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.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
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)