See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Friday, December 5, 2008
Effort Survey Results
Thank you all for participating in our survey.
Attribution theory posits that low effort in an individual is perceived as having an internal locus of control, that it is unstable, and it is controllable. However, with a group, low effort by an individual may lead to feelings of guilt by that individual, whereas low effort by a teammate may bring about anger in a high performing individual and the other's effort may be seen as external, stable, and uncontrollable.
By the answers given in Questions 3 & 4, people responded as attribution theory would predict: people generally felt guilt if they did not work as hard as they thought they should have, they felt anger if the partner did not work as hard as the individual thought the partner should have worked.
People worked harder when they were put into groups as is evidenced by the results shown in Questions 1 & 2. This is probably due to the motivating aspect of relatedness - trying harder when others are involved,
Here are the results of the Effort survey.
Attribution theory posits that low effort in an individual is perceived as having an internal locus of control, that it is unstable, and it is controllable. However, with a group, low effort by an individual may lead to feelings of guilt by that individual, whereas low effort by a teammate may bring about anger in a high performing individual and the other's effort may be seen as external, stable, and uncontrollable.
By the answers given in Questions 3 & 4, people responded as attribution theory would predict: people generally felt guilt if they did not work as hard as they thought they should have, they felt anger if the partner did not work as hard as the individual thought the partner should have worked.
People worked harder when they were put into groups as is evidenced by the results shown in Questions 1 & 2. This is probably due to the motivating aspect of relatedness - trying harder when others are involved,
Here are the results of the Effort survey.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
seegers, van putten, & vermeer (2004)
Seegers, G., Van Putten, C. M., Vermeer, H. J. (2004). Effects of Causal Attributions Following Mathematics Tasks on Student Cognitions About a Subsequent Task. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 307-328.
Choice of Study
Research on motivation and learning has emphasized the role of students' goal orientations. Goal orientation creates a framework for how students experience learning tasks in achievement settings and give meaning to learning opportunities. Contrasting goal orientations have been proposed (Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). Task orientation motivates students to develop competence through expanding one's abilities by mastering challenging tasks. Ego oriented students, on the other hand, focus on demonstrating mental ability to others to increase self worth.
Seegers & Boekaerts (1993) and Skaalvik (1997) have argued that the dichotomy between task and ego orientation is not enough to explain the complexity of the concept of goal orientation. Seegers and Boekaerts (1993) found a parallel contrast between task orientation and error frustration. Error frustration occurs when task-oriented students, who display an interest in learning a task, are confronted with a disappointing task outcome. Students who agree that the task domain is relevant and interesting experience disappointment and frustration when confronted with a negative outcome. Frustration is focused on the protection of self worth and confirmation of ability by investing in additional effort whereas self-defeating ego orientation leads to avoiding public evaluation by diminishing effort investment and denial of task relevance.
Problem
Most studies have considered goal orientation as consistent across domains. Causal attributions of a mathematics task outcome contribute to how students adapt to a similar task on a subsequent, there is evidence that motivational orientations are sufficiently distinct across learning domains (Bong, 2001). This study restricted itself to the mathematics domain with goal orientation considered a domain-specific variable. In addition to goal orientation, students' ability beliefs influence their attitude when confronted with learning tasks and this study included students' self-concept of mathematics ability. The authors investigated how causal attributions of a mathematics task outcome contribute to how students adapt to a similar task.
Methods
The authors included 27 schools and collected data on 541 sixth-graders for the study. First, students answered questions on two questionnaires. A goal orientation questionnaire had 21 statements about experiences and behavior in mathematics classes (e.g. "I feel satisfied when I have learned something in mathematics that makes sense to me") and students answered on a 4-point Likert scale from 'Never' to 'Always.' The second questionnaire focused on self-concept of mathematics ability (" How good are you at...") with students responding on a 5-point scale from "very good" to "not good at all."
The students were asked to rate perceived task outcome on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 4 (very good) as well as being given a number of causes to choose from to explain task outcome. They were also asked to rate how relevant each of the attributions were to the task outcome.
Results
There was a high correlation between self-concept of mathematics ability and subjective competence, moderate correlations between self concept of mathematics ability and task performance, task attraction, and willingness to invest effort.
The authors felt the model that included task performance plus appraisals adequately explained the effects that students will attribute a positive outcome to ability. Willingness to invest effort and perceived attractiveness of the task had a positive effect on the likelihood that students will ascribe a positive outcome to invested effort. (p. 320). There was also a correlation with subjective competence: as student's subjective competence rose, the greater the likelihood that students disagreed that lack of personal ability would explain a poor outcome.
Discussion
When confronted with actual learning tasks, students draw on a number of resources to determine the balance between estimated competence for the task and their willingness to invest effort. The authors looked at what variables have an effect on students explaining positive or negative task outcomes and how do students look at future tasks given past performance. When students consider task outcome a success, there is a higher likelihood that the student will ascribe this outcome to personal ability. They will look to future tasks with the same or slightly higher subjective competence.
When students who score high on subjective competence consider a task outcome as a failure, they do not accept lack of ability as the answer. Rather they ascibe the outcome as a lack of effort, preserving self-image and ego. As a corollary to this, students with high self-concept, when confronted with a task failure, tended to reduce the task relevance - a response that also protected self-worth. It is only when a student cannot ascribe failure to lack of effort does self-image begin to change and subjective competence begins to change in regards to future tasks.
Conclusion
Students who are confronted with a learning task use resources to adapt to the task, how to estimate their chance of success, and how much effort they will invest in the task. The authors showed that former learning experiences have an effect on perceived competence and amount of effort to invest in a future task. They showed ego protecting behaviors by students when confronted with failure of tasks, including lack of effort or reduced task relevance. Causal attributions have an effect on subsequent tasks.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
effort group survey
The Effort Group has put together a SHORT survey we would like you to participate in. Please click on the link below. Thanks.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Effort and Ability: the development of theory
This video presentation examines effort and ability as they relate to motivation theory. The development, refinement, and elaboration among theories is presented in a chronological order beginning with Rotter's 1966 Theory of Social Learning. The video culminates with Folmer et al. (2007) describing considerations for teachers, practitioners, and investigators when applying motivational theories to younger children.
The movie is about 11 minutes long and is a 72 Mb download. You'll need to use QuickTime to view the movie.
The movie is about 11 minutes long and is a 72 Mb download. You'll need to use QuickTime to view the movie.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bernard Weiner Responds
Dr. Bernard Weiner from UCLA provided a chapter from a handbook (Dweck, 2005) to discuss.
The responses from the Effort group and Dr. Weiner. Please feel free to leave additional comments and observations for the Effort group using the commenting feature.
Synthesized Q & A
Thank you all for your contributions to this conversation. We took the questions and tried to merge them into combination questions to include as many as possible. Below are the synthesized questions, each followed by Dr. Weiner's responses. Dr. Weiner comments, "All good questions, and tough. Do convey to your professor my appreciation of your close reading and the grade of A. I will be distressed if you do not all receive top grades'" See that, effort yields rewards, at least from virtual professors!
Question 1
We wanted more information on resistance to social/peer pressure. Specifically how many Asian American students persist in being hard- working in spite of negative social consequences and how other students cave in to those consequences and become work-avoidant. What factors determine how students respond to social pressures?
Question 2
What are the attributes of the students who resist social and peer pressure? How do students who are more susceptible become more resistant?
