Dr. Lia Daniels at the University of Alberta delivers a presentation on the good, the bad and the ugly of pre-service teacher motivation. Visit http://beditionmagazine.com/dr-lia-daniels-motivation-education/ for the article and podcast associated with this presentation.
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
The good the bad and the ugly
1. The good, the bad, and the
ugly of pre-service
teachers’ motivation and
emotions
Lia M. Daniels
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Psychology
2. Big Ideas
What motivates someone What makes a good
to teach?
teacher?
3. Big Ideas
What motivates someone What makes a good
to teach?
Differences in types of
motivation
Achievement goal theory
teacher?
Positive emotions
Feels confident
Committed
Prepared
4. Achievement Goal Theory
Personal Goals
mastery-approach: desire to
gain competence
performance-approach: desire
to demonstrate competence
relative to others
mastery-avoidance: desire to
avoid being incompetent
performance-avoidance: desire
to avoid demonstrating
incompetence relative to others
Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001
Examples
“I want to explore all sources
of information and learn as
much as possible about music
theory.”
“I want to have higher grades
than Kelly.”
“I don’t want to overlook an
important part of music
theory.”
“I don’t want to do worse on
this paper than Kelly.”
5. Achievement Goal Theory
Personal Goals
mastery-approach: desire to
gain competence
performance-approach: desire
to demonstrate competence
relative to others
mastery-avoidance: desire to
avoid being incompetent
Empirical Evidence
Students’
mastery goals
enjoyment,
efficacy, effort,
persistence
performance-avoidance: desire
to avoid demonstrating
incompetence relative to others
Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001
boredom,
procrastination,
cheating
6. Achievement Goal Theory
Classroom Goal Structures
the prevailing instructional
practices within a classroom
mastery goal structure: promotes
learning and trying hard
performance goal structure:
emphasizes demonstration of
competence relative to others.
Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004
Examples
“I plan on giving students
opportunities for revision
before grading.”
“I plan on comparing student
performance.”
TARGET System
Task
Autonomy
Recognition
Grouping
Evaluation
Timing
7. Achievement Goal Theory
Classroom Goal Structures
Empirical Evidence
the prevailing instructional
practices within a classroom
mastery goal structure: promotes
Mastery goal
structures
learning and trying hard
performance goal structure:
emphasizes demonstration of
competence relative to others.
efficacy, effort,
persistence,
belonging
cheating,
avoidance coping,
withdrawal
Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004
8. Relationships
Pre-service
Teachers’
teachers’
personal goals
personal goals
?
Mastery goal
structures
Students’
mastery goals
efficacy,
effort,
persistence,
belonging
enjoyment,
efficacy, effort,
persistence
burnout, sick
days
?
help-seeking,
efficacy,
interest, PD
cheating,
avoidance
coping,
withdrawal
boredom,
procrastination,
cheating
Butler, 1997; Fasching et al., 2010; Lau & Nie, 2008; Nitsche et al., 2013;
Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Wolters, 2004
9. Data Sources
Participants: 579 pre-service teachers
Manitoba, n = 140 followed into practice n = 53
Alberta, n = 439; 194 elementary; 229 secondary
Common measures
Goal Orientation Scale-R (Elliot & Murayama, 2008)
Patterns of Adaptive Learning (Midgley et al., 2000)
Various measures of emotions and cognitions
Objective today is to describe the good, the bad, and
the ugly
10. The Good
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education
program influence their sense of readiness to teach
Indicators of readiness to teach
Classroom
dynamics
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Intrapersonal
reflection
Five Program Factors
Daniels et al., 2011
Ethics of
teaching
Professional
learning
community
11. The Good
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education
program influence their sense of readiness to teach
Efficacy
Classroom
dynamics
β= .23, p < .05
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Intrapersonal
