomplishments” (p.64). If a student has low self-efficacy, then they are less likely to try to do better since they already feel that they are unable to accomplish a task in a positive manner. As a teacher the goal is to change the low self-efficacy to high self-efficacy in order to promote motivation and create more intrinsic learners.

Sometimes, giving students a choice in their activities is not possible. Unconstrained choices could cause chaos and confusion within the classroom. It goes back to the moral of the story, Lord of the Flies by Golding (1955), which is that children need rules and boundaries, as well as someone of authority to regulate and guide. Without it, chaos ensues. It is also impossible to think that students will always be motivated. Moods, problems, concerns might cause them to care less one day and more the next. Activities that are chosen are critical in the motivation process. Kansanen (2008) state that “It is essential when using persuasion as a means of teaching that students enter into a dialogue with one another, with the learning material and with the teacher” (p. 613). Group activities or hands-on activities which allow for communication would be good choices. However, one must keep in mind that the specific learning styles of that group must be taken into consideration also.

Aldridge (1971) has a different way of viewing goals and motivation. He talks about pushing students, but not pushing too much. He believes that about 90% is the highest expectation a teacher should set, whereas most believe that you should always set the goal at the highest possible point for any given task. Aldridge also sates that goals just happen on their own without any outside guidance. When considering low socio-economic students, goals are rarely happening on their own. Goals should not be based around one textbook, having a student be in charge of setting his own goals, and having the same tests for pre and post are some of the things that coincide with this study. A student cannot properly set up goals without a little guidance. If left on his own, one will see goals that are more generalized instead of more in depth that show deeper thinking was involved. As far as the pre and post test, they must be the same to maintain validity within the study. If the questions are different, the results might be invalid and worthless.

Aldridge states that “some students learn best in small groups, whereas others learn optimally working alone” (p. 3). He also states that an “Entire contract may be designed around student interests” (p.3). When students make their own goals with some guidance, they are more likely to have interest in it and more enthusiasm. Caraisco (2007) states that students “cannot maximize learning opportunities unless they are appropriately challenged and motivated to learn” (p. 255). Students in regular classes tend to prefer small group activities.

However, learning styles can determine more specifically what learning styles the majority of the classroom would best benefit from overall. In order to differentiate curriculum to motivate, a teacher must know their students well, not just according to the data analysis that they perform. This is why student profiles are so important to establish a base on which to differentiate from. Learning student profiles not only allow a teacher to understand individual student’s learning style, it allows you to formulate lessons around the majority of ways students learn. For instance, if the majority of one of the classrooms enjoys interaction with their peers, they will benefit from more group activities. However, if the majority of another class prefers technology, then a Promethean Board might be better utilized here.

Motivation, goal setting and learning styles are all intertwined to help the student that is more passive or extrinsic become an intrinsic learner. All three interact with one another to cohesively maintain an intrinsic learner.

Student Outcomes

Sturm and Bogner (2008), stated that student-oriented instructions produced higher motivational results, achievement scores, higher levels of well-being and meaningfulness for the student. When classes are considered student-oriented, they are full of conversation between students, creative and have visual resources, decisions made by the students and work performed in groups. A pleasant safe environment full of excitement towards learning gives learners a better focus on the content at hand. Sturm and Bogner also claim that “hands-on experiments might awake the interest and favor further engagement in this subject compared with conventional approaches” (p. 944).

Sturm and Bogner (2008) found that their data showed higher scores in the post tests and retention tests for those students in teacher-centered environments, but higher motivation levels in the student-centered. However, for their Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, they found differences in interest, enjoyment, perceived choice, value and usefulness, but found no difference for the perceived competence. Most studies usually find no significant differences between traditional and kinesthetic environments. Sturm and Bogner’s study showed substantial differences in student achievement for teacher-centered classrooms, but higher post-test and retention test scores. Some of the weaknesses of the student-oriented environment were no time limits, no significant structure regarding the activities, and the students were all working on different things at each station. Another weakness that they stated in the retention test results were that that test was given six weeks after the post-test and Sturm and Bogner hinted that it is a possibility that more enhancement was given by certain teachers even though they were instructed not to.