Response to Questions 1 and 2
I am afraid I cannot give expert answers to Questions #1 and #2 because they are beyond my knowledge and outside the domain of attribution theory. But remember that social norms pertain to one's social group, so Asians do not have negative consequences because of working hard. Quite the contrary. I once wanted to do an experiment related to that question, but dealing with other rather than self perception. It went something as follows. An Asian student (give an appropriate name) does nothing but study and does well in school. How much do you admire this person? Would you want him or her as a friend? How highly would you evaluate this person? etc. Then have a second condition the same but with an African-American student. I am sure that student would be admired more, you would more want as a friend, evaluated higher, etc because in this case the effort expenditure is perceived as non-normative and self-generated, rather than normative and culturally-driven. But what determines resistence to social pressure, and who is best able to resist, are questions I cannot answer.
Question 3
Does Abramson's use of your model of Attribution Theory change your use or perception of it, specifically, his addition of global and specific and less focus on controllability.
Question 3 Response
I am better able to address Question #3. They postulate globality as a fourth causal dimension or property. On the one hand, that makes intuitive sense and is quite reasonable. It is important to capture the idea of attributional generality across situations, just as the stability dimension captures generality over time. But I have never fully embraced globality. There are a few inter-related reasons for this. First, in empirical studies is does not emerge as a factor. Imagine that I ask you to sort causes into piles and I give aptitude, effort, objective task difficulty and luck. You start with locus and say ability and effort are internal, task difficulty and luck external. Then you might then say that aptitude and task difficulty remain the same, but effort and luck vary over time (stability), or that you can control effort but not the others. But how would you group according to globality (which is not elicited as a grouping category anyway). There is great disparity between people in answering, for example, if one is lucky in one situation will he or she be lucky (or unlucky) in another. So, for these reasons I have not fully incorporated globality. But I accept that is certain situations other properties of causality other than my three are important. For example, it may be that for some reasons in grouping the causes of success at sports, there is a grouping of physical versus mental causes. And in other settings, still other properties emerge. But so far, in my experience, locus, stability, and controllability are the only ones of sure globality (ugh).
Question 4
If providing sympathy and pity to failure is positive, but decreases motivation, what do we do? Do we not show sympathy to increase motivation? (Is this like tough love?) is there a balance point that the teacher can achieve between sympathy, disappointment and anger and can this balance point become a skill that can be taught? Thus allowing teachers to support and motivate at the same time?
Question 4 Response
Attribution life consists of many double-edged swords. Sympathy is a positive emotion, conveys concern and potential help, but also communicates lack of ability. Anger is a negative emotion, conveys potential punishment, but also communicates that the person "could" and "should" have done (or not done) something, so it in a sense empowers the receiver. So when should each be given and withheld?? That is not possible for me to answer. Great athletic coaches, and probably teachers as well, intuit or sense when to communicate what. From my perspective and knowledge, what is important is to understand the attributional messages of emotions. That should be part of teacher training. How to become a great teacher is something I wish I knew. A related issue is when to communicate low ability if the person really cannot. In this case, I would stress high task difficulty so that self-esteem is maintained. Similarly, when communicating anger, I would make sure it is linked to the act and not the person -- you, a capable and good person, did a bad thing. This has the same properties as a confession -- I am a good person who did a bad act. Forgive me because I will make amends.
Question 5
In reference to your section in this chapter on anger. What role do the perceptions of teachers and parents play in the anger students experience when they have not met the competence level that they were expected to achieve? Can the value judgement placed on students perceived ability to succeed hinder their persistance, thus affecting their motivation to keep "trying"? Is this at all related to students' self-efficacy in contrast with their perceived efficacy?
Question 5 Response
I am a bit unclear by what you meant here. First, anger never follows a lack of competence judgment, but a lack of trying. Perhaps by competence you meant lack of learning due to low effort. Certainly if students fail when judged to have high ability, then the most salient inference is lack of effort, followed by anger. If perceived ability is low, then in terms of reactions from others this is a great state -- if they succeed, they are especially rewarded because of an extra effort perception, if they fail they are not punished because low aptitude is uncontrollable. But again we have double-edges, for the communication of low ability influences self-perception of low ability, and this could indeed lower motivation because of lack of hope for success. Not sure I answered your question.
Question 6
What if no emotion is communicated in the failing the test scenario? What if, instead, the other person encourages metagcognition by asking "What was in the way of your doing better on the test?" or "What can you do differently to prepare for the next test as a result of this experience?
Question 6 Response
Uninvolved observers will not experience much emotion. If you three do well (or fail), I am unlikely to experience great happiness or distress (sorry). So it is typical of the uninvolved to react with information rather than with emotion. Now what if the involved do not experience emotion? You, my children, fail because you refused to study. The theory states that anger follows from this attribution (much as the night follows from the day). There are built in thinking-feeling relations. I think lack of anger from someone involved given failure will communicate low ability.
The responses from the Effort group and Dr. Weiner. Please feel free to leave additional comments and observations for the Effort group using the commenting feature.
Synthesized Q & A
Thank you all for your contributions to this conversation. We took the questions and tried to merge them into combination questions to include as many as possible. Below are the synthesized questions, each followed by Dr. Weiner's responses. Dr. Weiner comments, "All good questions, and tough. Do convey to your professor my appreciation of your close reading and the grade of A. I will be distressed if you do not all receive top grades'" See that, effort yields rewards, at least from virtual professors!
Question 1
We wanted more information on resistance to social/peer pressure. Specifically how many Asian American students persist in being hard- working in spite of negative social consequences and how other students cave in to those consequences and become work-avoidant. What factors determine how students respond to social pressures?
Question 2
What are the attributes of the students who resist social and peer pressure? How do students who are more susceptible become more resistant?
Response to Questions 1 and 2
I am afraid I cannot give expert answers to Questions #1 and #2 because they are beyond my knowledge and outside the domain of attribution theory. But remember that social norms pertain to one's social group, so Asians do not have negative consequences because of working hard. Quite the contrary. I once wanted to do an experiment related to that question, but dealing with other rather than self perception. It went something as follows. An Asian student (give an appropriate name) does nothing but study and does well in school. How much do you admire this person? Would you want him or her as a friend? How highly would you evaluate this person? etc. Then have a second condition the same but with an African-American student. I am sure that student would be admired more, you would more want as a friend, evaluated higher, etc because in this case the effort expenditure is perceived as non-normative and self-generated, rather than normative and culturally-driven. But what determines resistence to social pressure, and who is best able to resist, are questions I cannot answer.
Question 3
Does Abramson's use of your model of Attribution Theory change your use or perception of it, specifically, his addition of global and specific and less focus on controllability.
Question 3 Response
I am better able to address Question #3. They postulate globality as a fourth causal dimension or property. On the one hand, that makes intuitive sense and is quite reasonable. It is important to capture the idea of attributional generality across situations, just as the stability dimension captures generality over time. But I have never fully embraced globality. There are a few inter-related reasons for this. First, in empirical studies is does not emerge as a factor. Imagine that I ask you to sort causes into piles and I give aptitude, effort, objective task difficulty and luck. You start with locus and say ability and effort are internal, task difficulty and luck external. Then you might then say that aptitude and task difficulty remain the same, but effort and luck vary over time (stability), or that you can control effort but not the others. But how would you group according to globality (which is not elicited as a grouping category anyway). There is great disparity between people in answering, for example, if one is lucky in one situation will he or she be lucky (or unlucky) in another. So, for these reasons I have not fully incorporated globality. But I accept that is certain situations other properties of causality other than my three are important. For example, it may be that for some reasons in grouping the causes of success at sports, there is a grouping of physical versus mental causes. And in other settings, still other properties emerge. But so far, in my experience, locus, stability, and controllability are the only ones of sure globality (ugh).
