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