Alderman (1999) states that some descriptions of unmotivated behavior may be, “students do not have goals; they sit passively in class; turn in no homework; don’t keep up with their notebooks; do not take exams seriously; resist new approaches to learning that require the use of critical thinking skills” (p.5). This information helps in the process of distinguishing the extrinsic learners from the intrinsic learners when collecting data.

Clayton et al.(2009) states that “motivational beliefs and learning strategies influence academic outcomes” (p. 351). If a teacher learns a student’s preferred way of learning and the student can understand and establish his goals, then the chance for educational success increases.

Student Feelings

Phalet et al. (2004) state that many factors are effecting the motivation of young African American learners, such as; no connection between school and home, perceived limited options for their futures, no belief in the connection between school achievements and future goal achievements, and that many goals are extrinsically set. The main goal is to take passive, surface-level learning, which includes memorization, etc, and change it into deep-level learning (Phalet et al., 2004). “Typically, high levels of task orientation in students are associated with intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation. In turn, task orientation or intrinsic motivation are related to positive motivational outcomes such as more effort and persistence, more effective learning strategies, and better school results” which is the ultimate goal ( Phalet et al., 2004, p.77). Phalet et al.(2004) also agrees with the findings that internal motivation creates a more conducive environment for effective learning strategies and enhancement of task orientation.

Phalet, et al. (2004) states that future goals play an important part in lowering minority failures and dropout rates. The teacher’s role in all of this is to make innovative learning strategies available to the learners as well as setting future goals and connecting how success in the classroom can link them to those future goals. According to Alderman (1999), “an example of disengagement is this student’s comment: When you get home there’s always something you can be doing with your friends besides homework so you just do enough to get a decent grade but you don’t try to get your best grade, you do just enough to finish”(p. 15).

One of the influences of motivation is the respect for various cultures, as well as just having awareness of the diversity. Depending on the culture, what appears as motivations can be overlooked. Teachers need to look for certain signs and statements that the students provide when talking about goals or education. Ginsberg (2005) states, “For teachers, especially those in high poverty communities, designing lessons that help elicit students’ stories, opinions, values, and interests as a catalyst for learning is fundamental to encouraging intrinsic motivation across student groups”(p. 220). A finding of strong relationships occur between teachers who honor the voice of diversity and motivation of their students (Ginsberg, 2005). Once this positive relationship is established, trust allows a student to value their education and move from an extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. The African –American and Hispanic students tend to achieve less than white students after the fourth grade. Alderman (1999) feels that one of the reasons that this occurs is due to the teacher underestimating the expectations for such students. Another factor is that peer pressure can be negative towards positive school attitudes and behaviors.

Extrinsic motivators, such as rewards or punishments are not enough to motivate learners. They must understand their place in the educational world, as well as see the value in it. Ginsberg (2005)states that “intrinsic motivation can be defined as participation in learning experiences that, even in the absence of extrinsic rewards or sanctions, are of interest and value to students”(p. 220). Intrinsic learners tend to use both learning strategies and motivation (Alderman, 1999). They also can keep their concentration during distractions, lead their own education, and do things to ensure that learning continues

Once significance of a person’s culture and emotion is reached, intrinsic motivation follows. In order to differentiate curriculum to motivate, a teacher must know their students well, not just according to the data analysis that they perform. This is why student profiles are so important to establish a base on which to differentiate from. Learning student profiles not only allows a teacher to understand an individual student’s learning style, it allows one to formulate lessons around the majority of ways students learn. For example, if the majority of one classroom enjoys interaction with their peers, they will benefit from more group activities.

Comments are usually openly given without even asking during regular classroom tasks. Students will shout out that something is boring or useless to them.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This action research study increases the understanding of how extrinsic learners become more intrinsic by understanding which learning styles utilize the best classroom strategies, along with goal setting and motivational techniques. This study examines in particular the benefits of such techniques as related to low socio-economic, African-American and Hispanic sixth grade students. The action research allows both qualitative and quantitative data to be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of motivation, learning styles and goal setting on extrinsic learners in becoming more intrinsic in their learning process. Hendricks (2009) states that the action research process is “a series of steps in which the actions researcher reflects, acts, and evaluates” (p. 9). This is the continual process that was used throughout the action research.