Question 4
If providing sympathy and pity to failure is positive, but decreases motivation, what do we do? Do we not show sympathy to increase motivation? (Is this like tough love?) is there a balance point that the teacher can achieve between sympathy, disappointment and anger and can this balance point become a skill that can be taught? Thus allowing teachers to support and motivate at the same time?
Question 4 Response
Attribution life consists of many double-edged swords. Sympathy is a positive emotion, conveys concern and potential help, but also communicates lack of ability. Anger is a negative emotion, conveys potential punishment, but also communicates that the person "could" and "should" have done (or not done) something, so it in a sense empowers the receiver. So when should each be given and withheld?? That is not possible for me to answer. Great athletic coaches, and probably teachers as well, intuit or sense when to communicate what. From my perspective and knowledge, what is important is to understand the attributional messages of emotions. That should be part of teacher training. How to become a great teacher is something I wish I knew. A related issue is when to communicate low ability if the person really cannot. In this case, I would stress high task difficulty so that self-esteem is maintained. Similarly, when communicating anger, I would make sure it is linked to the act and not the person -- you, a capable and good person, did a bad thing. This has the same properties as a confession -- I am a good person who did a bad act. Forgive me because I will make amends.
Question 5
In reference to your section in this chapter on anger. What role do the perceptions of teachers and parents play in the anger students experience when they have not met the competence level that they were expected to achieve? Can the value judgement placed on students perceived ability to succeed hinder their persistance, thus affecting their motivation to keep "trying"? Is this at all related to students' self-efficacy in contrast with their perceived efficacy?
Question 5 Response
I am a bit unclear by what you meant here. First, anger never follows a lack of competence judgment, but a lack of trying. Perhaps by competence you meant lack of learning due to low effort. Certainly if students fail when judged to have high ability, then the most salient inference is lack of effort, followed by anger. If perceived ability is low, then in terms of reactions from others this is a great state -- if they succeed, they are especially rewarded because of an extra effort perception, if they fail they are not punished because low aptitude is uncontrollable. But again we have double-edges, for the communication of low ability influences self-perception of low ability, and this could indeed lower motivation because of lack of hope for success. Not sure I answered your question.
Question 6
What if no emotion is communicated in the failing the test scenario? What if, instead, the other person encourages metagcognition by asking "What was in the way of your doing better on the test?" or "What can you do differently to prepare for the next test as a result of this experience?
Question 6 Response
Uninvolved observers will not experience much emotion. If you three do well (or fail), I am unlikely to experience great happiness or distress (sorry). So it is typical of the uninvolved to react with information rather than with emotion. Now what if the involved do not experience emotion? You, my children, fail because you refused to study. The theory states that anger follows from this attribution (much as the night follows from the day). There are built in thinking-feeling relations. I think lack of anger from someone involved given failure will communicate low ability.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Folmer et al. (2008)
Folmer, A., Cole, D. A., Sigal, A. B., Benbow, L. D., Satterwhite, L. F., Swygert, K. E., & Ciesla, J. A. (2008). Age-related changes in children’s understanding of effort and ability: Implications for attribution theory and motivation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 114-134.
Choice of Study
Children’s understanding of the relationship between effort and ability changes with age. Generally speaking, younger children believe there is a direct correlation between ability and effort in that smart students are hard workers and not-so-smart students do not work hard enough. Adolescents come to view ability and effort as reciprocal. They believe smart children do not need to apply great amounts of effort and students who need to work hard must have less ability. Nicholls (1978) and Nicholls and Miller (1984) described four age-related levels of children’s understanding of the distinction and relationship between effort and ability. At Level 1 (ages 5-6), ability and effort are not differentiated. The relation of either factor to an outcome is unclear. At Level 2 (ages 7-9 years) children attribute outcomes to the level of effort expended. Successful outcomes are attributed to great effort and unsuccessful outcomes are attributed to minimal effort. At Level 3 (ages 10-11) children begin to distinguish between ability and effort but attribution of either factor to an outcome is inconsistent. At Level 4 (ages 12 and above) children clearly understand the distinction between ability and effort. Ability is believed to limit the effects of effort.
Understanding children’s age-related conceptualizations of effort and ability is critical for teachers, especially those working with younger students. Between the ages of 7-9 years, students believe that effort is the primary factor affecting an outcome. As such, motivation is enhanced. Negative outcomes do not necessarily pose a personal threat or anxiety for the individual. However, ten and eleven year old students are at a particularly important and vulnerable stage of development. At this age, students begin to distinguish ability and effort and inconsistently attribute these factors to outcomes. If a student consistently attributes negative outcomes to low ability, motivation can be diminished. Other problems such as learned helplessness and depression may emerge.
Problem
The goals of this study were threefold. The first goal was to replicate and extend prior research that revealed a developmental, age-related progression of children’s understanding of effort and ability (Nicholls, 1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). The first hypothesis was that children’s understanding of effort/ability as causes of negative outcomes would show an age-related developmental progression similar to those reported for positive outcomes. The second goal was to compare children’s understanding in situations involving themselves with situations involving others. The hypothesis was that children would apply a less mature conceptualization when the task involved their own performance as a matter of self-protection. The final goal generated three hypotheses. The first was that relation of ability and effort would vary as a function of age.
Specifically, high effort followed by poor outcomes would result in greater implication for low-ability inferences, as children grew older. The second hypothesis was that this high effort/poor outcome situation would represent greater personal threat and have stronger affective and motivational consequences for older children. The final hypothesis was that older children would be more likely to attribute a negative outcome/high effort situation to ability.
Method
A total of 166 students from two public elementary schools and one public middle school were included in the study. Students were randomly assigned to either a high-effort or low-effort condition. The study was divided into two parts. In Part 1, participants individually completed puzzle tasks during which they were prompted to either use high or low levels of effort. Participants then watched videos of a student actor under similar conditions. Fictitious results were given in both scenarios and participants were asked to evaluate their own performance as well as the actors in the videos. In Part 2 participants watched a second video of two actors completing a math worksheet. Each actor exerted either high or low levels of effort. Following each video participants responded to a series of questions designed to measure affect, motivation, effort/ability level, and causal attributions/perceived controllability.
Results
The results of the study supported the first hypothesis in that age was significantly and positively related to estimates of Nicholls’s effort/ability level whether students were explaining their own performance or the performance of others. The second hypothesis was rejected in that students did not apply significantly less mature conceptualizations of effort/ability for their own poor performance as opposed to the performance of others.
Support for hypothesis 3a was found in that age was significantly negatively correlated inquiries of inferences about ability and future performance. Younger children perceived the high-effort actor as smarter than the low-effort actor and that the high-effort actor would do better in a future performance. This association of effort with ability diminished at older age levels. By age 15, children perceived high effort/low outcome implied lower ability. Hypothesis 3b focused on developmental changes in affect and motivation. It was hypothesized that high effort followed by negative outcome would result in greater personal threat and decreased motivation. The results of the study indicated that older children acknowledge more anger about poor performance than do younger children. Regarding motivation, younger children essentially showed no association between effort and motivation. The final hypothesis was that older children would be more likely to attribute high effort/negative outcome to ability-related causes. Partial support for this hypothesis was found in that age positively correlated with the tendency to attribute failure to stable and global causes but not to internal causes.
