• 1. The good, the bad, and the ugly of pre-service teachers’ motivation and emotions Lia M. Daniels Associate Professor Department of Educational Psychology
  • 2. Big Ideas  What motivates someone  What makes a good to teach?teacher?
  • 3. Big Ideas  What motivates someone  What makes a good to teach?  Differences in types of motivation  Achievement goal theoryteacher?  Positive emotions  Feels confident  Committed  Prepared
  • 4. Achievement Goal Theory Personal Goals  mastery-approach: desire to gain competence performance-approach: desire to demonstrate competence relative to others mastery-avoidance: desire to avoid being incompetent performance-avoidance: desire to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to othersElliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001Examples  “I want to explore all sources of information and learn as much as possible about music theory.” “I want to have higher grades than Kelly.” “I don’t want to overlook an important part of music theory.” “I don’t want to do worse on this paper than Kelly.”
  • 5. Achievement Goal Theory Personal Goals  mastery-approach: desire to gain competence performance-approach: desire to demonstrate competence relative to others mastery-avoidance: desire to avoid being incompetentEmpirical EvidenceStudents’ mastery goals  enjoyment, efficacy, effort, persistence performance-avoidance: desire to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to othersElliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001 boredom, procrastination, cheating
  • 6. Achievement Goal Theory Classroom Goal Structures  the prevailing instructional practices within a classroom mastery goal structure: promotes learning and trying hard performance goal structure: emphasizes demonstration of competence relative to others.Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004Examples  “I plan on giving students opportunities for revision before grading.” “I plan on comparing student performance.” TARGET System      Task Autonomy Recognition Grouping Evaluation Timing
  • 7. Achievement Goal Theory Classroom Goal StructuresEmpirical Evidence the prevailing instructional practices within a classroom mastery goal structure: promotesMastery goal structureslearning and trying hard performance goal structure: emphasizes demonstration of competence relative to others. efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging cheating, avoidance coping, withdrawal Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004
  • 8. Relationships Pre-service Teachers’ teachers’ personal goals personal goals?Mastery goal structuresStudents’ mastery goals efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging enjoyment, efficacy, effort, persistence burnout, sick days? help-seeking, efficacy, interest, PD cheating, avoidance coping, withdrawal boredom, procrastination, cheatingButler, 1997; Fasching et al., 2010; Lau & Nie, 2008; Nitsche et al., 2013; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Wolters, 2004
  • 9. Data Sources  Participants: 579 pre-service teachers  Manitoba, n = 140 followed into practice n = 53  Alberta, n = 439; 194 elementary; 229 secondary Common measures  Goal Orientation Scale-R (Elliot & Murayama, 2008)  Patterns of Adaptive Learning (Midgley et al., 2000)  Various measures of emotions and cognitions Objective today is to describe the good, the bad, and the ugly
  • 10. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Indicators of readiness to teachClassroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 11. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach EfficacyClassroom dynamicsβ= .23, p < .05Curriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 12. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Commitment to teachingβ=.23, p < .05 β=.21, p < .05Classroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 13. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Anxietyβ= -.24, p < .05β= -.26, p < .05 β= .23, p < .05 Classroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 14. The Good 2. Pre-service teachers tend to hold adaptive personal motivation beliefs 15 10 5 0 Mastery-appPerform-app ElementaryDaniels, 2013Mastery-avd SecondaryPerforman-avd
  • 15. The Good 3. This adaptive motivation tends to be related to positive emotions and cognitions MotivationCommitEfficacyEnjoymen tBoredomAnxietyMastery-app.10*.34**.34**-.14**.09Mastery-avd-.07.13**.10*.01.14**Perform-app-.03.15**.15**.05.10*.08.03.07.10*Perf-avd -.04 **p < .01, *p < .05Daniels, 2013
  • 16. The Good 4. Pre-service teachers have good intentions to create optimally motivating classrooms for their students 20 1510Elementary Secondary5 0 Mastery structures Daniels, 2013Performance structures