The quantitative data which was collected included assessment scores from one group of students that were not exposed to motivational or goal setting techniques. However, their learning styles were recorded in determining the curriculum within the classroom setting. That data was compared to students from the group that was exposed to such techniques. Dependent t-tests for pre-tests and post-tests from both the group that was exposed to goal setting techniques and positive motivational techniques and the group that was not exposed to goal setting techniques and positive motivational techniques were used to determine if significant differences occurred between these two groups. Qualitatively, focus group questions were used to help determine the benefits of learning styles being utilized by the majority of classes as well as goal setting experiences. Another qualitative data that was collected came from a reflective journal. This journal consisted of comments from individual students, observances of both behavior and performance, and some raw data scores. This provided insight into the validity of the process of determining the strengths of such tools.

Setting

This study was conducted in an inner-city school, on a team which includes all of the monitored ESOL students, in Fulton County, Georgia. In the sixth grade Language Arts’ classes on this team there are over 100 students. The majority of students come from a low socio-economic status which was determined by the fact that 93% of the total number of students in the entire school receives free or reduced lunches. This location was selected due to the convenience and availability to perform the action research. Permission to conduct the research was obtained through the principal in this school as well as through an IRB application approved through LaGrange College.

Subjects and Participants

The subjects in this study were students from sixth grade Language Arts’ classes and the participants were two teachers for the interview regarding the instructional plan and its rubric. The students are both African American and Hispanic and range in age from 10 to 14. There are over 100 students on this particular team of students. The exact number was hard to facilitate due to the high number of homeless and transient students which cause students to leave or arrive on a daily basis. Forty students were randomly chosen in this study. The majority of students are already low level learners, so there was a high probability that the students would be low level learners. The majority of students taught are African American and a few will be Hispanic, one of which was a monitored ESOL student. Phalet (2004) suggests that African American and Latino learners don’t believe that their own futures’ benefit from educational successes. This coincides with the findings that even though they are highly motivated, they have low achievement scores, which is directly related to the fact that they are not intrinsically motivated, but externally motivated (Phalet et al., 2004). Some of these students were also picked randomly to answer questions in a focus group setting. The two teachers asked to participate in the interview for the instructional plan and rubric, were picked due to availability. Both teachers are also sixth grade Language Arts’ teachers who teach at the same location. It was valuable in several ways to get the opinion of not only the same content area, but also from the same working environment. This allowed for the teachers to base their opinions and suggestions around the type of students that are available to us, which include low socio-economic as well as primarily low-level learners.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

Many procedures and methods were used to collect data for this action research study. The variables described in the Data Shell (see Table 3.1) below provide information based on each of the three focus questions. This includes such methods as an instructional plan and rubric, pre and post testing and a focus group. All of these treatments allowed the research study to determine whether or not goals, motivation or learning styles had any significance to the improvement of intrinsic pedagogy.

Table 3.1 Data Shell

|Focus Question |Literature sources |Type: Method, Data, |How are data analyzed |Rationale |

| | |Validity | | |

|FQ1 |Clayton, K., Blumberg, |Method: |Coded for themes |Looking for categorical |

|How do goals, learning |F., & Auld, D. (2010) |Instructional |Recurring Dominant |and repeating data that |

|syles, and motivation |Caraisco, J. (2007) |Plan rubric and |Emerging |form patterns of |

|play a role in changing |Ginsberb, M.. (n.d.) |Interview | |behaviors |

|learners from extrinsic |Zeeman, R., (2006) |Data: | | |

|to intrinsic? | |Qualitative | | |

| | |Validity: | | |

| | |Content | | |

|FQ2 |Alderman, M., (1999) |Method: |Dependent T |To determine if |

|How well did the students|Phalet, K., Andriessen, |Study Island- Tests |Independent T |there are |

|score? |I., & Lens, W. (2004) |Data: | |significant |

| |Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. |Interval | |differences |

| |(2008) |Validity: | |between mean |

| | |Content | |from two |

| | | | |independent |

| | | | |groups. |

| | | | |To determine if there are|

| | | | |significant |

| | | | |differences between means|

| | | | |from one group tested |

| | | | |twice. |

|FQ3 |Phalet, K., Andriessen, |Method: |Coded for themes |Looking for categorical |