Discussion and Conclusion
Age was significantly related to children’s understanding of the reciprocal relation of effort and ability in situations involving negative outcomes. This finding is of particular importance because of the problematic outcomes, including depression and learned helplessness that can result from low ability inferences and self-perceptions. If children’s ability judgments change with age then teachers, practitioners, and investigators need to carefully consider these stages of development when applying motivational theories to young children.
Critique
The authors included several shortcomings to the study and suggested avenues for future research. Of the suggestions given, two seemed particularly worth mentioning. The authors suggested using factors other than age as a proxy for development. Changes in children’s understanding of ability and effort are more likely related to a combination of several factors including socialization, cognitive development, intelligence, and personality. The second suggestion is that observational methods for collecting data on affective responses may be more valid than the interview method with young children. This method may be less susceptible to social desirability response bias.
Choice of Study
Children’s understanding of the relationship between effort and ability changes with age. Generally speaking, younger children believe there is a direct correlation between ability and effort in that smart students are hard workers and not-so-smart students do not work hard enough. Adolescents come to view ability and effort as reciprocal. They believe smart children do not need to apply great amounts of effort and students who need to work hard must have less ability. Nicholls (1978) and Nicholls and Miller (1984) described four age-related levels of children’s understanding of the distinction and relationship between effort and ability. At Level 1 (ages 5-6), ability and effort are not differentiated. The relation of either factor to an outcome is unclear. At Level 2 (ages 7-9 years) children attribute outcomes to the level of effort expended. Successful outcomes are attributed to great effort and unsuccessful outcomes are attributed to minimal effort. At Level 3 (ages 10-11) children begin to distinguish between ability and effort but attribution of either factor to an outcome is inconsistent. At Level 4 (ages 12 and above) children clearly understand the distinction between ability and effort. Ability is believed to limit the effects of effort.
Understanding children’s age-related conceptualizations of effort and ability is critical for teachers, especially those working with younger students. Between the ages of 7-9 years, students believe that effort is the primary factor affecting an outcome. As such, motivation is enhanced. Negative outcomes do not necessarily pose a personal threat or anxiety for the individual. However, ten and eleven year old students are at a particularly important and vulnerable stage of development. At this age, students begin to distinguish ability and effort and inconsistently attribute these factors to outcomes. If a student consistently attributes negative outcomes to low ability, motivation can be diminished. Other problems such as learned helplessness and depression may emerge.
Problem
The goals of this study were threefold. The first goal was to replicate and extend prior research that revealed a developmental, age-related progression of children’s understanding of effort and ability (Nicholls, 1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). The first hypothesis was that children’s understanding of effort/ability as causes of negative outcomes would show an age-related developmental progression similar to those reported for positive outcomes. The second goal was to compare children’s understanding in situations involving themselves with situations involving others. The hypothesis was that children would apply a less mature conceptualization when the task involved their own performance as a matter of self-protection. The final goal generated three hypotheses. The first was that relation of ability and effort would vary as a function of age.
Specifically, high effort followed by poor outcomes would result in greater implication for low-ability inferences, as children grew older. The second hypothesis was that this high effort/poor outcome situation would represent greater personal threat and have stronger affective and motivational consequences for older children. The final hypothesis was that older children would be more likely to attribute a negative outcome/high effort situation to ability.
Method
A total of 166 students from two public elementary schools and one public middle school were included in the study. Students were randomly assigned to either a high-effort or low-effort condition. The study was divided into two parts. In Part 1, participants individually completed puzzle tasks during which they were prompted to either use high or low levels of effort. Participants then watched videos of a student actor under similar conditions. Fictitious results were given in both scenarios and participants were asked to evaluate their own performance as well as the actors in the videos. In Part 2 participants watched a second video of two actors completing a math worksheet. Each actor exerted either high or low levels of effort. Following each video participants responded to a series of questions designed to measure affect, motivation, effort/ability level, and causal attributions/perceived controllability.
Results
The results of the study supported the first hypothesis in that age was significantly and positively related to estimates of Nicholls’s effort/ability level whether students were explaining their own performance or the performance of others. The second hypothesis was rejected in that students did not apply significantly less mature conceptualizations of effort/ability for their own poor performance as opposed to the performance of others.
Support for hypothesis 3a was found in that age was significantly negatively correlated inquiries of inferences about ability and future performance. Younger children perceived the high-effort actor as smarter than the low-effort actor and that the high-effort actor would do better in a future performance. This association of effort with ability diminished at older age levels. By age 15, children perceived high effort/low outcome implied lower ability. Hypothesis 3b focused on developmental changes in affect and motivation. It was hypothesized that high effort followed by negative outcome would result in greater personal threat and decreased motivation. The results of the study indicated that older children acknowledge more anger about poor performance than do younger children. Regarding motivation, younger children essentially showed no association between effort and motivation. The final hypothesis was that older children would be more likely to attribute high effort/negative outcome to ability-related causes. Partial support for this hypothesis was found in that age positively correlated with the tendency to attribute failure to stable and global causes but not to internal causes.
Discussion and Conclusion
Age was significantly related to children’s understanding of the reciprocal relation of effort and ability in situations involving negative outcomes. This finding is of particular importance because of the problematic outcomes, including depression and learned helplessness that can result from low ability inferences and self-perceptions. If children’s ability judgments change with age then teachers, practitioners, and investigators need to carefully consider these stages of development when applying motivational theories to young children.
Critique
The authors included several shortcomings to the study and suggested avenues for future research. Of the suggestions given, two seemed particularly worth mentioning. The authors suggested using factors other than age as a proxy for development. Changes in children’s understanding of ability and effort are more likely related to a combination of several factors including socialization, cognitive development, intelligence, and personality. The second suggestion is that observational methods for collecting data on affective responses may be more valid than the interview method with young children. This method may be less susceptible to social desirability response bias.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
References & Abstracts
Further Research on Effort Expenditure as it Relates to Motivation
Use the link below to download an annotated reference list and pdfs of eight articles focused on effort expenditure and regulation as it relates to motivation and achievement. While many studies on effort expenditure are based on the Theory of Social Learning (Rotter, 1972) and/or Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1972), these articles discuss additional theories including: Cultural Capital Theory; Fiske's Relational Theory; Theory of Social Capital; and Social Dominance Theory.
Use the link below to download an annotated reference list and pdfs of eight articles focused on effort expenditure and regulation as it relates to motivation and achievement. While many studies on effort expenditure are based on the Theory of Social Learning (Rotter, 1972) and/or Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1972), these articles discuss additional theories including: Cultural Capital Theory; Fiske's Relational Theory; Theory of Social Capital; and Social Dominance Theory.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Covington & Omelich (1979)
Covington, M.V. & Omelich, C.L. (1979). It’s best to be able and virtuous too: Student and teacher evaluative response to successful effort. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 688-700.