  • 17. The Good 5. These intentions tend to be related to positive emotions and cognitions IntentionCommitEfficacyEnjoymen tBoredomAnxietyMastery Practices.13**.39**.36**-.17**.09.01-.06.20**.14**Performance .05 Practices **p < .01, *p < .05Daniels, 2013
  • 18. The Good 6. Differences in pre-service teachers’ levels of personal motivation lead to different predictions of their intended classroom mastery goals Personal masteryapproach goalsβ = .98, p < .001 .53, .05Intended classroom mastery goalsElementary > High schoolDaniels, Frenzel, et al., 2013
  • 19. How do we increase pre-service teachers’ personal masteryapproach?
  • 20. The Bad 1. Pre-service teachers’ feel little responsibility for motivation of their future students 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MotivationAchievementDaniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013RelationshipTeaching
  • 21. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence Suggests Mastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation+-Achievement++Relationships+-Teaching+-**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013My Results Mastery PracticesPerformance Practices
  • 22. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence SuggestsMy ResultsMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation+-.05-.41**Achievement++-.29*.16Relationships+-.26*.14Teaching+-.05-.13**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
  • 23. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence SuggestsMy ResultsMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation.05-.41**Achievement-.29*.16Relationships.26*.14Teaching.05-.13**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
  • 24. How do we increase pre-service teachers’ responsibility for motivation and equip them with practices?
  • 25. The Ugly 1. Pre-service teachers struggle to enact their good intentions once they start practicing B.Ed. ProgramConsent to follow-upCompleted follow-upPercentElementary66372338% of originalSecondary74493062% of consentedTotal1408653 7/53 participated in focus groups as well Daniels, 2013
  • 26. The Ugly Mastery Structures 18Performance Structures 14 13171216 11 15F (1,41) = 6.31, p = .02F (1,41) = 3.76 p = .0610 914 During B.Ed. During teaching Daniels, 2013During B.Ed.During TeachingElementarySecondary
  • 27. The Ugly  “You are in competition with other teachers. If there’s too many teachers at your school, and there’s only one position the next year, you want to be the best you can be but you also want your principal to notice. It’s not a competition, but it is when you don’t have job it is a competition.” “In my first year it was a big deal cause I felt like, I like to verify my existence in the school, like I had to prove that I was just as good as everyone else, but then after you kind of do that, then you’ve, I started to veer away from that.”
  • 28. How do we sustain preservice teachers’ good intentions once they start teaching?
  • 29. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityPre-test Mastery Goals Performance GoalsHaynes, Daniels, et al., 2008AR No AREquip with practicesSustain during practicePost-test Mastery Goals Performance Goals
  • 30. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceMastery19 18 AR No AR17 16F (1,334) = 8.31, p < .01 Pre-testHaynes, Daniels, et al., 2008Post-test
  • 31. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryPre-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-supportRadil & Daniels, 2012Increase responsibilityEquip with practicesIntervention ControlSustain during practicePost-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-support
  • 32. Opportunities for InterventionResp. for MotPromote personal mastery14 13 12 11 10Increase responsibilityEquip with practicesExperimental ControlF (1,75) = 2.31, p = .13 Pre-testRadil & Daniels, 2012Sustain during practicePost-test
  • 33. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceAutonomy3.5 3.253 2.75Experimental ControlF (1,60) = 8.07, p = .012.5Pre-test Radil & Daniels, 2012Post-test
  • 34. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceRight Decision6.5 6.25F (2,179) = 7.42, p < .01 Secondary6Middle5.75Elementary5.5Pre-practicum Daniels, 2006Post-practicum
  • 35. Other outcomes:Pre-service teacher current stateObserved teacher practices Fit with literatureGood intentions Lack specific practices Low responsibilityMotivation InterventionTeachers’ motivational practices questionnaire (TMPQ) Classroom observation toolPre-service teacher outcomes Sustain  intentions  Gain specific practices  Increase responsibilityCommitment, Emotio ns, EngagementSelfreported teacher practicesPedagogical resource videos
  • 36. Thank you  For more information email me:  lia.daniels@ualberta.ca  Visit the ACME website  http://albertacentre4me.wordpress.com/
    Please download to view
  • All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
    ...