|How do the subjects feel |I., & Lens, W. (2004) |Reflective Journal Focus |Recurring |and repeating data that |

|about learning styles and|Byman, R., & Kansanen, |Groups |Dominant |form patterns of |

|goal setting techniques |P. (2008) |Data: |Emerging |behaviors to determine if|

|being incorporated into |Clayton, K., Blumber, F.,|Qualitative Interval | |there are significant |

|the curriculum? |& Auld, D. |Validity: Construct | |relationships between a |

| |(2009) | | |dependent variable and |

| | | | |the affecting independent|

| | | | |variable. |

Focus question one narrows in on how goals, learning styles and motivation can change an extrinsic learner into an intrinsic one. The Instructional Plan helps determine the different steps needed to accomplish this goal. The Instructional Plan can be found in Appendix A. The Instructional Plan Interview can be found in Appendix B. The Instructional Plan Rubric can be found in Appendix C. A colleague with nine years experience reviewed the Instructional Plan and scored the rubric. Another colleague gave comments on the instructional plan. One of the first steps in the research process was to have students complete a profile on the Renzulli website. They indicated their learning styles by answering many questions regarding their likes and dislikes. Once the learning style information was collected, the majority of each classroom’s preferred learning style was implemented into the classroom curriculum. For instance, if the majority of fourth period enjoys interacting with their peers and hands-on learning, then the majority of the lessons in the group will be activity work where those styles will be accommodated.

Goal setting techniques were also established in some classroom settings. Students were required to complete both short term and long term goal setting activity sheets after watching videos on goal setting. By watching the videos, students understood the correct process in determining realistic goals as well as more defined goals. They were also able to connect goals with future success. Phalet et al., (2004) agrees that the teacher’s role in all of this is to make innovative learning strategies available to the learners as well as setting future goals and connecting how success in the classroom can link them to those future goals.

Focus question two is mainly focused around the data results on how well the students performed over a period of time. Based on Alderman’s (1999) Motivation for Achievement, students will complete various goal-setting forms in order to begin the process of increasing their self-efficacy and to lower their feeling that they are unable to achieve success, especially after doing poorly on a test. These goal setting techniques allow students to reassess their goals and motivate them to continue with success. This allowed data to be collected from a pre and post tests, initializing a dependent test to help determine whether or not various factors increased test scores.

Focus question three looks at how the subjects feel about the goal setting and motivational techniques used in the classroom, along with the learning styles implementation. One way to help determine these feelings was to form a focus group using some of the same students. I used questions based off of The Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching by Ginsberg (2005). The focus group questions can be found in Appendix D. Focus group questions based on the questions from Ginsberg (2005) article; how do we create a learning atmosphere where we feel respected and connected to each other? How do we create a good attitude toward learning through personal relevance and choice? How do we create engaging and challenging learning experiences that include student viewpoints and values? How do we create an understanding that students have effectively learned something they value and perceive as authentic to their real world?

Another method used in the research process was a reflection journal. Reflective Journal questions can be found in Appendix E. This allowed me to answer my third focus question, which asks; how do the subjects feel about learning styles and goal setting techniques being incorporated into the curriculum? This journal allowed informal comments or behaviors to be noted and used in the review of the qualitative data. Based on some of the behavioral and oral attributes shown by students, reflections were made in regards to their motivation, self-efficacy, and general feelings about education.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

Focus question one asks how do goals, learning styles, and motivation play a role in changing learners from extrinsic to intrinsic? The methods to help determine this were an Instruction Plan and rubric, along with interviewing more experienced colleagues for feedback for improvement. The strengths of the validity of the methods from the Instructional Plan are based on the qualitative data. Popham (2008) states that “the extent to which an assessment procedure adequately represents the content of the curricular aim being measured” (p. 53). Content validity was sought in this action research study. The methods used directly helped measure if goal use increases independently, which is directly related to creating a more intrinsic based student. The various short-term and long-term goal sheets helped set this in motion. The dependability of these methods was based on the control of the data collection setting. Maintaining well organized raw data and providing complete and accurate supporting data help ensure dependability.