Choice of Study
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the majority of motivational research as well as the development of theoretical models of motivation focused on student failures and subsequent student explanations and attributions given for the failures. Much of our current understanding of effort expenditure as it relates to student motivation has roots in both Rutter’s Theory of Locus of Control (1966) and Weiner’s Attribution Theory (1972) both of which focused primarily on failure outcomes in achievement settings. In this study Covington and Omelich (1979) looked at student perceptions of ability and effort in the context of successful outcomes. This was one of the first empirical based attempts to understand effort expenditure in this context. Interestingly, in Weiner’s chapter contribution to the Handbook of Competence and Motivation (Dweck, 2005) he further nuanced his discussion of attribution theory to include effort expenditure as it relates to successful outcomes. Thus the reading of this article, dating back almost three decades, serves to contribute to our understanding of the evolution of attribution theory over time.
Problem
Covington and Beery’s (1976) self-worth theory of achievement motivation provided the basis for much of our current understanding of the reciprocal relationship between effort and ability as it pertains to student motivation. Self-worth theory holds that students demonstrate negative reactions of shame and distress following failures in achievement settings. With society’s tendency to equate personal worth with competency, failure equated with low ability is theorized to cause the greatest shame for students and is to be avoided at all possible costs. When failure does occur, students prefer to deflect low ability inferences by attributing failures to unstable factors such as minimal effort or bad luck or to stable but external factors such as task difficulty. Interestingly, the preferred low-effort explanation for failure by students results in a student-teacher conflict in the classroom setting. While students much prefer to explain poor outcomes as a lack of effort, this explanation results in greater teacher punishment. In this study, Covington and Omelich sought to expand our understanding of this student-teacher conflict by looking at it within the context of successful outcomes.
Methods
Several hypotheses regarding effort expenditure in the context of successful outcomes were explored: (1) a reciprocal relationship (as found in the case of failure) was predicted between perceived ability and effort in cases of success (i.e. greater effort infers lower ability and lower effort implies higher ability); (2) affect in success (pride and satisfaction) will increase as a positive function of effort; (3) in cases of success, teachers and students will share a common value of effort, unlike failure, in which results in the aforementioned student-teacher conflict ; and (4) males and females will ascribe success to different attributes (ability verses luck respectively). A final objective was to investigate the extent to which ability ascriptions and affective reactions were influenced by individual differences in the academic self-concept among men and women. Given the constraints of this assignment, this review is focused solely on the hypothesis relating to student-teacher conflict.
The subjects in this study included 180 males and 180 females enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of California, Berkeley. A questionnaire describing hypothetical achievement situations on a college exam was administered. Subjects were asked to imagine their own success on the test under four different conditions: high effort (E+); high effort with study misplaced because, by chance, test stressed different aspects of the material (E+/Q); low effort (E-); and low effort by reason of illness (E-/Q). The Q refers to the qualified nature of the effort expenditure.
Subjects were also asked to role-play the part of the teacher and reward hypothetical students for successful outcomes. Hypothetical students varied according to ability level (high/low), effort expended (high/low), and with or without qualifying circumstances. This procedure replicated previous research of Weiner and colleagues (1972, 1974) with the difference being the addition of qualifiers. Subjects responded to the question, “How much reward or positive feedback would you give to each of these successful students?” Ratings were made on a 7-point scale from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much). Students were also asked to rank their preferences for the four possible explanations that others might give for their success: high ability/low effort (A+E-); high ability/high effort (A+E+); low ability/low effort (A-E-); and low ability/high effort (A-E+).
Results
When asked to role-play teachers (rewarding students under the four conditions) student responses revealed that overall females were more likely to give rewards. Circumstances of success (qualifiers for effort expenditure and student ability-high/low) had substantial bearing on the degree of the reward given by male and female subjects. Female subjects rewarded low-ability students more often than high-ability students and both males and females rewarded students who succeeded by effort more often than those who succeeded without trying.
Subjects preferred the high ability/high effort explanation with respect to both their personal success and the success of others. This outcome, confirmed the hypothesis stating that in the case of success, students and teachers share a common value of the importance of effort expenditure.
Discussion and Conclusion
In cases of success, effort expenditure becomes a shared value between teachers and students. In these instances, both teachers and students prefer a high ability/high effort explanation. Thereby if teachers create a success-oriented environment, one that reinforces individual student goal setting, continual feedback, absolute performance standards, such that any student can achieve a given grade as long as their performance reaches a predetermined criterion, students will increase efforts toward achievement. The implementation of such learning environment is well described within the literature of autonomy supportive learning and instruction.
Critique
This was a complex study seeking to confirm several hypotheses and objectives. Results were reported in narrative and included only one table and one figure. As a result analyzing and interpreting the results was more challenging than it needed to be. The study was important because in addition to broadening our understanding of the role of effort expenditure in the context of success conditions it further sought to understand the affects of the perceptions of others (teachers) in relation to effort expenditure. Weiner (1992) further elaborated on this notion of interpersonal versus intrapersonal perceptions of ability on future success. He stated that the manner in which others perceive us affects our motivation. This early study perhaps provided some of the necessary background for Weiner’s further nuanced model of attribution theory.
Choice of Study
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the majority of motivational research as well as the development of theoretical models of motivation focused on student failures and subsequent student explanations and attributions given for the failures. Much of our current understanding of effort expenditure as it relates to student motivation has roots in both Rutter’s Theory of Locus of Control (1966) and Weiner’s Attribution Theory (1972) both of which focused primarily on failure outcomes in achievement settings. In this study Covington and Omelich (1979) looked at student perceptions of ability and effort in the context of successful outcomes. This was one of the first empirical based attempts to understand effort expenditure in this context. Interestingly, in Weiner’s chapter contribution to the Handbook of Competence and Motivation (Dweck, 2005) he further nuanced his discussion of attribution theory to include effort expenditure as it relates to successful outcomes. Thus the reading of this article, dating back almost three decades, serves to contribute to our understanding of the evolution of attribution theory over time.
Problem
Covington and Beery’s (1976) self-worth theory of achievement motivation provided the basis for much of our current understanding of the reciprocal relationship between effort and ability as it pertains to student motivation. Self-worth theory holds that students demonstrate negative reactions of shame and distress following failures in achievement settings. With society’s tendency to equate personal worth with competency, failure equated with low ability is theorized to cause the greatest shame for students and is to be avoided at all possible costs. When failure does occur, students prefer to deflect low ability inferences by attributing failures to unstable factors such as minimal effort or bad luck or to stable but external factors such as task difficulty. Interestingly, the preferred low-effort explanation for failure by students results in a student-teacher conflict in the classroom setting. While students much prefer to explain poor outcomes as a lack of effort, this explanation results in greater teacher punishment. In this study, Covington and Omelich sought to expand our understanding of this student-teacher conflict by looking at it within the context of successful outcomes.
Methods
Several hypotheses regarding effort expenditure in the context of successful outcomes were explored: (1) a reciprocal relationship (as found in the case of failure) was predicted between perceived ability and effort in cases of success (i.e. greater effort infers lower ability and lower effort implies higher ability); (2) affect in success (pride and satisfaction) will increase as a positive function of effort; (3) in cases of success, teachers and students will share a common value of effort, unlike failure, in which results in the aforementioned student-teacher conflict ; and (4) males and females will ascribe success to different attributes (ability verses luck respectively). A final objective was to investigate the extent to which ability ascriptions and affective reactions were influenced by individual differences in the academic self-concept among men and women. Given the constraints of this assignment, this review is focused solely on the hypothesis relating to student-teacher conflict.