    The good the bad and the ugly

    by faculty-of-education-university-of-alberta

    on

    Report

    Category:

    Education

    Download: 0

    Comment: 0

    438

    views

    Comments

    Description

    Dr. Lia Daniels at the University of Alberta delivers a presentation on the good, the bad and the ugly of pre-service teacher motivation. Visit http://beditionmagazine.com/dr-lia-daniels-motivation-education/ for the article and podcast associated with this presentation.
    Download The good the bad and the ugly

    Transcript

    • 1. The good, the bad, and the ugly of pre-service teachers’ motivation and emotions Lia M. Daniels Associate Professor Department of Educational Psychology
  • 2. Big Ideas  What motivates someone  What makes a good to teach?teacher?
  • 3. Big Ideas  What motivates someone  What makes a good to teach?  Differences in types of motivation  Achievement goal theoryteacher?  Positive emotions  Feels confident  Committed  Prepared
  • 4. Achievement Goal Theory Personal Goals  mastery-approach: desire to gain competence performance-approach: desire to demonstrate competence relative to others mastery-avoidance: desire to avoid being incompetent performance-avoidance: desire to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to othersElliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001Examples  “I want to explore all sources of information and learn as much as possible about music theory.” “I want to have higher grades than Kelly.” “I don’t want to overlook an important part of music theory.” “I don’t want to do worse on this paper than Kelly.”
  • 5. Achievement Goal Theory Personal Goals  mastery-approach: desire to gain competence performance-approach: desire to demonstrate competence relative to others mastery-avoidance: desire to avoid being incompetentEmpirical EvidenceStudents’ mastery goals  enjoyment, efficacy, effort, persistence performance-avoidance: desire to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to othersElliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001 boredom, procrastination, cheating
  • 6. Achievement Goal Theory Classroom Goal Structures  the prevailing instructional practices within a classroom mastery goal structure: promotes learning and trying hard performance goal structure: emphasizes demonstration of competence relative to others.Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004Examples  “I plan on giving students opportunities for revision before grading.” “I plan on comparing student performance.” TARGET System      Task Autonomy Recognition Grouping Evaluation Timing
  • 7. Achievement Goal Theory Classroom Goal StructuresEmpirical Evidence the prevailing instructional practices within a classroom mastery goal structure: promotesMastery goal structureslearning and trying hard performance goal structure: emphasizes demonstration of competence relative to others. efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging cheating, avoidance coping, withdrawal Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004
  • 8. Relationships Pre-service Teachers’ teachers’ personal goals personal goals?Mastery goal structuresStudents’ mastery goals efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging enjoyment, efficacy, effort, persistence burnout, sick days? help-seeking, efficacy, interest, PD cheating, avoidance coping, withdrawal boredom, procrastination, cheatingButler, 1997; Fasching et al., 2010; Lau & Nie, 2008; Nitsche et al., 2013; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Wolters, 2004
  • 9. Data Sources  Participants: 579 pre-service teachers  Manitoba, n = 140 followed into practice n = 53  Alberta, n = 439; 194 elementary; 229 secondary Common measures  Goal Orientation Scale-R (Elliot & Murayama, 2008)  Patterns of Adaptive Learning (Midgley et al., 2000)  Various measures of emotions and cognitions Objective today is to describe the good, the bad, and the ugly
  • 10. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Indicators of readiness to teachClassroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 11. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach EfficacyClassroom dynamicsβ= .23, p < .05Curriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 12. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Commitment to teachingβ=.23, p < .05 β=.21, p < .05Classroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 13. The Good  Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach Anxietyβ= -.24, p < .05β= -.26, p < .05 β= .23, p < .05 Classroom dynamicsCurriculum, Instruction, and AssessmentIntrapersonal reflectionFive Program Factors Daniels et al., 2011Ethics of teachingProfessional learning community
  • 14. The Good 2. Pre-service teachers tend to hold adaptive personal motivation beliefs 15 10 5 0 Mastery-appPerform-app ElementaryDaniels, 2013Mastery-avd SecondaryPerforman-avd
  • 15. The Good 3. This adaptive motivation tends to be related to positive emotions and cognitions MotivationCommitEfficacyEnjoymen tBoredomAnxietyMastery-app.10*.34**.34**-.14**.09Mastery-avd-.07.13**.10*.01.14**Perform-app-.03.15**.15**.05.10*.08.03.07.10*Perf-avd -.04 **p < .01, *p < .05Daniels, 2013