To avoid any biases, instruments used in this research study were checked for any offensive, racial, unfair or disparate impacts. However, Popham (2008) states that “if a test has a disparate impact on members of a particular racial, gender, or religious subgroup, this disparate impact certainly warrants further scrutiny to see if the test is actually biased” (p. 77). Content validity was sought in this action research study. Once data was collected it was checked for any disparate impact biases based on race due to the subjects being either African American or Hispanic. If one group of students does poorly and all are of the same ethnicity, then the tests or methods would have been checked again for any biases. However, this did not occur.

Focus question two asks how well the students scored on the interval data. The methods used to answer this were tests that are equivalent to tests given to another group in relation to the group of students that did not receive any goal setting or motivational techniques. The group that did not receive any goal setting or motivational techniques were compared to the group that did receive these various techniques. The strengths of the validity of these methods are based on quantitative data. Popham (2008) states that “ one way of trying to make sure a test’s content adequately taps the content of a curricular aim is to employ a set test-development procedures carefully focused on assuring that the curricular aim’s content is properly reflected in the assessment procedure itself” (p. 56). So, the tests used in this study have been created by a collaborative team of Language Arts teachers from the website . All items were analyzed to assure that each covers content and can establish mastery in the knowledge of the curriculum. Also, content validity was sought in this action research plan.

The reliability of the quantitative data collected for the assessments was assured using a test retest calculation based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient and reported as an r value. Two groups were tested and then retested, using the same test for each.

To avoid any biases, instruments used in this research study were checked for any offensive, racial, unfair or disparate impacts. However, Popham (2008) states that “if a test has a disparate impact on members of a particular racial, gender, or religious subgroup, this disparate impact certainly warrants further scrutiny to see if the test is actually biased” (p. 77). Once data was collected it was checked for any disparate impact biases based on race due to the subjects being either African American or Hispanic. If one group of students does poorly and all were of the same ethnicity, then the impact biases based on race due to the subjects being either African American or Hispanic. If one group of students does poorly and all are of the same ethnicity, then the tests or methods will be checked again for any biases. There were no biases found in the various tests.

Focus question three asks how the subjects feel about learning styles and goal setting techniques being implemented into the curriculum. The qualitative methods used to determine this answer would be a reflective journal as well as focus group questions. The validity of these methods were based on construct validity. Popham (2008) states that construct related validity is “the extent to which empirical evidence confirms that an inferred construct exists and that a given assessment procedure is measuring the inferred construct accurately” (p. 53). A hypothesis was formed based on student performance, and then it was confirmed. The dependability for this data was based on the selection of an adequate number of subjects and maintaining well organized raw data. Also, establishing a chain of evidence, i.e. able to connect research question to theory to focus question to conclusions was another way to verify the dependability.

To avoid any biases, instruments used in this research study were checked for any offensive, racial, unfair or disparate impacts. However, Popham (2008) states that “if a test has a disparate impact on members of a particular racial, gender, or religious subgroup, this disparate impact certainly warrants further scrutiny to see if the test is actually biased” (p. 77). Once data was collected it was checked for any disparate impact biases based on race due to the subjects being either African American or Hispanic. If one group of students does poorly and all are of the same ethnicity, then the impact biases based on race due to the subjects being either African American or Hispanic. If one group of students does poorly and all are of the same ethnicity, then the tests or methods would be checked again for any biases. However, this was not necessary, since all students performed at about the same rate.

Analysis of Data

For focus question one, data was analyzed by being coded for themes. Recurrent, dominant and emerging themes were the focus. The data collected from the Instructional Plan was analyzed for any dominant theme or emerging data that was unexpected. For this qualitative analysis, the rationale was that one would be looking for categorical and repeating data that forms patterns of behaviors.

Focus question two data were analyzed to determine if there were significant differences between means from two independent groups. For instance, the study had two groups that were tested twice each. One class had received goal setting and motivational techniques and another class did not have those techniques. The data was then analyzed to determine that there was a significant difference between the two groups.