reflection
Five Program Factors
Daniels et al., 2011
Ethics of
teaching
Professional
learning
community
12. The Good
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education
program influence their sense of readiness to teach
Commitment to teaching
β=.23, p < .05
β=.21, p < .05
Classroom
dynamics
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Intrapersonal
reflection
Five Program Factors
Daniels et al., 2011
Ethics of
teaching
Professional
learning
community
13. The Good
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education
program influence their sense of readiness to teach
Anxiety
β= -.24, p < .05
β= -.26, p < .05
β= .23, p < .05
Classroom
dynamics
Curriculum,
Instruction,
and
Assessment
Intrapersonal
reflection
Five Program Factors
Daniels et al., 2011
Ethics of
teaching
Professional
learning
community
14. The Good
2. Pre-service teachers tend to hold adaptive personal
motivation beliefs
15
10
5
0
Mastery-app
Perform-app
Elementary
Daniels, 2013
Mastery-avd
Secondary
Performan-avd
15. The Good
3. This adaptive motivation tends to be related to positive
emotions and cognitions
Motivation
Commit
Efficacy
Enjoymen
t
Boredom
Anxiety
Mastery-app
.10*
.34**
.34**
-.14**
.09
Mastery-avd
-.07
.13**
.10*
.01
.14**
Perform-app
-.03
.15**
.15**
.05
.10*
.08
.03
.07
.10*
Perf-avd
-.04
**p < .01, *p < .05
Daniels, 2013
16. The Good
4. Pre-service teachers have good intentions to create
optimally motivating classrooms for their students
20
15
10
Elementary
Secondary
5
0
Mastery structures
Daniels, 2013
Performance structures
17. The Good
5. These intentions tend to be related to positive
emotions and cognitions
Intention
Commit
Efficacy
Enjoymen
t
Boredom
Anxiety
Mastery
Practices
.13**
.39**
.36**
-.17**
.09
.01
-.06
.20**
.14**
Performance
.05
Practices
**p < .01, *p < .05
Daniels, 2013
18. The Good
6. Differences in pre-service teachers’ levels of personal
motivation lead to different predictions of their
intended classroom mastery goals
Personal
masteryapproach
goals
β = .98, p < .001
.53,
.05
Intended
classroom
mastery
goals
Elementary > High school
Daniels, Frenzel, et al., 2013
19. How do we increase
pre-service teachers’
personal masteryapproach?
20. The Bad
1. Pre-service teachers’ feel little responsibility for
motivation of their future students
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Motivation
Achievement
Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
Relationship
Teaching
21. The Bad
2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to
fulfill their responsibilities
Responsibility
Evidence Suggests
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
Motivation
+
-
Achievement
+
+
Relationships
+
-
Teaching
+
-
**p < .01, *p < .05
Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
My Results
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
22. The Bad
2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to
fulfill their responsibilities
Responsibility
Evidence Suggests
My Results
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
Motivation
+
-
.05
-.41**
Achievement
+
+
-.29*
.16
Relationships
+
-
.26*
.14
Teaching
+
-
.05
-.13
**p < .01, *p < .05
Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
23. The Bad
2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to
fulfill their responsibilities
Responsibility
Evidence Suggests
My Results
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
Mastery
Practices
Performance
Practices
Motivation
.05
-.41**
Achievement
-.29*
.16
Relationships
.26*
.14
Teaching
.05
-.13
**p < .01, *p < .05
Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
24. How do we increase
pre-service teachers’
responsibility for
motivation and equip
them with practices?
25. The Ugly
1. Pre-service teachers struggle to enact their good
intentions once they start practicing
B.Ed.
Program
Consent to
follow-up
Completed
follow-up
Percent
Elementary
66
37
23
38% of original
Secondary
74
49
30
62% of consented
Total
140
86
53
7/53 participated in focus groups as well
Daniels, 2013
26. The Ugly
Mastery Structures
18
Performance Structures
14
13
17
12
16
11
15
F (1,41) = 6.31, p = .02
F (1,41) = 3.76 p = .06
10
9
14
During B.Ed. During teaching
Daniels, 2013
During B.Ed.