The subjects in this study included 180 males and 180 females enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of California, Berkeley. A questionnaire describing hypothetical achievement situations on a college exam was administered. Subjects were asked to imagine their own success on the test under four different conditions: high effort (E+); high effort with study misplaced because, by chance, test stressed different aspects of the material (E+/Q); low effort (E-); and low effort by reason of illness (E-/Q). The Q refers to the qualified nature of the effort expenditure.
Subjects were also asked to role-play the part of the teacher and reward hypothetical students for successful outcomes. Hypothetical students varied according to ability level (high/low), effort expended (high/low), and with or without qualifying circumstances. This procedure replicated previous research of Weiner and colleagues (1972, 1974) with the difference being the addition of qualifiers. Subjects responded to the question, “How much reward or positive feedback would you give to each of these successful students?” Ratings were made on a 7-point scale from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much). Students were also asked to rank their preferences for the four possible explanations that others might give for their success: high ability/low effort (A+E-); high ability/high effort (A+E+); low ability/low effort (A-E-); and low ability/high effort (A-E+).
Results
When asked to role-play teachers (rewarding students under the four conditions) student responses revealed that overall females were more likely to give rewards. Circumstances of success (qualifiers for effort expenditure and student ability-high/low) had substantial bearing on the degree of the reward given by male and female subjects. Female subjects rewarded low-ability students more often than high-ability students and both males and females rewarded students who succeeded by effort more often than those who succeeded without trying.
Subjects preferred the high ability/high effort explanation with respect to both their personal success and the success of others. This outcome, confirmed the hypothesis stating that in the case of success, students and teachers share a common value of the importance of effort expenditure.
Discussion and Conclusion
In cases of success, effort expenditure becomes a shared value between teachers and students. In these instances, both teachers and students prefer a high ability/high effort explanation. Thereby if teachers create a success-oriented environment, one that reinforces individual student goal setting, continual feedback, absolute performance standards, such that any student can achieve a given grade as long as their performance reaches a predetermined criterion, students will increase efforts toward achievement. The implementation of such learning environment is well described within the literature of autonomy supportive learning and instruction.
Critique
This was a complex study seeking to confirm several hypotheses and objectives. Results were reported in narrative and included only one table and one figure. As a result analyzing and interpreting the results was more challenging than it needed to be. The study was important because in addition to broadening our understanding of the role of effort expenditure in the context of success conditions it further sought to understand the affects of the perceptions of others (teachers) in relation to effort expenditure. Weiner (1992) further elaborated on this notion of interpersonal versus intrapersonal perceptions of ability on future success. He stated that the manner in which others perceive us affects our motivation. This early study perhaps provided some of the necessary background for Weiner’s further nuanced model of attribution theory.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
yeo & neal (2008)
Yeo, G. & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective Cognitive Effort: A model of States, Traits, and Time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 617-631.
Choice of Study
Effort plays a key role in motivational theory. Motivation theories treat effort as a construct that changes within individuals in response to individual and environmental factors (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996; Locke, 1968; Vroom, 1964). Yeo & Neal felt that previous studies have treated effort as static rather than dynamic (Fried & Slowik, 2004) and studies had not examined the factors that produce changes in effort within individuals over time. There is a need to study processes at the intra-individual level (Cervone, 204; C. Fisher, 2002; Mischel & Shoda, 1998; Vancouver, 2005).
Problem
Yeo and Neal examined intra-individual differences in subjective cognitive effort (the idea of "trying hard") as a function of practice on a task, and how perceptions of difficulty of the task may affect effort. They also examined whether or not differences of practice and perceptions of task difficulty among individuals were due to differences in cognitive ability and conscientiousness.
Methods
Undergraduate students were given an Air Traffic Control simulation as a task. They were to ensure that all aircraft remain separated by at least 5 kilometers and needed to do so by controlling the speed of the aircraft. Each trial had eight aircraft on the screen at any given time and there were fourteen 5-minute trials.
The task froze five times and participants were asked questions on an 11-point scale such as "How difficult did you find the task just before the screen froze?"
Yeo and NeaL measured cognitive ability (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices), conscientiousness (Revised NEO Personality Inventory), as well as task performance and practice variables.
Analyses were conducted using hierarchical multivariate linear models (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
Results
There was a negative correlation between ability and conscientiousness which is consistent with previous findings (Moutafi, Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004). Performance also improved over time showing a classic learning curve as the participants became more skilled at the task. The amount of cognitive effort that participants reported applying to the task declined over time. An increase in perceived difficulty at the intra-individual level was associated with an increase in subjective cognitive effort.
Discussion
The amount of cognitive effort that individuals reported expending decreased as they became more experienced at the task and increased when their perceptions of difficulty increased. These patterns were moderated by cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Individuals with low conscientiousness reported reducing the amount of cognitive effort that they applied to the task at a faster rate than did participants with high conscientiousness. Individuals with low cognitive ability and high conscientiousness responded more strongly to changes in perceived difficulty than did students with high cognitive ability and low conscientiousness. Finally, the finding that subjective cognitive effort (trying) predicted performance supported Yeo's and Neal's claims of the validity of the self-report measure they used.
Conclusion
Different people reacted differently to perceptions of difficulty. Individuals with low cognitive ability or low conscientiousness reacted more strongly to perceptions of task difficulty than did others. The authors believe that these reactions were due to differences in resource capacity. Low ability individuals need to react more strongly to changes in difficulty relative to their counterparts because they have fewer resources available. The results suggest that cognitive ability can influence the way individuals respond to feedback during task engagement. Yeo and Neal believe the interaction between conscientiousness and perceived difficulty reflects the tendency of highly conscientiousness individuals to work consistently hard - they appear to persist with high levels of of cognitive effort regardless of task difficulty. By comparison, those with low conscientiousness appear to reserve high levels of cognitive effort for when the task is perceived to be particularly difficult. The results suggest that stable behavioral tendencies associated with conscientiousness can influence the way individuals respond to feedback during task engagement.
The study demonstrated two findings. The first relates to the way that subjective cognitive effort changes as individuals become more skilled at a task. An individual's level of conscientiousness influenced the rate at which cognitive effort declined throughout skill acquisition. The second finding relates to the way that individuals react to perceptions of task difficulty. The intra-individual relationship between perceived difficulty and subjective cognitive effort strengthened throughout skill acquisition. Cognitive ability and conscientiousness can influence the degree to which individuals react to perceptions of task difficulty.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Bernard Weiner
Our visiting scholar is Dr. Bernard Weiner from UCLA. He has provided us with a chapter from a handbook (Dweck, 2005) and has agreed to answer some of our questions. Please read the article and provide us with questions for him as a post by October 24 so we can work within his time frame.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Spinath & Spinath (2005)
Spinath, B. and Spinath, F. M. (2005). Longitudinal analysis of the link between learning motivation and competence beliefs among elementary school children. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 87-102.
Choice of Study
Learning and Instruction included several articles pertaining to effort and Spinath and Spinath have done prior work in the field. This particular article claimed to be intended for practical application by teachers, which made it seem more relevant. In fact, the practical application is not clear after reading the article, but there is significant evidence for future research.
Problem
While past research implied that learning motivation declines with age, there was little research in the area to explain this decline. Prior work looking at the relationship between competence beliefs and learning motivation was inconsistent. Some suggested that competence beliefs were related to learning motivation, and some found no relationship. The authors of this study investigated the possible causal effects of competence beliefs on learning motivation.