Another way that focus question two data was analyzed was to determine if there were significant differences between means from one group tested twice. The decision to reject the null hypothesis has been set at p< .05. To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice, the effect size r for paired data such as a dependent t-test, was calculated using the effect size calculator, which helps to confirm validity for each group. Effect size is a name given to a family of indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. Unlike significance tests, these indices are independent of sample size. Effect size can be measured in two ways; as Cohen’s d for independent groups or by effect size r for paired data such as a dependent t-test or a correlation.

Focus question three data were analyzed in two ways. Using the Pearson’s correlation to determine if there were significant relationships between a dependent variable and the affecting independent variable helped analyze the data. Another method used was to analyze for any dominant themes or emerging data that was unexpected. For this qualitative analysis, the rationale was that one would be looking for categorical and repeating data that formed patterns of behaviors.

Holistically, the data was analyzed for validation, credibility, transferability, and transformational. The study had both consensual validation and epistemological validation. Consensual validation is confirmed by having the study approved by the appropriate faculty. Epistemological validation is when the results are compared to the literature, which is done in the Literature Review. It is confirmed if the results and the literature review have consensual validation. Eisner (1991) calls the faulty review process ‘Consensual Validation,’ an agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic are right. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review as “Epistemological Validation,’ which is a place where you convince the reader that you have remained consistent with the theoretical perspectives you used in the review of the literature.

Credibility consists of several areas; structural corroboration, fairness and rightness to fit. Structural corroboration occurs when you have multiple data sources. This triangulation can be confirmed in the reference section, based on the amount of credible source listed. The fairness is confirmed by having multiple views, including opposing points of view. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole. Within Eisner’s definition are embedded the concepts of fairness and precision. To be fair you must state that you plan to present alternative perspectives with which you may not particularly agree. This is done by presenting alternative perspectives in the literature review as well as selecting participants in the data collection process who have opposing views. To be precise you must state how you will present a tight argument, coherent case, and have strong evidence to assert judgments. Eisner refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’ Rightness of fit occurs when great care has been taken to ensure precision and accuracy. Strong evidence of precision and accuracy must be in place to ensure this credibility.

Transferability happens when a study can be replicated by another individual easily during future research, which Eisner (1991) calls this process referential adequacy where perception and understanding by others will increase because of your research. One must establish credibility before this can occur. Transferability can be achieved by having detailed information within the Instruction Plan which breaks down the process for establishing goal setting and motivational techniques.

Finally, transformational was the other way that the data was analyzed. Later as cited by Kinchloe and McLaren (1998) stated that catalytic validity is the degree to which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your participants, subjects, or school. However, catalytic validity did not occur in this action research.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Focus questions one through three will be sequentially organized to format Chapter Four results. Qualitative data will be utilized for focus question one and three, and quantitative data for focus question two. Focus question one through three uses data to look for categorical and repeating themes throughout all three chapters. For focus question one the recurring themes were; overall agreement that the goal setting worked, especially if correlated with students with low self-efficacy, technology needed to be used frequently , and concern that the needs of the special learners would be met. Focus question two had recurring themes of; an increase in intrinsic learners, an increase in scores based on motivation, an increase in scores based on goal setting techniques and finally, an increase in scores based on learning styles. The recurring themes for focus question three were; motivation in a positive way increases confidence, agreement that technology was the learning style of choice for the majority and that positive reinforcement was preferred over negative to increase achievement and self-efficacy. Qualitative data will be analyzed in comparison with the repeating themes for focus questions one and three. Data tables will be used throughout based on the information provided from the Dependent T tests and Independent T test, including pre-pre, pre-post, and post-post testing.

FOCUS QUESTION ONE-QUALITATIVE

How do goals, learning styles, and motivation play a role in changing learners from extrinsic to intrinsic? To answer this question, an instructional plan, rubric, and interview were analyzed qualitatively. In the instructional plan, the focus question “how can short term and long term goals increase your motivation to become a more intrinsic learner?” was looked at as a technique in changing an extrinsic learner to an intrinsic learner. The rubric helped set a guideline for the teachers being interviewed to understand the guidelines for the instructional plan. Finally, an interview was performed with another 6th grade Language Arts’ teacher to answer questions pertaining to the instructional plan.

