The good the bad and the ugly
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,224 views
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.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The good the bad and the ugly
Similar to The good the bad and the ugly (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
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?
- 29. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal mastery Increase responsibility Pre-test Mastery Goals Performance Goals Haynes, Daniels, et al., 2008 AR No AR Equip with practices Sustain during practice Post-test Mastery Goals Performance Goals
- 30. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal mastery Increase responsibility Equip with practices Sustain during practice Mastery 19 18 AR No AR 17 16 F (1,334) = 8.31, p < .01 Pre-test Haynes, Daniels, et al., 2008 Post-test
- 31. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal mastery Pre-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-support Radil & Daniels, 2012 Increase responsibility Equip with practices Intervention Control Sustain during practice Post-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-support
- 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
- 33. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal mastery Increase responsibility Equip with practices Sustain during practice Autonomy 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 Experimental Control F (1,60) = 8.07, p = .01 2.5 Pre-test Radil & Daniels, 2012 Post-test
- 34. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal mastery Increase responsibility Equip with practices Sustain during practice Right Decision 6.5 6.25 F (2,179) = 7.42, p < .01 Secondary 6 Middle 5.75 Elementary 5.5 Pre-practicum Daniels, 2006 Post-practicum
- 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