During
Teaching
Elementary
Secondary
27. The Ugly
“You are in competition with other teachers. If there’s
too many teachers at your school, and there’s only one
position the next year, you want to be the best you can
be but you also want your principal to notice. It’s not a
competition, but it is when you don’t have job it is a
competition.”
“In my first year it was a big deal cause I felt like, I like
to verify my existence in the school, like I had to prove
that I was just as good as everyone else, but then after
you kind of do that, then you’ve, I started to veer away
from that.”
28. How do we sustain preservice teachers’ good
intentions once they
start teaching?
32. Opportunities for Intervention
Resp. for Mot
Promote
personal
mastery
14
13
12
11
10
Increase
responsibility
Equip with
practices
Experimental
Control
F (1,75) = 2.31, p = .13
Pre-test
Radil & Daniels, 2012
Sustain
during
practice
Post-test
35. Other outcomes:
Pre-service teacher
current state
Observed
teacher
practices
Fit with
literature
Good
intentions
Lack specific
practices
Low
responsibility
Motivation Intervention
Teachers’ motivational practices
questionnaire (TMPQ)
Classroom
observation tool
Pre-service teacher
outcomes
Sustain
intentions
Gain specific
practices
Increase
responsibility
Commitment, Emotio
ns, Engagement
Selfreported
teacher
practices
Pedagogical
resource videos
36. Thank you
For more information email me:
lia.daniels@ualberta.ca
Visit the ACME website
http://albertacentre4me.wordpress.com/
Editor's Notes
Motivation to teach: Love for kids, Love for topic, love for school supplies, Summer vacation, Meaningful contributionGood teacher: happy, excited, engages students, encourages inquiry, Students’ achievement, PD
students’ mastery-approach goals have been associated with intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997), interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), enjoyment (Daniels et al., 2008; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006), persistence (Grant & Dweck, 2003), and self-efficacy (Wolters, 2004). Performance-approach goals have been associated with self-regulation (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), pride (Pekrun et al., 2006), and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). In contrast, performance avoidance goals are largely maladaptive for students resulting in negative affect (Sideridis, 2005), procrastination (Wolters, 2004), anxiety, reduced efficacy and help-seeking (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), and lower grades (Wolters, 2004). Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001
students’ mastery-approach goals have been associated with intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997), interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), enjoyment (Daniels et al., 2008; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006), persistence (Grant & Dweck, 2003), and self-efficacy (Wolters, 2004). Performance-approach goals have been associated with self-regulation (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), pride (Pekrun et al., 2006), and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). In contrast, performance avoidance goals are largely maladaptive for students resulting in negative affect (Sideridis, 2005), procrastination (Wolters, 2004), anxiety, reduced efficacy and help-seeking (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), and lower grades (Wolters, 2004). Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001
students’ mastery-approach goals have been associated with intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997), interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), enjoyment (Daniels et al., 2008; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006), persistence (Grant & Dweck, 2003), and self-efficacy (Wolters, 2004). Performance-approach goals have been associated with self-regulation (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), pride (Pekrun et al., 2006), and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). In contrast, performance avoidance goals are largely maladaptive for students resulting in negative affect (Sideridis, 2005), procrastination (Wolters, 2004), anxiety, reduced efficacy and help-seeking (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), and lower grades (Wolters, 2004).
students’ mastery-approach goals have been associated with intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997), interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), enjoyment (Daniels et al., 2008; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006), persistence (Grant & Dweck, 2003), and self-efficacy (Wolters, 2004). Performance-approach goals have been associated with self-regulation (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), pride (Pekrun et al., 2006), and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). In contrast, performance avoidance goals are largely maladaptive for students resulting in negative affect (Sideridis, 2005), procrastination (Wolters, 2004), anxiety, reduced efficacy and help-seeking (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), and lower grades (Wolters, 2004).
Flip this
Significant interactions – haven’t probed follow up