To answer focus question one, two teachers who were interviewed looked at the overall instructional plan that revolved around motivational techniques, specifically looking at the way short term and long term goals were going to be presented to the students. Initially, a few videos were shown to help students create background information on goal setting techniques. When asked how many students had thought about setting goals, very few raised their hands. The ones that did have goals, made goals that were very general instead of specific, which indicated the need for more detailed instruction on how to set goals. Teacher one who was interviewed indicated a deeper need to help students dig even deeper to realize how narrowed their goals should end up. She suggested increasing the amount of goal sheets to help them physically see how to reduce goals from general goals to more specific. This was a necessary step in the process of the goal-setting techniques.

Both teachers commented that in this low socio-economic environment, along with uninvolved parents, many students were not going to easily buy into a goal setting exercise. They also indicated that if a student has low self-esteem, then they are less likely to be successful in setting goals. Both teachers agreed that motivation had to be paralleled with the goal setting process for all the students, but especially for the ones with low self-efficacy.

provides several questions for students to answer in order to determine which learning style that students prefers. Using technology for the learning process is now considered a learning style, along with group work and kinesthetic learning styles. Since one of the main learning styles of this group of students was technology, many of the activities were performed using the Promethean Board and the ActivVision document imager. Students also did several activities on to work on various grammar practices. The Promethean board was used to show all three videos and to show the goal setting process using a flipchart. The ActivVision document imager projected individual student goal sheets in order to compare a short-term goal with a long-term goal as well as compare a general goal and action plan with a more specific goal and action plan. The response to question three of the interview (see Appendix D) was unanimous. The teachers agreed that technology would be a great way to introduce and maintain the goal setting techniques even though they did not know that the students’ learning styles indicated a high preference towards technology.

The last recurring theme was that there was concern that the needs of the special learners would be met consistently. Special needs learners were found equally on both the goal techniques side as well as the no goal techniques side. There were approximately ten students on each side of the goal setting techniques that were repeat students for the sixth grade. Approximately the same amount had medical alerts, mostly consisting of asthma, as well as Individualized Education Programs (IEP) on both sides. There was one English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) student on each side as well. Consistently on both the goal-setting and non-goal setting groups, the majority of subjects are on free or reduced lunches, have no parental involvement, and have significant turmoil in their personal lives. In each instance of an IEP, the individual instructions were utilized. The majority of the modifications included extended time for finishing a task, less work to complete and an increase on individualized attention. During the goal setting paperwork, these students were able to write fewer goals. Each student was also personally talked to in order to ensure that complete understanding of the task was taking place. Extension of time was given for all students involved. The ESOL student who was involved also had some modifications in her goal setting worksheets. The student had a few questions, but for the most part, was able to complete the tasks without any problem.

FOCUS QUESTION TWO- QUANTITATIVE

Focus question two revolves around how well the students scored on the post-test after several motivational, goal setting techniques and learning styles were implemented. At the beginning of the action research study, subjects were randomly picked out of 100 students. Twenty students were randomly picked who would receive the goal setting techniques as well as having motivation and learning styles being implemented. Twenty students were also randomly picked who would not receive any of those implementations listed above. However, all forty students had completed a student profile on to determine the overall learning style, which was the use of technology within the classroom. The second learning style that the majority of all of the students preferred was learning games, and group work a close third. The overall result was that some changes were implemented, such as creating jobs for students within a group setting as to avoid less motivated students from sitting and observing instead of participating. However, both the goal setting set and the no goal setting set of subjects were actually utilizing the use of technology for this study. The purpose of this table is to compare pre-tests for both goal setting and non-goal setting subjects. As shown in table 4.1, there was no significant difference between the scores of the subjects that had goals and the subjects that did not have any goals.

Table 4.1- Dependent Test Results for the Pre-tests for Goals and No Goals.

|t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances | |

|  |Pretest No Goals |Pretest Goals |

|Mean |60.19 |63.85 |

|Variance |279.26 |256.82 |

|Observations |21 |21 |

|Pooled Variance |268.04 | |

|Hypothesized Mean Difference |0 | |

|df |40 | |

|t Stat |-0.72 | |

|P(T ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download