  • 16. The Good 4. Pre-service teachers have good intentions to create optimally motivating classrooms for their students 20 1510Elementary Secondary5 0 Mastery structures Daniels, 2013Performance structures
  • 17. The Good 5. These intentions tend to be related to positive emotions and cognitions IntentionCommitEfficacyEnjoymen tBoredomAnxietyMastery Practices.13**.39**.36**-.17**.09.01-.06.20**.14**Performance .05 Practices **p < .01, *p < .05Daniels, 2013
  • 18. The Good 6. Differences in pre-service teachers’ levels of personal motivation lead to different predictions of their intended classroom mastery goals Personal masteryapproach goalsβ = .98, p < .001 .53, .05Intended classroom mastery goalsElementary > High schoolDaniels, Frenzel, et al., 2013
  • 19. How do we increase pre-service teachers’ personal masteryapproach?
  • 20. The Bad 1. Pre-service teachers’ feel little responsibility for motivation of their future students 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MotivationAchievementDaniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013RelationshipTeaching
  • 21. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence Suggests Mastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation+-Achievement++Relationships+-Teaching+-**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013My Results Mastery PracticesPerformance Practices
  • 22. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence SuggestsMy ResultsMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation+-.05-.41**Achievement++-.29*.16Relationships+-.26*.14Teaching+-.05-.13**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
  • 23. The Bad 2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what to do to fulfill their responsibilities ResponsibilityEvidence SuggestsMy ResultsMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMastery PracticesPerformance PracticesMotivation.05-.41**Achievement-.29*.16Relationships.26*.14Teaching.05-.13**p < .01, *p < .05 Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013
  • 24. How do we increase pre-service teachers’ responsibility for motivation and equip them with practices?
  • 25. The Ugly 1. Pre-service teachers struggle to enact their good intentions once they start practicing B.Ed. ProgramConsent to follow-upCompleted follow-upPercentElementary66372338% of originalSecondary74493062% of consentedTotal1408653 7/53 participated in focus groups as well Daniels, 2013
  • 26. The Ugly Mastery Structures 18Performance Structures 14 13171216 11 15F (1,41) = 6.31, p = .02F (1,41) = 3.76 p = .0610 914 During B.Ed. During teaching Daniels, 2013During B.Ed.During TeachingElementarySecondary
  • 27. The Ugly  “You are in competition with other teachers. If there’s too many teachers at your school, and there’s only one position the next year, you want to be the best you can be but you also want your principal to notice. It’s not a competition, but it is when you don’t have job it is a competition.” “In my first year it was a big deal cause I felt like, I like to verify my existence in the school, like I had to prove that I was just as good as everyone else, but then after you kind of do that, then you’ve, I started to veer away from that.”
  • 28. How do we sustain preservice teachers’ good intentions once they start teaching?
  • 29. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityPre-test Mastery Goals Performance GoalsHaynes, Daniels, et al., 2008AR No AREquip with practicesSustain during practicePost-test Mastery Goals Performance Goals
  • 30. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceMastery19 18 AR No AR17 16F (1,334) = 8.31, p < .01 Pre-testHaynes, Daniels, et al., 2008Post-test
  • 31. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryPre-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-supportRadil & Daniels, 2012Increase responsibilityEquip with practicesIntervention ControlSustain during practicePost-test Responsible for mot. Autonomy-support
  • 32. Opportunities for InterventionResp. for MotPromote personal mastery14 13 12 11 10Increase responsibilityEquip with practicesExperimental ControlF (1,75) = 2.31, p = .13 Pre-testRadil & Daniels, 2012Sustain during practicePost-test
  • 33. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceAutonomy3.5 3.253 2.75Experimental ControlF (1,60) = 8.07, p = .012.5Pre-test Radil & Daniels, 2012Post-test
  • 34. Opportunities for Intervention Promote personal masteryIncrease responsibilityEquip with practicesSustain during practiceRight Decision6.5 6.25F (2,179) = 7.42, p < .01 Secondary6Middle5.75Elementary5.5Pre-practicum Daniels, 2006Post-practicum
  • 35. Other outcomes:Pre-service teacher current stateObserved teacher practices Fit with literatureGood intentions Lack specific practices Low responsibilityMotivation InterventionTeachers’ motivational practices questionnaire (TMPQ) Classroom observation toolPre-service teacher outcomes Sustain  intentions  Gain specific practices  Increase responsibilityCommitment, Emotio ns, EngagementSelfreported teacher practicesPedagogical resource videos
  • 36. Thank you  For more information email me:  lia.daniels@ualberta.ca  Visit the ACME website  http://albertacentre4me.wordpress.com/
  • Fly UP