Methods
Measures and Procedures
Spinath and Spinath (2005) conducted a two-year longitudinal study with students from four German elementary schools (n = 789). The students were in five different cohorts, and the study covered four grades total (each cohort was in two grades total over the two- year period).
To measure competence beliefs and learning motivation Spinath and Spinath (2005) used a four-item, Likert scale assessment. Each measure yielded one factor through factor analysis and had reliabilities of α = 0.76 and α = 0.74 respectively. The measures were distributed twice each school year and by a trained administrator (not the classroom teacher). All items of the measures were read aloud to the class.
Analyses
Analyses of variance was used to look at the change in mean scores of both competence beliefs and learning motivation throughout the duration of the study. A path analysis was run to see if the relationship between learning motivation and concept beliefs impacted future learning motivation and concept beliefs. A second path analysis was run to investigate the purely correlational relationship between learning motivation and competence beliefs contemporaneously.
Results
Consistent with prior research, competence beliefs and learning motivation both declined with age with all the cohorts. Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) was used to assess which model would be a better fit for the data. The AIC was not different, indicating that prior self perception of competence beliefs and learning motivation do not aid in predicting future competence beliefs and learning motivation.
Of note, the authors observed a relationship between past competence beliefs and future competence beliefs and between past learning motivation and future learning motivation. Additionally, they noted a relationship between current competence beliefs and current learning motivation.
Discussion
This study adds to evidence suggesting that student competence beliefs and learning motivation decline with age. While these two constructs correlate highly with each other consistently in past research and in this study, the researchers found no evidence supporting a causal relationship between them. Further, it suggests that researchers investigate whether or not this decline is inevitable or if there are consistent contributing characteristics.
Critique
The methodology appears to be quite thorough as the researchers looked at the possible causal relationship in both directions. The sample while not random, was ample in size. The length of the study provided a fair amount of data with which to work. From the data and description provided, it is not clear how the researchers accounted for the known current correlation between competence beliefs and learning motivation when predicting future values of competence beliefs and learning motivation in the causal model. Due to this lack of information it is not completely clear that the causal relationship can be ruled out.
Conclusions
Spinath and Spinath (2005) acknowledge the decline in both competence beliefs and learning motivation and call for future research in understanding the cause of the decline of each with age. Competence beliefs often decline as students begin to see a more realistic view of their ability as they age. Spinath and Spinath suggest a separation of the two constructs might uncover a new characteristic that could be identified as a cause of one or both constructs. And, if so, then the decline in learning motivation may not be inevitable even though the decline in competence beliefs appears to be.
Choice of Study
Learning and Instruction included several articles pertaining to effort and Spinath and Spinath have done prior work in the field. This particular article claimed to be intended for practical application by teachers, which made it seem more relevant. In fact, the practical application is not clear after reading the article, but there is significant evidence for future research.
Problem
While past research implied that learning motivation declines with age, there was little research in the area to explain this decline. Prior work looking at the relationship between competence beliefs and learning motivation was inconsistent. Some suggested that competence beliefs were related to learning motivation, and some found no relationship. The authors of this study investigated the possible causal effects of competence beliefs on learning motivation.
Methods
Measures and Procedures
Spinath and Spinath (2005) conducted a two-year longitudinal study with students from four German elementary schools (n = 789). The students were in five different cohorts, and the study covered four grades total (each cohort was in two grades total over the two- year period).
To measure competence beliefs and learning motivation Spinath and Spinath (2005) used a four-item, Likert scale assessment. Each measure yielded one factor through factor analysis and had reliabilities of α = 0.76 and α = 0.74 respectively. The measures were distributed twice each school year and by a trained administrator (not the classroom teacher). All items of the measures were read aloud to the class.
Analyses
Analyses of variance was used to look at the change in mean scores of both competence beliefs and learning motivation throughout the duration of the study. A path analysis was run to see if the relationship between learning motivation and concept beliefs impacted future learning motivation and concept beliefs. A second path analysis was run to investigate the purely correlational relationship between learning motivation and competence beliefs contemporaneously.
Results
Consistent with prior research, competence beliefs and learning motivation both declined with age with all the cohorts. Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) was used to assess which model would be a better fit for the data. The AIC was not different, indicating that prior self perception of competence beliefs and learning motivation do not aid in predicting future competence beliefs and learning motivation.
Of note, the authors observed a relationship between past competence beliefs and future competence beliefs and between past learning motivation and future learning motivation. Additionally, they noted a relationship between current competence beliefs and current learning motivation.
Discussion
This study adds to evidence suggesting that student competence beliefs and learning motivation decline with age. While these two constructs correlate highly with each other consistently in past research and in this study, the researchers found no evidence supporting a causal relationship between them. Further, it suggests that researchers investigate whether or not this decline is inevitable or if there are consistent contributing characteristics.
Critique
The methodology appears to be quite thorough as the researchers looked at the possible causal relationship in both directions. The sample while not random, was ample in size. The length of the study provided a fair amount of data with which to work. From the data and description provided, it is not clear how the researchers accounted for the known current correlation between competence beliefs and learning motivation when predicting future values of competence beliefs and learning motivation in the causal model. Due to this lack of information it is not completely clear that the causal relationship can be ruled out.
Conclusions
Spinath and Spinath (2005) acknowledge the decline in both competence beliefs and learning motivation and call for future research in understanding the cause of the decline of each with age. Competence beliefs often decline as students begin to see a more realistic view of their ability as they age. Spinath and Spinath suggest a separation of the two constructs might uncover a new characteristic that could be identified as a cause of one or both constructs. And, if so, then the decline in learning motivation may not be inevitable even though the decline in competence beliefs appears to be.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Blumenfield et al. (1986)
Blumenfield, P. C., Pintrich, P. R., and Hamilton, V. L. (1986). Children’s concepts of ability, effort, and conduct. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 95-104.
Choice of Study
Ability, effort, and conduct are three important constructs in understanding motivation and appear to be closely related, and often confounded (Blumenfield et al., 1986). Blumenfield et al. attempted to investigate student perception of each construct and the relationship between the constructs. This study provides insight to student understanding of key constructs. In addition to the unique perspective the article provides, it is by authors commonly known in the field and is in a journal of distinction.
Problem
Blumenfield et al. (1986) recognized the constructs ability and effort in prior research were closely related and often confounded by students. Past research also showed conduct (in class behavior) plays a role in defining ability and effort. To help understand the constructs more and to clarify the overlap in their definitions, the authors sought to capture how students view the constructs. Specifically, the authors noticed a lack of research in investigating the criteria students use to assess ability, effort, and conduct and the overlap of that criteria.
Methods
Blumenfield et al. (1986) conducted a qualitative study using data from 158 second and sixth grade students from middle and working-class schools. Trained graduate students interviewed the subjects for half an hour each with questionnaires including questions about ability, effort, conduct, and views of teacher, other students, and the environment. The interviews were pilot tested prior to conducting the study.
Students were asked how they could assess the three constructs and their open-ended responses were coded for cues that fell into one of three categories: ability, effort, and conduct. They were asked about ability and conduct in the same interview and then about effort in a second interview. Initially there were 17 cues, which were then narrowed to ten. The ten cues were then divided and assigned to the three constructs. There were seven for ability, seven for effort, and five for conduct, with overlap between ability and effort and between effort and conduct. The intercoder reliability was calculated at 90%.
Results
The results of this study confirmed earlier findings; ability is defined by similar criteria by students as it is in past research. Outcome (tasks and grades most often) was the primary cue used to assess ability. Additionally, attention to task and behavior were also seen as indicators of ability. Effort was assessed by behavior and conduct. Conduct was the most defined construct and the biggest cue used to define it was behavior.
Students compared themselves to others when defining ability (38%) but rarely in defining effort or conduct (4% and 8 % respectively). Older and younger children differed in which cues, but not categories, they used to define ability (in line with previous research). The researchers anticipated the younger students would be more likely to define effort by conduct-related cues than older students. However, there were no significant differences between the two age groups.
Furthermore, the researchers expected the sixth grade students to use more social comparisons to define ability, but found the opposite was true. There were no differences by grade level for social comparisons for defining effort or conduct.
Individuals did not repeat the same cues for the three constructs, but there was repetition of the cues in both age groups. There was no gender or grade difference in repetition of cues used to define the constructs. Student self ratings were examined and indicated that there was a high mean score for students in ability (4.14), conduct (3.99), and effort (3.84). As previous research predicted, with age, self ratings decreased. Girls tended to rate themselves higher in behavior, as past research indicated, but they did not rate themselves higher in ability or in effort than boys.
There were significant correlations among the constructs: ability and effort (r = .40) and ability and conduct (r = .22) where p < .001. When effort and conduct were intercorrelated effort remained a predictor of ability, but conduct was not. This was consistent with past research and left an unanswered question, what is the relationship between conduct and ability? These results remained the same for both age groups.
Discussion
This study attempted to assess how children think about ability, effort, and conduct and how those beliefs differ, overlap and correlate with one another. There was commonality in defining the constructs effort and ability and effort and conduct, but not in defining ability and conduct. There was a significant correlation between self ratings of effort and ability and self ratings of effort and conduct, but not between self ratings of ability and conduct. Because of this, the authors reported they found the constructs are, at least in part, synonyms of one another and also distinct. Effort is the common link between the three constructs.
Critique
One issue with the article is that the results of correlations are presented in the text, but not in full and not in a table. It is difficult to interpret the findings this way. Secondly, regarding the subjects, it seems odd to interview second and sixth graders when not looking at gains from year-year. If the researchers were truly interested in differences throughout the ages, why not sample the age range instead of the two ends of the range? Finally, the authors acknowledge that asking about two constructs (ability and conduct) in one interview and the third construct (effort) in a second interview might have impaired responses.
Conclusions
This article is a window into a very important issue in motivation. Ability and effort are connected and often confounded and this is one more piece of the puzzle in defining them, separating them, and investigating their overlap. Finally, the authors found a possible distinction between ability and conduct, which calls for future investigation in this area. The methodology of the study appears to be sound. Blumenfield et al. (1986) piloted the interview and calculated an intercoder reliability which helps to validate the actual data. The practical implications for this study are relatively limited, as implications for most single studies would be. However, it does provide information that could further stimulate research in the area.
blumenfield et al. article download
Choice of Study
Ability, effort, and conduct are three important constructs in understanding motivation and appear to be closely related, and often confounded (Blumenfield et al., 1986). Blumenfield et al. attempted to investigate student perception of each construct and the relationship between the constructs. This study provides insight to student understanding of key constructs. In addition to the unique perspective the article provides, it is by authors commonly known in the field and is in a journal of distinction.
Problem
Blumenfield et al. (1986) recognized the constructs ability and effort in prior research were closely related and often confounded by students. Past research also showed conduct (in class behavior) plays a role in defining ability and effort. To help understand the constructs more and to clarify the overlap in their definitions, the authors sought to capture how students view the constructs. Specifically, the authors noticed a lack of research in investigating the criteria students use to assess ability, effort, and conduct and the overlap of that criteria.
Methods
Blumenfield et al. (1986) conducted a qualitative study using data from 158 second and sixth grade students from middle and working-class schools. Trained graduate students interviewed the subjects for half an hour each with questionnaires including questions about ability, effort, conduct, and views of teacher, other students, and the environment. The interviews were pilot tested prior to conducting the study.
Students were asked how they could assess the three constructs and their open-ended responses were coded for cues that fell into one of three categories: ability, effort, and conduct. They were asked about ability and conduct in the same interview and then about effort in a second interview. Initially there were 17 cues, which were then narrowed to ten. The ten cues were then divided and assigned to the three constructs. There were seven for ability, seven for effort, and five for conduct, with overlap between ability and effort and between effort and conduct. The intercoder reliability was calculated at 90%.
Results
The results of this study confirmed earlier findings; ability is defined by similar criteria by students as it is in past research. Outcome (tasks and grades most often) was the primary cue used to assess ability. Additionally, attention to task and behavior were also seen as indicators of ability. Effort was assessed by behavior and conduct. Conduct was the most defined construct and the biggest cue used to define it was behavior.
Students compared themselves to others when defining ability (38%) but rarely in defining effort or conduct (4% and 8 % respectively). Older and younger children differed in which cues, but not categories, they used to define ability (in line with previous research). The researchers anticipated the younger students would be more likely to define effort by conduct-related cues than older students. However, there were no significant differences between the two age groups.
Furthermore, the researchers expected the sixth grade students to use more social comparisons to define ability, but found the opposite was true. There were no differences by grade level for social comparisons for defining effort or conduct.
Individuals did not repeat the same cues for the three constructs, but there was repetition of the cues in both age groups. There was no gender or grade difference in repetition of cues used to define the constructs. Student self ratings were examined and indicated that there was a high mean score for students in ability (4.14), conduct (3.99), and effort (3.84). As previous research predicted, with age, self ratings decreased. Girls tended to rate themselves higher in behavior, as past research indicated, but they did not rate themselves higher in ability or in effort than boys.
There were significant correlations among the constructs: ability and effort (r = .40) and ability and conduct (r = .22) where p < .001. When effort and conduct were intercorrelated effort remained a predictor of ability, but conduct was not. This was consistent with past research and left an unanswered question, what is the relationship between conduct and ability? These results remained the same for both age groups.
Discussion
This study attempted to assess how children think about ability, effort, and conduct and how those beliefs differ, overlap and correlate with one another. There was commonality in defining the constructs effort and ability and effort and conduct, but not in defining ability and conduct. There was a significant correlation between self ratings of effort and ability and self ratings of effort and conduct, but not between self ratings of ability and conduct. Because of this, the authors reported they found the constructs are, at least in part, synonyms of one another and also distinct. Effort is the common link between the three constructs.
Critique
One issue with the article is that the results of correlations are presented in the text, but not in full and not in a table. It is difficult to interpret the findings this way. Secondly, regarding the subjects, it seems odd to interview second and sixth graders when not looking at gains from year-year. If the researchers were truly interested in differences throughout the ages, why not sample the age range instead of the two ends of the range? Finally, the authors acknowledge that asking about two constructs (ability and conduct) in one interview and the third construct (effort) in a second interview might have impaired responses.
Conclusions
This article is a window into a very important issue in motivation. Ability and effort are connected and often confounded and this is one more piece of the puzzle in defining them, separating them, and investigating their overlap. Finally, the authors found a possible distinction between ability and conduct, which calls for future investigation in this area. The methodology of the study appears to be sound. Blumenfield et al. (1986) piloted the interview and calculated an intercoder reliability which helps to validate the actual data. The practical implications for this study are relatively limited, as implications for most single studies would be. However, it does provide information that could further stimulate research in the area.
blumenfield et al. article download
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)